hsueh by BayAreaNewsGroup

VIEWS: 1,656 PAGES: 3

									                               Kwok's lies vs. the truth

"Under her leadership as Water District's COO, the record shows her
mismanagement cost the Water District millions of dollars to fix her problem left

TRUTH—The records Kwok took credits for: Calabazas Creek Project, Bollinger Bridge,
Blackberry Farm Restoration, Sunnyvale East and West Channels, should go to the staff
of Capital Program and me, and the ISO 9001 registered Quality Management System I
designed and implemented. He did not do anything for these projects.

Kwok also misrepresented the progress of the Sunnyvale East and West Channels project;
design will not be completed until FY 2014.

"The Santa Clara county Civil Grand Jury report said this:
 'The district has been questioned on its spending for years and has made little to no
effort become cost effective.'

Anyone who read the Civil Grand Jury Report can tell the above statement is directed at
the Water District Board, not an individual employee.

TRUTH--The only positive finding in the Grand Jury Report as shown on pg. 13 and 14
of Part 1: “Interim CEO—A Step in the Right Direction”. (Excerpts of the paragraph are
shown on page 4 of this document.) Nai was the Acting Chief Administrative Officer
during this time period. She directed the 2008/09 budget preparation, initiated and
conducted the line-by-line review of staff proposed budget. Her actions generated the
budget reduction and staffing reduction that was presented by the Interim CEO to the

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT--On December 23, 2008, the Water District Board adopted
a Resolution of Appreciation documenting Nai’s contributions for 2008/09 budget: “ ..she
developed the budget process used for the 2008/09 fiscal year budget and refine the total
organization plan.

“Santa Clara Valley Water District : New Water Quality Laboratory Building Overbuilt
and Underused' "

TRUTH—The job of Capital Program staff was to plan, design and construct capital
projects under the directions of the Board, and meet the needs of internal or external
customers. In the case of the functionality and size of the laboratory, water utility staff
under the direction of the Board determined the functionality and size of the laboratory,
not the Capital Program staff.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT--In Grand Jury Report: Finding 3c

Several members of the Board of Directors who were asked about the building were not
able to justify the size of building and did not know that the building was constructed as
an essential facility. The Board was remiss in its duty to oversee the scope and cost of the

An independent Capital Improvement program Audit conducted by Matrix
Consulting Group in 2011 found this:
The program managed by Nai Hsueh had deficiencies in six major areas, the report made
over 180 recommendations for improvement.

TRUTH--The report was published in June 2012, Nai retired in December 2008. Nai
does not manage the program in 2011. She retired 3-1/2 years ago. The program is under
the oversight of the Board of Directors and the CEO in 2011.

Nai designed and implemented a capital improvement program including an investment
framework, a rolling five-year capital plan, and a quality management system to plan,
design and construct capital projects. The program won recognitions from the Water
District Board, 2005-06 Civil Grand Jury, the California Society of Financial Officers
Excellence Award, and was ISO 9001 registered.

Resolution of Appreciation from the Board to Nai: “…Nai’s contributions …include the
development and implementation of the current Capital Improvement Plan; leading the
Capital Program Services Division’s march to ISO9001 certification “

2005-06 Civil Grand Jury: “The Grand Jury found that the process used to identify,
prioritize, fund, develop, and construct the District’s capital projects is systematic and

The California Pension Reform Data has record this:
Nai Hsueh collected $133,500 in pension in 2011 and she manipulated her retirement
benefits by purchasing an additional five years of retirement credit.

TRUTH—Nai, same as every retired and current employee in the Water District, is in the
CalPERS pension system. She followed the CalPERS rule to “purchase” 5 years credits.

The Santa Clara County Voter Registrar public records show that Nai Hsueh has not
voted in 8 of last the 11 elections. Voting is worthy obligation, Is Hsueh a true citizen?
Nai Hsueh became a citizen only to take and not contribute.

TRUTH--In the same database quoted by Kwok, Nai had voted in 2012 primary
(06/05/2012), and 4 of last 4 general elections (11/02/2010, 11/04/2008, 11/6/2006,
11/02/2004.) Nai was not affiliated with any party until this year, and therefore did not
vote in most primaries.

Shortly after dismal management report by the Grand Jury, Hsueh retired in 2008 and
take pension of $133,5000 a year for Mismanagement and lifetime medical benefits for
herself and her spouse. She also cashed in sick leave pay out and collected more than

TRUTH--The 2008/09 Civil Grand Jury Report was PASSED and ADOPTED on April
9th, 2009. Nai retired from Water District in December 2008. She actually announced
her retirement to the organization in September 2008.

Now she wants to come back as a director in these challenging economic times to fix
problems she created while serving as Chief Operating Officer. Hsueh can’t be
trusted to make any more mistakes with our tax dollars.

TRUTH—Nai contributed 31 years to the Water District and is proud of her
accomplishments. She is running for the district 5 seat of Board of Directors to reform
the Board, and restore the public confidence that was lost due partially to the District 5
incumbent’s unethical behavior.

Use the following link for the complete 2008-09 Civil Grand Jury Report

Interim CEO – A Step in the Right Direction
The Interim CEO who served roughly through calendar year 2008 has made a significant
effort to address some of the concerns regarding costs and performance, reported by the
2007 Audit. The result was a reduction of $11M in the FY08-09 budget due in part to
$4.9M savings from reduction of 28 full-time equivalent positions, overtime, travel, and
consultant services.

The CEO also surprised staff by requiring a line-by-line review with managers of their
proposed budgets – something that had not occurred in the memory of those interviewed.
They had expected overtime to be easily approved with “business as usual,” but proposed
overtime budgets were cut by the CEO as much as 50%, based on FY07-08 overtime.
While it is not yet clear what actual spending for FY08-09 will be since the interim
CEO’s departure, it is a step in the right direction. Given the pervasive nature of the lax
attitude towards any kind of fiscal control, it will take much more time and leadership
from the BOD to make the needed impact on capital and operational spending.


To top