MY FAVORITE PAGES

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

REPLY TO CERTAIN CHRISTINE GORDON



























antonio jr. Buensuceso  September 25, 2012
9/25/12
to Christine.Gord.Wes.Wilkinson,
Debbie.ZuccalaDoug.Wilson

  

Dear   Christine,

With your express and written admission that you are the manager of
Ms. Debbie Zuccala, it follows that Ms. Zuccala is acting under your 
full supervision and control. It follows further that based on the principle 
of command responsibility, the willful neglect of duty to reply to my 
e-mails as Ms. Debbie Zuccala has demonstrated is an act done with 
your  advise,  decision, consent and approval. With your act of replying 
to my letter supposedly addressed to her, you are obviously showing 
discourtesy and   protecting her from culpability. Unfortunately, with your
actions you even have proven  her incompetence and inefficiency. She 
could not even write a simple e-mail response and could not at least 
showed she could explain herself. If really she is not capable of writing 
e-mail response, she had at least informed me promptly, for 
courtesy sake, that she did not know the answers and  formally 
endorsed  somebody to write in her behalf and not left me waiting for 
a long time.   Ms Debbie Zuccala had never endorsed a person to act 
on her behalf. Though you are her  manager, courtesy dictates that 
you need to be  introduced  to me by Ms. Debbie Zuccala  so that the 
same issues and questions which I posted for Ms. Debbie  Zuccala 
could be continually addressed  without any alibi that you or the 
person writing on her behalf  are not aware of it.

You know, Christine,  I believe  you should not  just interfere as it 
seemed you did not know the facts yet. If you do at least some 
reading you should have known that I do not have a phone to discuss 
this issue with you. It is clearly written on my application form that 
I wrote  NONE for phone and equally clearly stated in my e-mail 
communications that I do not have phone, why keep on asking me for
a phone when you can discuss all these issues  with me through e-mail. 
Your excuse that you have exerted much effort to contact me by 
asking for my phone number or giving your phone number since
the start of this controversy is a lame alibi  ab initio. For the record,
 I would like to reiterate that in the application form that I have 
submitted to your office, it showed clearly that I have no phone for you 
to contact me with. This act  of asking for a phone to contact me with 
when you know that I have none resolutely exemplifies your collective 
incompetence,  inefficiency and willful neglect of duty causing
much disappointment, discomfort and frustration on my part.


Now, again, may I request that please allow or advise or instruct  
Ms Debbie Zuccala to respond promptly and responsibly and give 
her a chance to prove herself worthy of the trust and confidence
of the people she is duty bound to serve. Otherwise, 
with all due respect,  in my opinion she should not be there.


Sincerely,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.



Dear  Christine,

I have  the  pleasure to show my e-mail complaint   letter  
below levied against Ms. Debbie Zuccala.

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    INCOMPETENCE    
                 INEFFICIENCY  AND  INEXCUSABLE  
                 NEGLECT     OF  DUTY
          

Dear  Ms.  Zuccala,

              
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 on how to communicate with you, 
first by phone and the second via e-mail. I chose the second 
option, through e-mail.

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. 
But 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  eventually, 
probably, be granted a  reconsideration upon appreciation 
of the merits   I  might have presented in due time.

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  
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. In the same manner,  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. By this form I would take the 
examination and consequential certification upon
passing the 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 the examination and certification forms are one in  the 
operator certification form.

The third 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  contextual form. 
Hence, I was misled, then consequently erred in filling up the 
form for WWTP Operator Certification.

Secondly, had you responded to my e-mail timely I could 
have asked  you and you  could have explained why and 
how you erroneously considered a form specifically titled 
 "APPLICATION  FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT 
PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION"  which I have filed, 
be ridiculously 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 have 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 than just 
left me hanging in vain.  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 and suffered prolonged  agony,  
distress and frustration.

Thirdly, 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 would    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. Anyway,  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.

I will appreciate your kind and prompt response.


Sincerely,


Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr. 





No comments:

Post a Comment