0008-08!14!2023-Appellant's Request For Judicial Notice - JW

Jaroslaw Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way

Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-687-1187
Fax: 209-729-5154
Email: jjw1980@live.com
Appellant, In Pro. Per.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jaroslaw Waszczuk Court of Appeal No. C095488

Plaintiff and Appellant
Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Sacramento County Superior Court
v. No. 34-2013- 00155479,
The Regents of the University of Notice of Appeal Filed on December 23,

2021
California,
Defendant and Respondent
APPELLANT’S MOTION & REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF THE
APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING
TO MODIFY THE UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ISUUED ON JULY 28, 2023
Cal. Rule of Court Rule 8.252
-1-
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support Petition for Rehearing
3DCA Case No.C095488
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ……………...……………………………………….………..…..5
II. POINTS OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………..…………...5
III. EXHIBITS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THIS MOTION AND REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE ……………………………………………..……………………6
EXHIBIT # 1 – JANUARY 30, 2009 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THE REGENTS

SIGNED WITH WASZCZUK – EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 22, 2009………………………6
EXHIBIT #2 – UC DAVIS PERSONNEL POLICY FOR STAFF MEMBERS (PPSM 23)

EMPLOYMENT SECTION 23, PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT (EMPLOYEE
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW OR EVALUATION) DATED: 6/8/12
SUPERSEDES: 8/21/06………………………………………………….……………………7

EXHIBIT #3 - 06/28/1999–12/27/1999: PROBATION PERIOD REPORT,
GRADE PASS(11CT Vol. p. 3099) ………………………………………………………………..10
EXHIBIT #4 - 1999–2000: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT

GRADE: VERY GOOD (11CT pp. 3097– 3098)……………………………………...…..10
EXHIBIT #5- 2000–2001: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT

GRADE: VERY GOOD (11CT Vol. pp. 3095–
3096)…………………………………………………………………………………….….10

GRADE:OUTSTANDING (11CT Vol. 1 pp. 3093– 3094)…………………………..……10

GRADE: OUTSTANDING (11CT Vol. pp. 3091-
3092)……………………………………………………………………………………...…10
EXHIBIT #8- 2003–2004:EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT

GRADE: MEET EXPECTATIONS (11 Vol. pp. 3088– 3090)…………………….………10
-2-
GRADE: MEET EXPECTATION (11CT Vol. pp. 3084– 3081) ………………...………10

GRADE : MEET EXPECTATIONS (11CT Vol. pp. 3082– 3084)…………………….…10
EXHIBIT # 11 - 2006–2007: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT

GRADE : MEET EXPECTATIONS (11CT Vol. 1 pp. 3079– 3081…………………...……10

GRADE : MEET EXPECTATIONS (11CT pp. 3071– 3073)……………….……...………11
EXHIBIT #13 - 2008–2009: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT, (11CT Vol.

GRADE : EXCEED EXPECTATION (11CT pp. 3068– 3069)…………………………….11

GRADE : EXCEED EXPECTATION -(11CT Vol. pp. 3065– 3067)………………………11

EXHIBIT # 15 – SIX TIPS FOR PREPARING EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS
PUBLICATION AUTHORED BY THE REGENTS FORMER TWO ATTORNEYS FROM
PORTER SCOTT, MICHAEL POTT AND KATHERINE MOLA (2CT 554-555)……..…11
EXHIBIT # 16 – JANUARY 6, 2015, WASZCZUK’S CORESPNDENCE ADDRESSED

TO SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE DAVID I BROWN
REQUESTING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
TO THE LETTER: (1 CT 201-240) ……………………………………………...………….13
EXHIBIT # 17-FAX LETTER DATED JANUARY 5, 2015, ADDRESSED TO DONALD

R. STEADMAN-STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA …………………………………………13
EXHIBIT # 18 -THE DECEMBER 31, 2014, INQUIRY SENT TO WELLS FARGO

BANK………………………………………………………………………….…………….13
EXHIBIT # 19- JAUARY 4, 2015 LETTER TO THE UNIVESRITY OF CALIFORNIA

GENERAL COUNSEL CHARLES ROBINSON ……………………………………......…14
EXHIBIT # 20-MAY 14, 2014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (EDD) - NOTICE OF UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE CLAIM FILED………………………………...……………………………..15
-3-
EXHIBT # 21-EXHIBIT 21-THE MAY 31 , 2012 POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT
EXECUTED BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT ( SMUD ) (11 CT 3200-3223)……..16
IV. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………….17
DECLARATION OF JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.54(a)(2))…………………………………………………………………………………….………18
PROOF OF SERVICE BY US MAIL……………………………..….……………19
-4-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
Brosterhous v. State Bar of Gal. ([1995) 12 Cal.4th 315, 325)……………………….6

Kim v. Regents of University of California [2000]80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165…………..6
Jordan v. Los Angeles County ([1968] 267 Cal.App.2d 794, 798………………..…….
Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, et al, (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882………………….....7
Soria v. Univision Radio L. A., Inc., (5 Cal.App.5th 570 [Cal. Ct. App. 2016]………...……..9
STATUTES:
California Evidence Code, § 459…………………….………………………………..6
Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (b), (c) & (h)……………………………………………………….6

OTHER AUTHORITIES:
California Rules of Court, rule 8.252………………………………………………….. ……6
UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70…………………………………………….8
UC Davis Evaluation Policy PPSM 23…………………………………………… ……. ..8,9,11
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(a)(2)……………………………………………………………17
-5-
I.
INTRODUCTION
Under California Rules of Court, rule 8.252 Plaintiff and Appellant Jaroslaw Waszczuk
(hereafter Waszczuk , pronounced Vashchook) moves this Court to take judicial notice of the
exhibits attached to the Waszczuk’s Motion and Request for Judicial Notice in support
Waszczuk’s Petition for Rehearing to modify the 07/28/2023 unpublished opinion Waszczuk v.
Regents of the Univ. of Cal., No. C095488 (Cal. Ct. App. July 28, 2023)
https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal-1
Exhibits are the documents that were filed and docketed at the Sacramento County Superior
Court and the Third Appellate District (3DCA) in relation to this appeal
II.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Upon a party’s request (or by the court on its own motion), appellate courts have
the same power as trial courts to take judicial notice of a matter properly subject to
judicial notice (Evid. Code, § 459). Judicial notice may be taken even when the
subject of notice was not before the trial court. Brosterhous v. State Bar of Gal.
([1995) 12 Cal.4th 315, 325) Jordan v. Los Angeles County ([1968] 267
Cal.App.2d 794, 798
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL NOTICE
"Judicial notice is the recognition and acceptance by the court, for use ... by the court, of the
existence of a matter of law or fact that is relevant to an issue in the action without requiring
formal proof of the matter." (Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, et al, (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th
875, 882.) "The underlying theory of judicial notice is that the matter being judicially noticed
-6-
is a law or fact that is not reasonably subject to dispute." (Ibid., original emphasis; see Evid.
Code, § 452, subd. (h).)
A court reviewing an appeal may take judicial notice of any materials that are:
(1) specified in Evidence Code section 452, and
(2) relevant to the dispositive questions before the court. (Evid. Code, § 459; Hughes
Electronics Corp. v. Citibank Delaware (2004)120 Cal.App.4th 251, 266, fn. 13 lonly
relevant material may be noticed].) The materials specified in Evidence Code section 452
include "legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of
any public entity in the United States" and "official acts of the legislative ... department[] ...
of any state of the United States," as well as items "that are not reasonably subject to dispute
and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably
indisputable accuracy." (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (b), (c) & (h).)
The University of California is public entity and the university policies and

procedures have the force and effect of a state statute (Kim v. Regents of University
of California [2000]80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165); statutory procedures qualify as
official proceedings authorized by law .
III.
EXHIBITS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THIS MOTION AND REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE
EXHIBIT #1 – JANUARY 30, 2009, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT: THE REGENTS

