| from: | antonio jr. Buensuceso antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com | ||
| to: | Tom.Howard@waterboards.ca.gov, thoward@waterboards.ca.gov | ||
| cc: | Liz Haven Jonathan.Bishop@waterboards.ca.gov, "Maughan, James@Waterboards" "Gordon, Christine@Waterboards" "Wilkinson, Wes@Waterboards" "Cooper, Andrew@Waterboards" anna.hernandez@waterboards.ca.gov, anna.perez@waterboards.ca.gov, "Zuccala, Debbie@Waterboards" dzuccala@waterboards.ca.gov, Antonio Buensuceso | ||
| date: | Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:58 AM | ||
| subject: | HOWARD_6MAR15_SECOND FOLLOW UP_TWO LINKS FOR TITLE 23 WATERS | ||
| mailed-by: | gmail.com |
MARCH 6, 2015
Mr. Tom Howard
Executive Director
State Water Resources Control Board
Dear Mr. Tom Howard,
The OOC maintains two LINKS for TITLE 23 WATERS:
NEW LINK
This NEW LINK was commissioned effective April 1, 2013, Examinees and/or applicants, most probably, would not be able to notice this change or if ever they did notice, they might not have the time to review again and study the new regulations and most likely to commit error in the submission of the application or error in the course of the examination. These errors works in favor of the OCC in terms of additional application fees and/or examination fees TO BE COLLECTED for filing another application for the same examination.
Despite, the fact that there was a new LINK for TITLE WATERS on date April 1, 2013, supposedly the updated one, and therefore, the OLD LINK should have been deleted since April 1, 2013 to avoid confusion, but amazingly, the OOC kept this OLD LINK and maintained it existing even up to the present times. Though the contents might look similar, however in many cases, the contents showed a lot of inconsistencies after a careful perusal which could most likely cause the prospective applicants and examinees to be misled and commit errors in the submission of the application and likewise errors in giving answers to the questions during the examination.
Hence, these errors result to more rounds of application and examination fees expected to be collected by the OOC from gullible applicants. This may be likened to an agency scam. THIS IS UNFAIR on part of the applicants and DEPLORABLE as a matter of your agency action.
For your appreciation, I most respectfully show you pertinent illustration about this subject:
NEW LINK
 |
| NEW LINK with the SIMILARLY LOOKING coverage as the old link |
OLD LINK
 |
| OLD LINK with the SIMILARLY LOOKING coverage as the new link
ONE EXAMPLE OF INCONSISTENCY on two links AMONG SO MANY particularly on fees.
|
from NEW LINK
 |
| FEES from new link inconsistent fees shown in the old link |
from OLD LINK
FEES from new link inconsistent fees
shown in the old link EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE OF THE TWO LINKS AT THE SAME TIME
DOWNLOADED FILES ON DATE JANUARY 21, 2015
from the OLD LINK from the NEW LINK
 |
DOWNLOADED FILES ON DATE MARCH 2, 2015
from the OLD LINK from the NEW LINK
VIDEO ON THE EXISTENCE OF THE
OLD AND NEW LINKS AS OF FIRST WEEK OF MARCH |
TWO LINKS ACTIVE VIDEO
This is an unedited video file
Thank you very much.
Yours faithfully,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.
This is an unedited video file
Now may I most humbly request that may you please give me the information on how many applicants from date April 1, 2013 up to this date who have committed errors in filing of the application as they have been misled by these two links and/or by the old link and please show how much application fees the OCC gained from these re-applying applicants on account of those errors emanating from the existence of these two links at the same time.
May you please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail and I appreciate your favorable response about this subject.
Thank you very much.
Yours faithfully,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.
No comments:
Post a Comment