DECEMBER 22, 2014 ...HOWARD COUNT 1 FAILURE TO RESPOND

INQUIRY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT December 22, 2014 Mr. Tom Howard  Executive Director  Executive Office  State Water Resources Control Board Dear Mr. Tom Howard,  First, may I most respectfully show again to you as a review of our past communications ,  “COUNT 1 : LYING AND/OR  CHEATING  BY  TOM HOWARD  CONFIRMED”  Cheating and/or lying by citing a letter document dated  October 6, 2012 from me which is proven to be not existing. Second, since fifteen business days passed after December 1, 2014 that I asked from you,  matters pertaining to Ms. Debbie Zuccala's refusal to respond to my inquiries  per my e-mail shown below dated September 6, 2012, and I posed the question, "Did Zuccala acted on her own?", but you ignored to respond and gave no reason why you opted  not to respond. Please be informed that I have this event recorded as "COUNT 1 : Failure to respond on inquiry under the California Public Records Act. Failure to respond on the question, "Did Zuccala acted on her own?" in particular". Please respond within fifteen days to dispute "COUNT 1 : Failure to respond on inquiry under the California Public Records Act " after which it shall be understood by both of us that  "COUNT 1: Failure to respond on inquiry  under the California Public Records Act" to be recorded as an undisputed fact. Please respond through my e-mail address. Thank you very much. Yours sincerely, Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr. CLICK HERE SEE SECOND CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT September 6, 2012 Ms. Debbie Zuccala State Water Resources Control Board Office of Operator Certification Division of Financial Assistance RE : IGNORED E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS DEMONSTRATING INCOMPETENCY, INEFFICIENCY AND            INEXCUSABLE NEGLECT OF DUTY I received a letter from you dated August 2, 2012 , informing me among others that, " If you (me) have any question, please contact (you) Debbie Zuccala at (916) 341-5639 or dzuccala@waterboards.ca.gov."  You gave me two options, first by phone and the second via e-mail. I chose the second option. So, on August 8, 2012, the day I received your dated August 2, 2012 letter, I sent you an e-mail telling you some clarifications and asking some questions. You did not give me a reply. So, on August 14, 2012. I sent you again the same e-mail. Again, you did not give me a reply. So, on August 15, 2012, I sent you again the same e-mail for the third time. Again, you did not give me a reply. So, on August 16, 2012, I sent you again the same e-mail through registered mail and as per confirmation records on the Linda Vista Post Office showed the same was received by your office on August 20,2012. But as of today I have not received any response from you affirmative or otherwise. Had you responded promptly, you could have asked and I could have explained to you why I was misled into filling up the "APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION" form and not the " EXAMINATION APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR" and be granted a reconsideration. I was separated from my work, bio-diesel plant operator, at New Leaf  Biofuel last July 24, 2012 and I devotedly searched for another source of livelihood, another job or career. Waste water treatment plant operations is one field I thought interesting, challenging and rewarding. I surfed the web and looked for waste water treatment plant operator jobs and I noticed that all job openings in that field called for a need to be certified before I could be considered for the position. This led me to your site and browsed therein for some information. After a few minutes of reading, I decided that I should take the examination, having thoughts in my mind that upon passing the examination, eventual certification would be the consequence thereof .Being unaware of the existence of a form specially intended for examination, after clicking web pages I came across a form titled "APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION". I filled it out, and again, honestly I am not aware of the existence of another form intended for examination. Actually, I thought that the the examination was an implied component of the certification application. This belief is bolstered by the existence of the form titled " WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION EXAMINATION SCHEDULE AND INFORMATION" which shows undoubtedly that certification and examination are combined together as one unit or entity. Moreover, may I invite your attention to the last page of the form titled " APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION" sub titled "PRIVACY ACT DISCLOSURE", to wit:   xxxxx PRIVACY ACT DISCLOSURE This information is requested by the STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, OFFICE OF OPERATOR CERTIFICATION. The authority for maintaining the requested information is the California Code of Regulations, Division 4, Chapter 14. All information requested on the application form must be provided by the applicant for examination. Failure to complete any portion of this form may result in delay or denial of eligibility for examination. The information provided is used to evaluate the applicant’s eligibility for examination for Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators. No transfers of this information are anticipated. For more information, or access to your records, contact the Office of Operator Certification, PO Box 944212, Sacramento, CA 94244-2120, Phone (916) 341-5819. xxxxxx  May I cite the following sentences taken therein :  xxxx" All information requested on the application form must be provided by the applicant for examination. Failure to complete any portion of this form may result in delay or denial of eligibility for examination. The information provided is used to evaluate the applicant’s eligibility for examination for Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators." xxxx The first sentence requires that all information be provided by the applicant on the form for examination.This sentence clearly suggests that this form must be filled up for the purpose of examination. This implicitly manifests that this form for certification is one and the same form for examination. This gives credence that this form for certification is the same form for examination. The second sentence warns that failure to complete any portion of this form may result in delay or denial of eligibility for examination This sentence obviously establishes the inseparability between the completeness of information in this form and the delay or denial of eligibility to take the examination. This instance conclusively conforms to my belief the examination and certification forms are one in the operator certification form.  The third sentence consistently proves complete connection between the information contained in this form called certification and applicants' eligibility for examination for Waste Water Treatment Plant Operators. Again, examination and certification are taken together in a single form.  Moreover,  had you responded to my e-mail timely I could have asked you and you could have explained why you erroneously considered a form titled "APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION" which I have filed, be taken as an application for "WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR-IN-TRAINING CERTIFICATION". These are two titles of forms which are distinctly different from each other. As you can see "PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION" is obviously far from "PLANT OPERATOR-IN-TRAINING CERTIFICATION". If you were efficient and competent enough you should sent me an e-mail reply and guided me to correct deficiencies which you think I need to resolve so that I might be able to take the October 6, 2012 GRADE 1 WWTP OPERATOR EXAMINATION. Have you not committed a willful neglect of duty, as demonstrated in this case, I should have made remedial actions to avoid loss of time, money and opportunity. By your negligence. I am required to pay another application fee and wait for another examination schedule.  In addition,  had you been punctual to respond to my e-mail I could have asked and you could have explained to me why a five-year Bachelor of Science in Management Engineering course whose records have been with my application could not merit a 6 educational point requirement for GRADE 1 WWTP OPERATOR EXAMINATION. As you could see from the educational records, I have studied subjects dealing with engineering mathematics, physics and chemistry.The course have subject studies on civil, mechanical ,electrical and chemical engineering reinforced with a great deal of business management subjects. Just in case, the 5-year BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING course credentials or records that I have sent to you together with my application did not merit a 6 point educational point, then, may I request that the same be returned to me with comments and annotations so that I may have a chance to seek a professional third party opinion about the matter. Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.