OF THE UNIVESRITY OF CALIFORNIA (THE REGENTS SIGNED WITH
WASZCZUK EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 22, 2009 (12CT3539-3550)
The Regents of the University of California, per the 2009 Settlement Agreement signed
with Waszczuk, agreed to employ the Plaintiff infinitely as an Associate Development
Engineer at the UC Davis Medical Center HVAC Shop (12CT3539-3550), (AOB pp3-
4,14,16,37,43), and (ARB 6,9-10,14,16-17,20,28-29,39,40,45).
-7-
Exhibit # 1 is most relevant to this appeal. The Settlement Agreement is the written contract
between employer and employee, and the Regents signed it with Waszczuk. In the course of ten
years of litigation, the Regents never alleged in their adverse action aimed at Waszczuk that
after the contract was signed and in any filed document at Trial Court, the Court of Appeal, or
the Third Appellate District (3DCA) that Waszczuk had violated the signed Settlement
Agreement. The Settlement Agreement is enforceable only by California law and courts (See
SuppCTp162). The Regents never rescinded, revoked, or repealed the Settlement Agreement
and wrongfully and with malice terminated Waszczuk’s employment on August 31, 2011 with
effective day of termination December 7, 2012.
Waszczuk’s former attorney, Douglas Stein, to steal money from Waszczuk in 2014, and to
destroy Waszczuk’s wrongful termination case, he in conspiracy with The Regents attorney
from Porter Scott Michael Pott rescinded the Settlement Agreement by three causes of action
(COA # 6 ,7, and 8 )(SuppCTpp.150-154) in his what supposed to be First Amended Complaint

(FAC)(Supp. CT pp. 24-86 ) filed on June 16, 2014, and refiled on September 30, as the Second
Amended Complaint (SAC) . In addition stein deliberately did not include wrongful suspension
COA which was listed in the Waszczuk\s original complaint . (Supp.CT p.4)
The Trial Court and the 3DCA did not want to acknowledge that contract needs to be enforced
and that Waszczuk has been consistently denied his basic rights to equal access to justice (for
almost ten years). Thus, Waszczuk respectfully requests that the Court take a Judicial Notice of
the 2009 Settlement Agreement. The 2009 Settlement Agreement is most triable undisputed
matter in this proceeding .
EXHIBIT #2 – UC DAVIS PERSONNEL POLICY FOR STAFF MEMBERS
(PPSM 23), EMPLOYMENT SECTION 23, PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
(EMPLOYEE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW OR EVALUATION),
DATED 6/8/12 SUPERSEDES THAT DATED 8/21/06 (2CT500-502)
Violation of the UC Davis Evaluation Policy PPSM 23 was the second most important COA in
Waszczuk’s wrongful termination complaint filed by him in pro. per. on December 4, 2014,
against the Regents.
-8-
Waszczuk’s former attorney Stein in FAC, filed on June 16, 2014 and refiled on September
30,2014 as a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) deliberately did not include Violation of OC
Davis PPSM 23
The Regens did not provide evaluation to Waszczuk in 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 and
maliciously terminated his employment after 13 years years without providing him evaluations,
which is mandated by the PPSM 23 which like other UC policies has the force and effect of a
state statute (Kim v. Regents of University of California [2000]80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165) The
Regents deprived Waszczuk of his equal employee rights and due process of law. Evaluation
was appealable under the UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70 if an employee
disagreed with how he was evaluated under the UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM
70. In Soria v. Univision Radio L. A., Inc., (5 Cal.App.5th 570 [Cal. Ct. App. 2016]
https://casetext.com/case/soria-v-univision-radio-l-a-inc-2), the Court reversed the Trial Court’s
judgment, which wrongly granted to Defendant by the trial Court . Among other things, Soria

detailed the meaning of the employee’s evaluation in adverse employer action against employee.
The 3DCA in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (No. C079524 [Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017]
https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal) stated:
Plaintiff filed his first complaint, in pro. per., in December 2013. The
complaint included six causes of action: wrongful termination;
retaliation; the intentional infliction of emotional distress; failure to
prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; breach of the
settlement agreement; and violation of the University's Personnel
Polices for Staff Members (PPSM) 23. Plaintiff thereafter hired a
lawyer, Douglas Stein, who filed a first amended complaint on his behalf
in June 2014. The first amended complaint set forth eight causes of
action, including a cause of action entitled "Breach of Written Contract."
The written contract referred to the settlement agreement plaintiff
reached with the University to resolve his first grievance. The first
amended complaint did not, however, contain a cause of action for
violation of PPSM 23.
-9-
Stein took care of Waszczuk’s pro. per. complaint and Waszczuk’s $20,000 for his crafted FAC
in June 2014.
The Waszczuk’s 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 annual evaluations and UC Davis evaluation policy
PPSM 23 after the 2009 Settlement Agreement are the most triable undisputed matter in this
proceeding. Thus, Waszczuk respectfully requests that the Court take a Judicial Notice of the
UC Davis PPSM 23 evaluation policy in support of Waszczuk’s motion for a rehearing.
EXHIBIT #3 - 06/28/1999–12/27/1999: PROBATION PERIOD REPORT,

GRADE PASS(11CT Vol. p. 3099)

GRADE: VERY GOOD (11CT pp. 3097– 3098)

GRADE: VERY GOOD (11CT Vol. pp. 3095– 3096)
GRADE:OUTSTANDING (11CT Vol. 1 pp. 3093– 3094)
GRADE: OUTSTANDING (11CT Vol. pp. 3091- 3092)
EXHIBIT #8- 2003–2004:EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT
GRADE: MEET EXPECTATIONS (11 Vol. pp. 3088– 3090)
GRADE: MEET EXPECTATION (11CT Vol. pp. 3084– 3081)
GRADE : MEET EXPECTATIONS (11CT Vol. pp. 3082– 3084)
EXHIBIT # 11 - 2006–2007: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT
GRADE : MEET EXPECTATIONS (11CT Vol. 1 pp. 3079– 3081) In this evaluation
period Waszczuk in March 2007 was unlawfully suspended from work for three days and
- 10 -
forcibly reassigned from UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power plant to the HVAC shop
in the same department
GRADE : MEET EXPECTATIONS (11CT pp. 3071– 3073)
EXHIBIT #13 - 2008–2009: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT, (11CT Vol.
GRADE : EXCEED EXPECTATION (11CT pp. 3068– 3069)
GRADE : EXCEED EXPECTATION -(11CT Vol. pp. 3065– 3067)
2010–2011: In this evaluation period from July 1, 2010- June 30, 2011Waszczuk was
employed and was present on the UCDMC premises for full evaluation period but was
not evaluated the Regents and was removed from the UCDMC premises on August 31,
2011 and never was allowed return to work . His employment was terminated on
December 7, 2012

2011–2012: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT- was not provided to Waszczuk.
However for this evaluation period from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 Waszczuk
worked only one month for this evaluation period which was July 2011. In the new
evaluation period of July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 The Regents did not allege that
Waszczuk violated any UC policies but The Regents terminated his employment on
December 7, 2012 without evaluating Waszczuk for the two previous evaluation periods .
EXHIBIT #15 – SIX TIPS FOR PREPARING EMPLOYEE EVALUATION,

