Subject: Case No. 12003-0813

Dear Mr. Willis:

This is the second package of corroborative evidence I am mailing to you to support my charges of management malfeasance, corruption, inefficiency, and incompetence in the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).

The supporting evidence in this package is organized into five groups:

Copies of court findings and State Agency documents proving CPUC management corruption (EXHIBITS 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4).

Copies of correspondences between Maurice F. Crommie and various State Agencies and Legislative and Executive Officers seeking help to redress the effects of CPUC management malfeasance (EXHIBITS 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 6a, 6b, 6c, 7, 8a, 8b, 9a, 9b, 10a, 10b, 10c).

Copies of correspondences between Maurice F. Crommie and various CPUC employees seeking to correct management incompetence and inefficiency. Some employees signed their correspondence and some did not, wishing to remain anonymous to protect their jobs (EXHIBITS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16a, 16b).

Copies of employee corruption charges against CPUC managers sent to Maurice F. Crommie by CPUC employees (EXHIBITS 17a, 17b, 17c, 17d, 17e, 17f, 17g, 18a, 18b).

Copies of articles published by various newspaper and consumer watchdog organizations documenting CPUC management malfeasance, incompetency, and inefficiency (EXHIBITS 19a, 19b, 19c, 19d, 20a, 20b, 21a, 21b, 22).

On page 13, line 24, of Judge Barbara A. Caulfield’s decision in case no. C-89-4433 BAC (January 5,1994), 9th Federal District Court, Northern District of California, William Ahern is found guilty of employee discrimination and ordered to pay $88,460 to Maurice F. Crommie (EXHIBIT #1).

The above case was appealed and lost in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Court Docket No. 94-15287. A copy of the Appellees’ Brief is enclosed as EXHIBIT #2.

Although Mr. Crommie was awarded and received a total of $151, 860 from the CPUC for Mr. Ahern’s illegal actions, Mr. Peter Arth, CPUC Chief Counsel at that time, illegally instructed the CPUC Personnel Department to structure Mr. Crommie’s retirement salary based on a series of required annual merit salary adjustments (MSA’s) which were standard procedure in regular promotions, but had no place in Mr. Crommie’s court ordered non-standard promotion. A copy of this illegal personnel order is enclosed as EXHIBIT #3a.

EXHIBIT #3a shows how Mr. Peter Arth instructed the CPUC Personnel Department to impose illegal requirements for annual MSA evaluations on Mr. Crommie’s promotion to the position of CPUC PURA V to prevent him from obtaining maximum senior pay for that position. Mr. Arth knew that Mr. Crommie planned to retire after his trial. Judge Caulfield also knew that Mr. Crommie planned to retire after his trial. She instructed the CPUC to make Mr. Crommie’s promotion to PURA V retroactive to insure that he received the increase in retirement pay compatible with his double promotion. See page 14, lines 25 to 28, and page 15, lines 1 through 12 of Judge Caulfield’s decision (EXHIBIT #1).

After Judge Caulfield’s retirement, Mr. Peter Arth attempted to illegally thwart her intent to see that Mr. Crommie received full retirement benefits. See page 15, lines 6 and 7 of Judge Caulfield’s court decision (EXHIBIT #1). EXHIBIT #3B shows what Mr. Crommie’s correct retirement salary should have been for his court ordered double promotion from CPUC PURA III to CPUC PURA V. Mr. Arth’s instructions to the CPUC Personnel Department to introduce MSA requirements into the calculation of Mr. Crommie’s retirement salary prevented Mr. Crommie from receiving his correct retirement salary as shown in EXHIBIT #3b.

Mr. Crommie complained immediately, in writing, upon delivery (3/29/94) of the illegal CPUC Personnel requirement for annual MSA reviews (EXHIBIT #3a). Mr. Arth, CPUC Chief Counsel, ordered the MSA reviews (EXHIBIT #3a) post-trial, after Judge Caulfield’s retirement. Mr. Arth lied to Judge Patel who reviewed Mr. Crommie’s appeal for a correction to Judge Caulfields order, dismissing MSA requirements in a non-standard court promotion. Mr. Arth claimed that Mr. Crommie failed to make his complaint within the time period set by Judge Caulfield and that it was therefore untimely as a matter of law. This argument is made in Judge Marilyn H. Patel’s Memorandum and Order No. C-90 –1150 MHP, dated July 26, 1996. See page three, lines 1 to 3 of EXHIBIT #4. As a result of Mr. Arth’s lies, Judge Patel dismissed Mr. Crommie’s appeal without a hearing.

Mr. Crommie appealed to CalPERS, SPB, and the Attorney General’s Office to correct Mr. Arth’s illegal, vindictive restriction of his retirement pay.

CalPERS referred Mr. Crommie back to the CPUC.

SPB sent copies of Mr. Crommie’s complaints to the CPUC and requested a response by September 19, 2003 (EXHIBIT #5a). The CPUC response is shown in EXHIBITS #5b, #5c, #5d, and #5e). The CPUC response contained errors in the calculation of Mr. Crommie’s retirement salary and repeated Mr. Arth’s lies to Judge Patel in EXHIBIT #5e. Mr. Arth is currently Special Advisor to CPUC President Michael Peevey.
Mr. Crommie replied to the CPUC response on September 27, 2003 and October 10, 2003 (EXHIBITS #6a, #6b, #6c).

The Attorney General’s Office referred Mr. Crommie to the Bureau of State Audits. Mr. Willis’ response (EXHIBIT # 7) to Mr. Crommie’s complaint initiated this correspondence.

Mr, Crommie’s correspondences with Governor Gray Davis, Governor-Elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Senator Tom McClintock are shown in EXHIBITS #8a, #8b, #9a, #9b, #10a, #10b and #10c.

EXHIBITS # 11 through #16 display a partial sample of the voluminous email correspondence Mr. Crommie has received from various CPUC employees dissatisfied with malfeasant management, corruption, incompetency, and inefficiency at the CPUC. Some employees have signed their correspondence, others have not, fearing threats of dismissal for complaints against the malfeasant administration.

EXHIBITS #17, #18a, and #18b document corruption charges against various lower level managers. The lower level managers were supported by upper management regardless of their management malfeasance, incompetency and inefficiency.

EXHIBITS #19a, #19b, #19c, #19d, #20a, #20b, #21a, #21b,and #22 are copies of publications by various newspapers and consumer watchdog organizations, documenting CPUC corruption, management malfeasance, incompetence and inefficiency

The forty six documentary exhibits presented above are sufficient evidence to show that management malfeasance, corruption, incompetency, and inefficiency exist at the CPUC. According to § 8547.2 of the BSA Laws Governing the Investigative Function, the BSA has a lawful duty to investigate such charges.

If I can help you further in your investigation, I stand ready to do so.

Sincerely yours,

Maurice F. Crommie

Enclosures:
(1) 46 exhibits.numbered 1through 22, with related exhibits using alpha-numeric notation.
(2) Resume showing Maurice F. Crommie’s work experience prior to
employment at the CPUC from 1981 to 1993.