PUBLICATION AUTHORED BY THE REGENTS’ FORMER TWO
ATTORNEYS: MICHAEL POTT AND KATHERINE MOLA (2CT 554-555)
The document “Six Tips to Prepare Employee Evaluation,” prepared by the Regents’
attorneys, is important for the Court to consider in this appeal.”
Pott and Mola advises employers on how significant and important employee evaluation
is in terms of court actions brought by an employee against the employer:
- 11 -
Employee performance evaluations are a critical part of the employer-
employee relationship. Well-done evaluations provide guidance and
feedback to employees to help them develop and improve their skills.
This, in turn, benefits the organization. Performance evaluations are also
an important part of minimizing liability if an employment dispute
arises. If an employee challenges a disciplinary action or termination
based on performance problems, a fair and accurate evaluation can be a
critical piece of evidence in defending the case. Conversely, a poorly
prepared evaluation can undermine the employer's credibility before a
judge or jury, or worse, provide the plaintiff-employee with the evidence
needed to prove their claim.
By using the standard of preponderance of evidence in relation to Pott and Mola’s publication
it is not difficult conclude that in 2014, it was the Regents’ attorney Michael Pott who
advised Douglas Stein, for the price of $ 300,000, to erase Waszczuk’s original COA, the
violation of the UC Davis Policy PPSM 23 (evaluation policy) and the violation of the
Settlement Agreement, which was executed in January and February 2009 between Waszczuk

and the Regents.
Had Waszczuk known in September 2014 that Stein and Pott had stipulated the filing of
the SAC for the sole reason of setting up Waszczuk for a SLAPP Motion with the Judge
Brown, whom Douglas Stein had known for 20 years, then Waszczuk would have fired
Stein in September 2014 and would have amended the complaint himself.
It worth mentioning tha Michael Pott quit his job at Porter Scott half an hour after
Waszczuk in pro. per. filed his opposition to Pott’s anti-SLAPP motion on January 23,
2015.
All Waszczuk’s Employee Performance Reports (evaluations) from 1999 to 2009/2010, with
exception of 2010/2011and 2011/2012, are listed in (AOB pp. 43-44), including the clerk
transcript volume number as well as the page number to find them.
The court will not be able to find one negative comment about Waszczuk in his evaluations
during his course of employment with the university. The Regents attorneys from Porter Scott
in their efforts to slander and defame Waszczuk, did not even mention any of Waszczuk’s
- 12 -
evaluations, which were given to him and signed by the same manager who was forced to
sign all of the fabricated accusations aimed at Waszczuk in the form of letters of intent to
suspend.
EXHIBIT # 16 – JANUARY 6, 2015, WASZCZUK’S CORESPNDENCE ADDRESSED
TO SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE DAVID I BROWN
REQUESTING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS
ATTACHED TO THE LETTER: (1 CT 201-202)
In the January 6, 2015, inquiry addressed to Judge Brown, filed on the same day,
Waszczuk requested judicial notice of the following documents:
EXHIBIT # 17-FAX LETTER DATED JANUARY 5, 2015, ADDRESSED TO

DONALD R. STEADMAN-STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA (1CT214)
Fax letter dated January 5, 2015, addressed to Donald R. Steadman, Supervising Senior
Trial Counsel. The State Bar of California Office of the Chief Trial Counsel Enforcement

regarding Waszczuk’s former attorney Douglas Stein’s criminal misconduct stealing
Waszczuk’s $20,000 and conspiring with the Regents’ attorney Michael Pott to destroy
Waszczuk’s lawsuit .
EXHIBIT # 18 -THE DECEMBER 31, 2014, INQUIRY SENT TO WELLS FARGO
BANK (1 CT 215-222)
The December 31, 2014, inquiry sent to the Wells Fargo Bank Dispute Resolution
Department Re: Wells Fargo Account Gold Business Service Package 6926908995–
Check Routing Transit Number 124042882. Request for all account statements from June
6/2/2014 to 12/26/14.
In the December 31, 2014, letter, Waszczuk asked Wells Fargo for compensation for
incurred losses caused by his attorney’s criminal misconduct
Waszczuk’s January 6, 2015, letter to Judge Brown is the proof that the judge was
informed and received evidence that his friend Douglas Stein stole money from
- 13 -
Waszczuk with help of Porter Scott attorney Michael Pott. Judge Brown refused
postpone the whole process to let Waszczuk find a new attorney, as Waszczuk
requested after he dismissed Stein. Judge Brown forced Waszczuk to deal with the
anti-SLAPP motion and quickly and unlawful granted the motion based on the SAC
that Stein crafted and filed with suspended attorney license.
EXHIBIT # 19-JANUARY 4, 2015 LETTER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA GENERAL COUNSEL CHARLES ROBINSON
Among other documents attached to the January 6, 2015, letter addressed to Judge
Brown was a copy of the Waszczuk letter addressed to the University of California
General Counsel Charles Robinson dated January 4, 2015. This letter was
commented on by 3DCA’s unpublished opinion in the anti-SLAPP motion Waszczuk
v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., (No. C079524 [Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017]
https://casetext.com/case/waszczuk-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal). The opinion quoted the

letter on page 9:
The stake in this lawsuit must be a lot bigger and more important than
the life of a 63-year-old Polish refugee who escaped communist
oppression and was promised protection from oppression in his new
country by the US government. Instead of protection from oppression,
the Polish refugee received treatment from the University of California
that has been a lot worse than the treatment he received in the Polish
communist prison, where the communist's prison guard was more
respectful to the political prisoners than UC management to its own
employees.
IT show that3DCA read the Waszczuk inquiry in the Clerk Transcript Waszczuk sent
to Judge Brown on January 6, 2015 and the Court had the information about the
former Waszczuk’s attorney Douglas Stein’s crime
- 14 -
To Waszczuk’s disbelief, in 2017, the 3DCA, in Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,
No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017), the Court addressed the theft of Waszczuk’s
money and Stein’s criminal misconduct on page 8.
To the contrary, Stein was diligent and transparent—making an
ex parte application to assure the integrity of the document he
inadvertently filed during the briefest of suspensions for a minor
transgression unrelated to his professional performance. He
should be commended, not chastised, for his fervent
representation of plaintiff’s interests.
In Waszczuk v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. C079524 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017), the
3DCA confirmed that Stein had filed his FAC as an unamended SAC:
Stein prepared a second amended complaint with the same eight causes
of action.
This important information from the Court file shows how severely Waszczuk was

victimized by the Regents, by his own lawyer, who also conspired with the Regents’
lawyers, and by the judicial officers in the appeals, which never should have taken place.
EXHIBIT # 20-MAY 14, 2014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (EDD) - NOTICE OF UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE CLAIM FILED (6 CT1585-1586)
On or about May 16, Waszczuk received from EDD notification that his unemployment
insurance benefits which EDD denied on January 14, 213 was reinstated with back pay .
Waszczuk, in his AOB (pp. 15–18, ARB 7,16) raised the issue of his unemployment
benefits which was stolen from him later in May 2014. The unemployment insurance
benefits especially the benefits which was denied , reinstated and stolen is not trivial
matter in relation to the Waszczuk’s wrongful termination lawsuit against The Regents
which is pending for almost ten years . It is the serious crime to steal somebody’s
benefits of any kind . Waszczuk by raising on appeal the matter of the reinstated
- 15 -
unemployment benefits he was hoping that 3DCA will help Waszczuk to solve the puzzle
of this crime . Waszczuk pointed in his Petition for Rehearing on page # 30 that:
Under California law, if you should subsequently lose your

unemployment insurance case, your employer may then be able to use
that decision against you in any subsequent discrimination case which
you might file with some other governmental agency or in court. In other
words, a loss in the unemployment insurance case may prevent you from
prevailing in another forum under a different set of laws.
The denied benefits UNDER CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CODE

SECTION 1256 by EDD was based on false allegation of misconduct and was reinstated
thus The Regents lied to EDD slandering Waszczuk . This nine years old unsolved crime of
stolen unemployment benefits is relevant to this appeal in which The Regents are represented
by the same law firm Porter Scott as they were represented on appeal in Waszczuk v. CUIAB
Case C079254 . Request for Judicial notice is appropriate for this document.

EXHIBT # 21-EXHIBIT 21- THE 2012 POWER PURCHASE
AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ON MAY 29, 2012 AND
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT ON MAY 31, 2012(
SMUD ) (11 CT 3200-3223)
The Regents signed a power purchase agreement with SMUD on May 29, 2012 to export power from
UCDMC’s 27-MW plant to SMUD. (3 CT 772-789)
The Regents lost millions of tax-free dollars once they ceased power sales to SMUD in
February 2009, after they signed a settlement with Waszczuk on January 30,
2009.(12CT3539-3550) (AOB pp3-4,14,16,37,43) ,(ARB 6,9-10,14,16-17,20,28-
29,39,40,45) The Regents removed Waszczuk from the UCDMC premises on August 21,
2011 and kept him hostage at his home for 10 months before promoting him to the
managerial position of senior development engineer in May 2012.
- 16 -
https://www.scribd.com/document/664877048/May-31-2012-UCDMC-27-MW-
Cogenaration-Plant-Power-Purchase-Agreement-With-SMUD
CONCLUSION
For the above presented explanation Waszczuk respectfully requesting that the court take
judicial notice of the attached exhibits . The matters to be noticed relate to proceedings that
occurred both before and after the order or judgment that is the subject of the appeal
Executed on 14 day of August , 2023 at Lodi, California.
_______________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Waszczuk in Pro Per
- 17 -
DECLARATION OF JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
(Cat. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(a)(2))
I, JAROSLAW WASZCZUK declare as follows:

1. I am representing myself in pro per before this Court. I have personal knowledge
of the matters set forth herein and if called upon as a witness, I could competently testify
thereto.
2. All attached exhibits are true and the correct copies of the attachments or exhibits
filed in the trial Court with motions and other pleadings and they were included in the
record on appeal (Clerk Transcript )
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on August 14, 2023 in Lodi , California
_______________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Waszczuk in Pro Per
- 18 -
PROOF OF SERVICE BY US MAIL
Re: Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California

3DCA Case .: C095488 Trial Court Case No.: 34-2013-00155479
I, IRENA WASZCZUK the undersigned, declare that 1 am over 18 years of age and not a
party to the within cause; my address is 2216 Katzakian Way, Lodi, CA. On August 14,
2023 I served a true copy of the attached each of the following: APPELLANT'S
MOTION AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
By placing the same copy in an envelope or envelopes addressed respectively as follows:
Hon. Christopher E. Krueger, Judge - US Mail

Law & Motion Department 54
813 Sixth Street, 2nd Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814
Supreme Court Clerk/Administrator California Supreme Court- US Mail

350 McAllister St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Lindsay A. Goulding -Via TrueFiling - E-mail - lgoulding@porterscott.com

PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
H. Thomas Watson- Via TrueFiling - E-mail- htwatson@horvitzlevy.com

Karen M. Bray - Via TrueFiling - E-mail- kbray@horvitzlevy.com
Horvitz & Levy LLP
3601 West Olive Avenue, 8th Floor
Burbank, CA 91505
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 14, 2023, at Lodi ,CA
_
- 19 -
___________________________________________________
IRENA WASZCZUK
- 20 -
EXHIBIT# 1
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
IIERK£1.£Y • DAVIS • lRVISE • LOS ANGELE.S • MERC£0 • RJVERSIDE • $A..-.i DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO ( ;, ) SANTA 11ARBARA • SA.'l'TA CRUZ
''·
HUMAN RESOURCES & RISK MANAGEMENT UC DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM

2730 STOCKTON BOULEVARD 2315STOCKTONBOULEVARD
(916) 734· 2362 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95817
February 27, 2009
J aroslaw Waszczuk
524 Shallow Lane
Lodi, CA 95240
Re: Settlement Agreement

Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
Enclosed please find the fully executed settlement agreement with all signatures affixed. In
accordance with the terms of the settlement, the following actions have occurred:
I. Check Number 4187333 is enclosed in the amount of $8,095.95 ($13,500 minus appropriate
deductions).
2. Your work assignment and work location have been changed to HVAC/Plumbing Sho~.
3. A new position description has been submitted to Compensation and they are completing a
reclassification to Associate Development Engineer with an effective date of February 22,
2009.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at 916• 734.
8879.
Sincerely,
Gina Harwood
Labor Relations Consultant
Cc: Charles Witcher

Receipt
$8,095.95 2730 Stockton Blvd, Sacramento, CA February 27, 2009
Jaroslaw Waszczuk ("Employee"), Personally picked up and received from University of

California, Davis, Medical Center by Settlement Check Number 4187333, the sum of:
EIGHT THOUSAND NINETY FIVE DOLLARS AND NINETY FIVE CENTS,

($8,095.95)
Said above sum was paid to ("Employee") as a Settlement printed on February 26, 2009.

\Jtl!'J£RSITY Of. CAJ,[fORNIA OAVJS PAGE
ACCOUNTING orr1c.:
IMPOl<TA'-'T PLEAS£ VF.RH"/ ALL INrORMATION CONTAINW IN THIS STATl:MENT AND NOTlfY YOUR DEPARTMFNT or ANY ERROR!!
l<ETAIN Till$ STATEMENT AS A RFCOl:W QC' 1:Al<NINGS ANO Of.UUCT!ON$ fHOM THE UNIVERSITY
EMl'L,OYf.E ID NUMSER 6~Honas fEDER.t,!. WJTHHOLOING MARR I F.D 001 /l.l.LOW/INCES

~OCIAL SECURITY NUMBER 419-59 6448 STATF: W!THH·Jl,lllNG MARRIED 000 ALLOWANCES
IIOMP. OFPARTMENT NUMBER 029000 STA"."!: llf.Milf:0 0')0 ALLOWANCES
EARNINGS STATEMENT ADDRESS CMECK 0/\TE 02/25/09
JAROSLAW J WASZCZUK
• • PIIYROI.L Off"!C>; • •
RUSH Vf.Nl>OR CHECK
GROSS EAl<NINGS TAXABLE EARNINGS TOTAL OEDUC-:"IONS NET f.ARNINGS

CURRENT s11.~nu oo s1, no oo $S, !O~ OS sa,o~~ ~s
~ARNING$ DETAIL

PAV TYPE TIT!.!, PAY RATE TIME GROSS PERJOO ENO 0/ITE
LUMP SUM PAV COG!,N OPERATOR 1)~00 00 lJ.500 00 02/28/0~
TOTAL EARNINGS SlJ.~00 00
OEDUCTION/CONTRIBUTJON fl£T/lll-
oi:oucncNs
AMOUNT
rf ~~ COV!,RAGE AMOUNT TA~ SHfl,TEREO
[•CP Rl,GUl.AR 270 00 l70 00
Mf:IHCIIRE J9S 7S
OASOI a.n oo
rEOl;:AAL TAX l, JO? 50
CA STATE TAX -r,J so
• TOrllLS • $S.404 05 $270 00
CON TR I S\JTIONS
• TOTALS •
,.
•I
•
Questions regarding paymeols UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
-...
TELEPHONE CHECK
-- -•
should refer lo your order no. ACCOUNTING & FINANCIAL SERVICES
; DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616-1504 NUMBER: 4187333
and should be directed to: (530) 757-1866
Document.
Number --
01-R01965858 02/25/2009 PAYROLL PU - PENNY 8.095.95
FOL_Q_ f._OLD

Total 8.()95.95
.FOLD
O,awnOn
W.icho01a Bank, NA
CHECK DATE CHECK NUMBER
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA G,e,env;n &• Soulh Ca,ohna
02/26/2009
DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
REVOLVING FUND
In Coopera~ W,lh &. Payable It Desired
al Wells Fa,go Bri. N.A. '
4187333
14 759-508791
PAY Eight thousand ninety five and 9 51100 Dollars

$8.095.95
PLEASE CASH PROMPTLY
SUBJECT TO CANCELL.A TION
AFTER 180 DAYS
TO THE WASZCZUK,JAAOSLAW J
ORDER 4840 2ND AVE .
OF SACRAMENTO, CA 95817
., -~ ,,,_,.,.,." - '"'"".' .. ' ...

' ' ',,,_ ,. --·-- _,_.,_, ___ ' ··-··· --···-·· .,,.,_ .. ·-•-·"· ·--- ·····- ---·· ---······--·---·· ... - ""'"" -·-- -··· ·--· ...
' ··-· ···-··--·· ....... -----·-·
I,
•I
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE
This Settlement Agreement .::inrt Genernl Release (hereafter ··Agreement")

is entered into by and between JAROSLAW (JERRY) WASZCZUK (hereafter
'Mr. Waszczuk'') and THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
on behalf of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS HEAL Tl I SYSTCM
(hereafter ··university") (collectively referred to as the "parties'").
RECITALS
From June 28. 1999 to present, Mr Waszczuk has been continuously

employed by the University in the Department of Plant Operations and
Maintenance. Currently, Mr. Waszczuk is employed as a CoGen Operator.
In or around March 2007, Mr. Waszczuk was suspended without pay for
three days and his work location/assignment was changed by reassignment from
the Centrol Pl3nt to the HVAC/Plumbing Shop, both work arcus me within the
Department of Plant Operations and Maintenance.

Mr. WaszcLuk contested the three-day suspension without pay and
reassignment by filing an Employee Complaint pursuant to the University's
Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) section 70, Complamt Resolution
in or around April 2007, alleging, among other things, that the University acted
without just cause in taking the above-referenced personnel actions hereafter
Employee Complaint".
Following a two-day hearing in November 2008 to consider Mr.

Waszczuk s Employee Complaint, University Hearing Officer Connie Melendy
issued a written decision in December 2008. The University Hearing Officer
decided that the University acted with Just cause in suspending Mr. Waszczuk,
but acted without just cause in reassigning Mr. Waszczuk from the Central Plant
to HVAC/Plumbing Shop. The Hearing Officer decided that Mr Waszczuk
should be permitted to return to work at the Central Plant and Mr Waszczuk has
requested to return to work at the Central Plant.
The University Hearing Officer did not find that Mr. Waszczuk was due or
owed any lost wages due to said reassignment. Subsequent to the University
Hearing Officer issuing her written decision in this matter, Mr. Waszczuk
requP.c;terl theit he hP. orrin!P.rl rP.liP.f in thP. fnrm nf Inst w;:igP.s hP. cfaimP.d hP.
suffered due to the reassignment in question. The University denies that Mr.
Waszczuk is legally due lost wages in connectinn with his reassignment.
The University Hearing Officer responded that Mr. Waszczuk failed to
raise said claim or offer proof of tost wages attendant to said reassignment at the
hearing, and stated that her role as Univers,:y Hearing Officer concluded, in
accordance with University policies. upon the issuance of her written decision m
December 2008.
In order to avoid the costs and inconvenience of litigation Dnd/or

administrative proceeding, to effectuate Mr. Waszczuk's reassignment from the
Central Plant and to the HVAC/Plumbing Shop and to settle fully and finally all
Llirfe1er1c:us tt1c1t may exist between them, the parties have reached the terms and
conditions outlined in this Agreement.
NOW. THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein

contained. Mr. Waszczuk and the University agree as follows:
1. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT The purpose of this Agreement is to

resolve any and all claims arising out of Mr. Waszczuk's employment
and to settle fully and completely any and all disputes between Mr.
Waszczuk and the University. its Board of Regents, officers. agents or

employees (whether current or former). Mr. Waszczuk acknowledges
that this Agreement shall not in any way be construed as an admission
by the University. or any of its Board of Regents. officers. agents or
employees (whether current or former) of any improper or unlawful
treatment of Mr. Waszczuk.
2. REASSIGNMENT As of the Effective Date of this Agreement (defined

in Paragraph 18), Mr. Waszczuk agrees that his work assignment and
work location shall hencefonh be at the HVAC/Plumbing Shop at the
UC Davis Medical Center. Mr. Waszczuk understands and agrees that
he shall. upon execution of this agreement, no longer be an employee
assigned to or located at the Central Plant.
3. RECLASSIFICATION Upon execution of this Agreement. the

University will complete an upward reclassification for Mr_ Waszczuk's
job classification, reclassifying him from CoGen Operator to Associate
Development Engineer. Said upward reclassification is contingent on
Mr. Waszczuk executing a new position description, reflecting the new
classification as Associate Development Engineer, and executing
addenda to said position description, including but not limited to the UC
Davis Principles of Community, Customer Service Expectations. and
National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Health
Care Services (CLAS). Also, Mr. Waszczuk must successfully
complete a background check, if his upward reclassification is subject
!o o background check, per norm31 University policies ::ind procodures.
Said upward reclassification to Associate Development Engineer wil!
result in a salary increase to $70,000.00 per year. Said salary
increase will take effect on or about February 8. 2009, if possible. or on
February 22, 2009, the first day of the following bi-weekly pay period.
Mr. Waszczuk acknowledges and understands that an Associate

Development Engineer position is an exempt (salaried) position that is
not eligible for terms nnd conditions that are available to non-exempt
{hourly) employees including, but not limited to overtime pay. shift
differential pay and weekend differential pay.
4 LOST WAGE CLAIM Within thirty (30) days of the execution of thts
Agreement, the University will pay Mr. Waszczuk a lump sum payment
in the amount of S 13.500.00. an amount he claims as wages he lost
due to his reassignment by the University from the Central Plant to
HVAC:/Plumhing Shop
5. WITHHOLDING Mr. Waszczuk acknowledges and understands that

the $13.500.00 payment made by the University, as described in
par ag rap h 4 above, represents compensation and th at, therefore. the
University will withhold from the gross amount of this payment, all
taxes and other appropriate deductions that 11 would normally withhold
from the earnings of Mr. Waszczuk, and that the University will report
the gross amounts of this payment to governmental aqencies as
earnings of the individual to whom net payment is made.

6. RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS ("RELEASED CLAIMS"} Mr. Waszczuk
hereby forever releases and discharges the University and its Regents,
agents. successors, assigns. affiliates, attorneys, employees, and all
other representatives (hereafter collectively referred to as ·'University
Releasees'"}. from any and all causes of action, judgments. liens,
indebtedness. damages, losses, claims (including attorneys· fees and
costs), liabilities and demands ot whatsoever kind and character that
Mr. Waszczuk may now or hereafter have against University
Releasees arisinq from incidents or events occurrinq on or before the
Effective Date of this Agreement. The release set out in this paragraph
specifically covers any and all claims arising from or related to Mr.
Waszczuk's University employment. or arising from any act or
omission by any University Releasee occurring before the Effective
Date of this Agreement {hereafter "'Released Claims"'].
The release set out in this paragraph. ;ncludes any and all claims
arising under statutory or common law, including but not limited to:
claims under the Immigration Reform and Control Act; the Family
Medical Leave Act and the Higher Education Employer-Employee
Relations Act; and claims of employment discrimination (such as, but
not limited to claims under Title VI I of the Civ ii Rights Act of 1964, as
amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act. the Americans wrth Disabilities Act, the
Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act).
and claims under the law of contract and tort: and federal and stale
claims growing out of allegations of retaliation based on alleged or
actual whistle-blowing activities: and claims arising under University
policies and/or collective bargaining agreements; but excluding clnimc
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workers Compensation Appeals
Board and any other claims that cannot lawfully be released by private
agree111e11t.
7 COVENANT NOT TO SUE Mr. Waszczuk promises never to file or

cause to be filed a lawsuit or internal University proceeding to assert
any Released Claim. Nothing in this Agreement shall affect the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission·s ("EEOC") rights and
responsibilities to enforce Tit!e VI I of t~e Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 196 7, as
amended, or any other applicable ·ow, nor choll anything in this
Agreement be construed as a basis for intenering with Mr. Waszczuk's
protected right to file a charge with. or participate in an investigation or

proceeding conducted by the EEOC or any other state. federal or local
government entity: EXCEPT THAT, if the EEOC or any other state.
federal or local government entity commences an investigation or
issues a complaint on Mr. Waszczuk's beha!f, Mr_ Waszczuk
specifically waives and releases his right, if any, to recover any
monetary or other benefits of any sort whatsoever
8. WITHDRAWAL OF PENDING DISPUTES Mr_ Waszczuk warrants

and represents that other than the Employee Complaint identified in
the Recitals above, Mr. Waszczuk is not a plaintiff, claimant or party in
any suit, action or legal or administrative proceeding in which the
University Releasees are parties. Mr. Waszczuk·s execution of this
Agreement shall constitute a withdrawal of the Employee Complaint
identified in the Recitals above and a request to the applicable outside
agency, if any, to close the file(s). Mr. Waszczuk acknowledges and
agrees that once this Agreement becomes final all claims raised in the
Employee Comp!::iint irlP.ntifiP.r! in thP. RP.r:it~ls ::1hovP. h::ivP hAFm f11lly
and finally resolved to Mr Waszczuk's satisfaction_ Within five {5)
business days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Mr. Waszczuk
shall notify any outside agency in writing of this settlement and request
withdrawal and closure of files, if any.
9 SECTION 1542 RIGHTS WAIVED Mr Waszczuk understands and

expressly agrees that the release set forth in this Agreement extends
to al/ claims of whatever nature and kind. known or unknown,
suspected or unsuspected, vested or contingent. pa st. present or
-I
future, arising from or attributable to any incident or event relating to
Mr. Waszczuk's University ernµluyment occurring in who!e or in pan on
or before the Effective Date of this Agreement, and that any and all
rights granted under Section 1542 of the California Civll Code. ARE
HI:: RI:: 8 Y I:: XPRI::: SSL Y WAIVED. Section 154 2 of the California Civil
Code reads as follows:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS

WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO
EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING
THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST
HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT
WITH THE DEBTOR.
10 _ATTORNEYS' FE ES lf any party ~o this Agreement in iliates an action

10 enforce this Agreement, the prevailing pany shall recover as costs
his/her/its attorneys· fees, costs and expenses actually incurred in such
action. '"Action" includes the University's defense of any claim or
lawsuit filed by Mr. Waszczuk based on legal claims that have been
released and discharged under this Agreement. Such a defense will be
considered an action initiated by the University to enforce this

Agreement.
11. CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION The parties acknowledge that the

University is subject to the California Public Records Act {"CPRA.-) and
that this Agreement constitutes a public record of a type that is
generally required to be disclosed upon request The parties agree that
they will not voluntarily release this Agreement to third parties or to
otherwise disclose its contents publicly except under the following
circumstances: {a) the University receives a request and determines ii
is required by law to release the document to the person or entity
submitting the request: (b) either party is required to disclose either
pursuant to a subpoena issued by a competent authority or an order
issued by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction; or (c} the
University determines that disclosure is necessary for the University to
defend itself in a judicial action or administrative proceeding (either
internal or externa I). Nothing in this provision shal I preclude the parties
from sharing a copy of this Agreement or disclosing its contents to their
accountants or attorneys, and in the case of the University, to
University officers, agents or employees with a need to know in order
to perform their University duties, and in the case of [mployee, to his
domestic partner or spouse.
12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT The parties declare and represent tt1at no

promise, inducement or agreement not discussed in this document has
been made between the parties and that this document contains the
.
entire expression of agreement between the parties on the subjecls

addressed herein.
13 COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in cou nterpc1rts.

A copy of the Agreement is as admissible as the original in any
subsequent proceeding.
14. NO PRE CE DE NT The parties to this Agreement understand and

agree that the execution of this document shall not be, and shall not be
deemed or con~ trued to be. a precedent ur 111uuel fu1 Ille I e~ululiu11 ur
settlement of any future charge, claim. grievance, complaint. or lawsuit
resulting from the same. similar or different circumstances.
15. OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW Mr. Waszczuk acknowledges that he

enters into this Agreement of his own free will: that he has been
encouraged to discuss this document with counsel or a representative
of his own choosing; and that he has ueen encouraged to review this
document thoroughly_ Mr. W ;:iszczu k further wmrants th;:il he (;:,i) fully
understands the contents and effect of this Agreement: (b) approves
and accepts the terms of this Agreement: (c) agrees to be bound by

this Agreement; ond (d) freely ond voluntarily signs this document.
16. MODIFICATIONS IN WRITING ONLY This document may not be

modified except lly written amendment. characterized as suct1. and
signed by the parties.
17. OLDER WORKERS BENEFITS PROTECTION ACT It is the

intention of the parties that the releases contained in this Agreement
comply with the provisions of the O\dE"r Workers Benefits Protection
Act (29 U.S C. § 626). To comply with Section 626(f) of that statute
and to effectuate the release by Mr. Waszczuk of any potential claims
under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ('"AOEA"). Mr
Waszczuk acknowledges and agrees as follows: (a) he has carefully
reviewed this Agreement and understands the terms and conditions it
contains: ( b) he has been advised of the right to consu It any attorney
or representative of his choosing to review this Agreement (c) he is
receiving consideration which is above and beyond anything of value
to which he is already entitled: (d) he does not waive rignts or claims
lhat may arise after the Effective Date of this Agreement: and (e) he
has twenty-one (21) days from receipt of this document to consider the
terms and to sign it. Mr. Waszczu~ may sign this document sooner.
but if he does so. tie acknowledges by signing that the decision to sign
was his and his alone. and lhat as a result. he voluntarily has waived
the balance of the 21-day review perind.
18.SEVEN DAY REVOCATION PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Mr Waszczuk shall also have seven (7) days after executing this
Agreement to reconsider and revoke this Agreement Any revocation
must be in writing, delivered to Stephen Chilcott. Labor Relations
Manager, Human Resources, UC Davis Medical Center. 2730
Stockton Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95817 no later than the close of
business of the seventh (7:h) d.::iy following Mr. Waszczuk's execution
of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not become effective or
enforceable until the seven (7) day revocation period has expired. or
u11l1I tt1e dale of the last signature. whichever Is later. ("Effective Date')
If Mr_ Waszczuk revokes this Agreement, ,t shall not be effective or
enforceable and he wll! not receive the consideration described herein
19 MUTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT The parties agree that after the

Effective Date of this Agreement each wi!I say nothing that is or r.rn1lrl
be construed as disparaging to the other. except that nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed either to prevent the parties from
coopcr.Jting in ony investigation conducted by a governmental entity
within lhe scope of its authority, or to ;:irevent the University from
pursuing any claims that it has or may have against Mr_ Waszczuk.

20. CALIFORNIA LAW This Agreement is made and entered into in the
State of California and shall in all respects be interpreted and enforced
1n accordance with California law.
21. BINDING EFFECT This Agreement sh::ill hind the heirs, nersonal
representatives, successors, and assigns of each party, and inure to
the benefit of each party, its heirs. successors, and assigns.
22 INTERPRETATION: CONSTRUCTION The paragraph headings

contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be
used when interpreting this Agreement. This Agreement has been
drafted by legal counsel representing the University. but Mr. Waszczuk
has fully participated in the negotiation of its terms. Mr. Waszczuk
acknowledges that he has had an opportunity to review and discuss
each term of this Agreement with legal counsel or a representative of
his r.hrn,sino Therefore. in intP.rpreting this AgrP.ement the normal rule
of construcllon, which is that any ambiguities in the document are
resolved against the drafting party, shall not be employed.
23. SEVERABILITY Should it be determined by a court that any term of

this Agreement is unenforceable, or should any term of this Agreement
be contrary to state or federal law or regulation. that term shall be
deemed to be deleted. However. the validity and enforceability of the
remaining terms shall not be affected by the deletion of the
unenforceable terms
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
GENERAL RELEASE INCLUDES A RELEASE OF ALL KNOWN ANO
UNKNOWN CLAIMS.
DATED: _ _ _ _ _ _ __
JAROSLAW (JERRY) WASZCZUK
DATED: - - - - - - - - -
Assistant Directo , Hospital and Clinics

Administrative & rofessional Services

UC Davis Health System
DATED:
--------- CHARLES WITCHER
Manager
Plant Operations & Maintenance
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA
DATED: _ _ _ _ _ _ __ BY
- ------------
STEVEN A. DROWN
Chief Campus Counsel
UC Davis
8
GENERAL RELEASE INCLUDES A RELEASE OF ALL KNOWN ANO
UNKNOWN CLAIMS.
-~.1.1 M ···--
JA~~AW (JERRY) WASZCZUK
DATED _ _
ROBERT 8. TAYLOR
Assistant Director. Hospital and Clinics
Administrative & Professional Serv1ces
UC Davis H~ollh System

DATED. _ _ _ _ _ _ __
CHARLES WITCHER
Manager
THE. Rl::.Gl::NTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA
DATED· _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ BY
STEVEN A. DROWN
UC Davin
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ANO
GENERAL RELEASE INCLUDES A RELEASE OF ALL KNOWN AND
UNKNOWN CLAIMS.
DATED:
DATED - - · · · · - · · - - - - -
ROBERT 8. TAYLOR
Assistant Director. Hospital and Clinics
Administrative & Professional Services
UC Davis Heallh System
~::::±
HARLESWI 7--iER
Manager

UC Davis Heal!h System
THE REGENTS OF.THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA
DATED: _ _ _ _ __
BY _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
STEVEN A. DROWN
UC Davis
UNKNOWN CLAIMS.
DATED: - - - - - - - - -
DATED: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
ROBERT B. TAYLOR
Assistant Director, Hospital and Clinics

DATED: - - - - - - - - -
CHARLES WITCHER
Manager
THE REGEN~F THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFOR\IA ·,
BY~~
-siEENADRO~-
UC Davis
UNKNOWN CLAIMS.
DATED: _ _ _ _ _ _ __
DATED: ---------
ROBERT B. TAYLOR
Assistant Director, Hospital and Clinics

DATED:
--------- CHARLES WITCHER
Manager
THE REGEN7S"OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CAUFOR~IA .
DATED: ~ebrvl',l"j/ b)ooq sv ~ , , . , .

__.STE EN A. ORO ~-
UC Davis
EXHIBIT# 2
UC Davis Personnel Policies for StaffMember.s
Employment
Section 23, Performance Management
b~e: 61.a,12
supersedes: 8/21/06
Responsible Department: Hvman Reeources
So!,m;~ Document WC PPSM .23
23.A. GENERAL
Note 1-0ngoing Comm1.mication. The ~upervi:,or i,nd the employee share respomibtity for
u11yuiny, limti!'( iir,iJ"IJIU(,h.i!;liv~.Wllll!1Urtit;c1liu11 l111uuyl1uul ill!:! Y~dl'. Su~rvi~u•~ rnu~l c.;l~1ly
communicate goals.end objectives, coiTIM~ncy expi:ctWons.and ~ rformance me~sures. The
employee must provide the supervisor with timely information about both successes and challenges in
rriccting ·g oolo and ·obji::otivcs ;ind i.ccl~ng hclp -.yncn ncc~·!l (c.9., 6dditiori.ll rc'G6 urccs ncccss.Jry t o'
be successful or prioritization of functions ancttasks). The supe~isor, and the employee must be
proactive and accoontable in the communication-and feedback process and take initiative to insure
that ~ommqnication.~ continu0us.a.n<:1:pror:;h.JC!i11:e:'.
Note 1-Responsl~iUty. Direct supervisors are :requi~ed to evaluate employees annually, regardless
of available fund ing or empi9yee e!igibJliiy for merit:iricre~s.e~ a.lJdior clelays i,n merit deUvery. When

fundirx;i is ~vaila6ie.a c orJ)pleted:&alist°p<;:tory .or b.eU~r perfci1mar:i¢e appra isal ·ri,ust be in the
employee!s file in-order fcir tr.ie. employee-to be eli_µ ible-to. receive a· meririncre'ase. Failure to complete
an e~loyee_pertorrnanc~,_appr~isal meaos.thatlhe empl9yee wil.l not receive a merit increase
regardless ofevertual rating. Umit~d. contra-ct, per• die:m,.and student employees are evaluated if
they are:expectea to worK a year or more.
Note 2-"nnual Apprais'a,I Fqrm. On campu~. the Perfo.rmarice·Apptaisal fonn is on the Web at
fi\lv,//www.ltcUU<1"... vja,yllu~o1111~. It t;\.11,1 w W Wl~Ui.lC.JW w ilt! fJ'-l)'IUll 4.t..alu u:.-si119 lt11,: Pr6·109 rt:pv, l.
At_UCOr-iS, the form is orrth~,Web ~t http://www:ucdmc Licdayjs·,e·du/hr/Forms/Forms.htm. Alternative
forms may be used if approved by.Employee & Lapar Relations and trnfdean.qr vice•chancellor
(c:impus); or by the f)(ccutivc DircctoF_:Hum:in Resources (UCOHS).
The campus is-phasing in an online Employee Pelformance.Appraisal Form and Process.

lnformatiorn about this-proc~s is available.on t~ Web at
t1np:-1twww. hr.ucc:1av1s.eciu/S1icteshow/forms/Pen' Eval. ·<J~llons abOut tne-status of. this process
should be dir.ected io your Employee Relations Consultant
Note 3:--0ther F.orms. The supervisor U$es the .Employee Development Wo~ks~et for evaluations
that.are not part of the annualJ,erformance appraisal process. It can be used for probationary ahd
limited employees, and·10 evaluate career/regular status employees at a time..other than the annual
review. The furn, is ~n tli_e·web at http/iwww.hr ucdavis.edu/Forms: Aoy-a!ternajive form mav be
used. The err.i_ployee.is provided with a copy of.the evaluatioa and the original'is filed in the
employee's department personnel file.
Note 4.-$9urces of· Information.

The performance appraisal process,is an important form of communication between the supervisor
a~.e[nplo~e.'Go1:1l~; ~_n d'_obj~!11.~ s st,ould ue clear ::,o lhal .tt"ltl err1pl(iyt::t: .kr.iµ.~ -'f'h(ll perrunn!:.\11c~
iii expected during the- review pgriod: Attention should' l;l:E! paid t¢i'both·job coriipelt?ncics· and c ~ific
job functions. There are·many resources available at http://v.Jww:hr,ucdavis:edulto assist both the
employee ond tbc super.v(:;_cir in this ·o·ngoil'Jg procc3S of ti.JIil communicati~ ·and understanding
psrfor'mance expectations. .
1 or 3
PPSM 23
6/S/12
The source o(?ny inforrnatior.i or feed!)a.~ providii-d in lhe wr iti.en appraisal must ·t:>e do~umented anq
1t specifics are requested, must t>e·maoe avanable to··the employee.upoi:, request Supervisors must
prov.ide timely'feedback about areas ofimprovement.during the cour:se:of the rev.iew period &o that
empl9yees.are. no.t sorprised gfc9mmen~~-cootaine~.in ~ ernJ?IOY.~. performance evaluation. It is
iniippropriate to include 1rif6~tion in the:final evaluation lh3t hil~ not ooen p~e..;.;o'CJoly discussed with
the employee. Qu~stions abo1A "lhatir:iformatioi,·.is appropri~te lo inch.id~ in an appre1isal and whal is
not approp_li~1e to include shOuid :~ direde(j to an ~ropioy_ ee RelatioC1S 6<)n·suttant in Human
Resources.
Note 5-Mediatjon. M_ed1ation Services ca.n h~lp resolv~·dispute~ al;>ol.Jt appraisals.
Note·6-Trar:,sf~rs. If an emplQyee..wor.~ed for more thar:1 three monlhS of ttie appraisal period in
another·department or unit, the current st.ipervisof shall-ask the'former supeivi~.;or to:·provide input to
oe incluele<i ll'l the wr.i!ten:evaluaticin. This input can be provided:eilher by attaching the previous
s1:1peni1sor·~ ~ppi:~isal. or -~ inc.~ r~rating t.he co.mments ifl appropriate areas of tne·appra.is~I and
1aenttry1rigJhe;.s.ourne or Ille.comments-as the pr~v10.us. s~f\11sor's. How.ever, lhe hrial evaluation ,s
the responsibility ofthe direct supervisor on the day following the·enci of the revie'w period. lo cases
where·a.n employ~@ lraf'l!\ters·to anot.her depa,rtment im!J'l~dia_lEllY aflP.r the end ofthe;review period,
a
tiut.tt'1e pprai::ial clue dat~ is ·i1ol for ~veral more.month::;, it is the re·spon'&ibility,of ·lhe new supervisor
to obtain the completed appraisal rrom the previoU6 supervJsor, and to submit it in accord with current
~partment prc,cedures.

Note 7-Slgnatures. The.employee'.s signature mec,r.s'thathe-or she has read-the appraisal. It does
rot mean·that.ttie empioyee agr~es with the appr~isal. .!f ~l'.1 employee refu~s to sign the-apprai~I.
ref11:-al 1-honlrl hP. ·111_,lffl:,h ir1}tle iafmr,lnyP.P.'s ~iQr-Ati.1rP. limt ny 1hP. Sl/pP.rvisnr, lnr.h r~lng t~ <ltt!P. tlvlt
Tl'1P.
the appraisal was provided to tl:ie emplo~e.
UCO. P.ROCED~RE 23, 1-'APPRAISAL OF 'CAREER/ijEGULAR .$TArus EMPLOYEES
a The su~rvisor c;liSCl,!S~.jq~ \'.futi~s a,:Id perfor~~_e)(peciations with the employee on an

ongoing_:basis, and pr.ovitles :performance feedback during.the year.
b. The A~iate Vice Ch~_r:~~!lor,-f:-lum~n Resou.rces. serds· a .caH for ~ppfaisals. Deans, vi~e
chancellors, ~M.LCDHSexecutive·dir€tt0ts addinstructions and send tre call to ~partmenls.
Uepartmenls a(tacn nsrs-01 e119101e emp1oyees aoo sena me can to supef'lllsors.
c. Tlie employee writes a Summafy of. Accorrplistiments (if required).

d. "(he super.visor reviews tti~. emptoyee;s job deser:ipli_on..if.it is.not accurate, th_e-suP,ervisor
updates it;v.ia PeopleAamin .(Davis campus):.or as described at
http://www:ucdmc·ucdavis,edu'/hr/hrdepi~eompe~tio n/cl3szifiC3tion review_ html :(S3cramento
campus)..
f!. The surervisor drafts the:aprraisal and discusses if·with the employee·.
I. The supervisor fihalizes the appraisal, gets tbe employee's sig·nature, (and'.comments, if any). A
copy,of.the Summary or Accomplishments and the employee's comments are attached to the
appraisai. (S~ _23'B-Note·7 ;,'po1;re,:_
g. The d~partm~nt h~~d.signs the appraisal. The or_igi,:iar'is·~enl i_mme.diately to Human

Resources to be.placed in~ ernptoyee·s ~tsonnel file . .A.copy is routed to the employee and
2.of 3
PPSM 23
6/8/]2
one copy is placed in the employee's d~partment personnel file.
1-orms completed trvougti tne on11ne system wlll be·uploaded electronically to Human
Resources for·the employee's per$0nnel file. Consult. the -call'for appraisals for current
information abot.!i how-.the upl_oading p~o·ces~.will take_plac.:e during·the current review period.
,Supc·rviE.on:'ehould Gtill print ::i copy of thc·oomplctcd··ond cleccfronfoolly Gigncd.for·m 3 for
inclusicyn in their de~rtml:\ni peri;;onnel fila.c\nd onefr,ir t~ erpplQyee. In some r.:ases it may be
necessa,y lo send a ~rd·CQPY to HR.
'.3 .of 3
EXHIBIT# 3
Personnel lc1es !or Stat! kembers
i i Probat1onary Period
UCD PROCEDURE
EXHIBIT A
1/17/97
PF.0:&A'I'IOWUtl' .PEJUCO JU:i'ORl'
Payroll title Date probation ends

Supervisor name S (l_, $ "'if.'.:!<\. ,N1'c!t) D:r' :('
Department _ _ _f.,__o=_".c_.,...,_,-,.~----- s upe rv1 so r ' s p hon~ _....;!,c..;-:...:·"'"'"S;:_it:_:'8'--
CHECK ONE:
[)(] EVA.LUATlON SATISFACTORY. The employee has pertorrned satisfactorily thus

tar during the probationary period. This denotes the employee•~ current
l•v~l of pe~!otn1.ancc and doe~ noc consci~ute attainment of regular
~tatua.
{ EVALUATION UNSATISFACTORY. The employee's performance or 9en•~al

suitability !er Univer~ity employment is unsatisfactory thus tar during
the probationary period.

CHtCK ONE:
()<.) ATTAIN?-G:NT Of MOVIJ\R ~TATU3.The employee has satisfactorily completed

the probationary period and attained regular employee status on
!date) \-../•2:B/~g.
J CHANGE END DATE. The end ot the probationary period has been changed
from (date) _____ to (date)______ The reason for the
extension is:
J change ot supervisor
J Change in job duties
J Le~vc ot·ab~ence
J Other:
(Human Resources approval:
RELEASE tROM tMPLO'lMENT. The employee is released !rom employment

effective (datei ______
Copies: Human Resources, Department personnel file,
1 of l
1(\1~\r;
\q
DEF 1247
EXHIBIT# 4
'EMPLOYEE PERFORJ'l,lANCE RE-FORT
REVIEW CYCLE: OCTOBER 2000
WASZCZUK, JAROSLAW J. PCN, 012333 9900 - CNTRL PLANT OPS

EMPLOYEE NAME DEPARTMENT
SR PP MECH 8172 1760.00

PAYROLL TITLE TrrLECODE '=====~=~~'~=-
CURRRNT RJlGULAll SALARY STU>
PER.$0!"fflEL l'ROGRAM: PSS PERCBNTAGI. OF APPOINTMRNT ..lQ.Q.._¾
H 1009900 SUDG 449396448

I I I
~OIAI<==T~-.~C~C~O~IJN=T~-~SUB-ACCf OBJECT EMPLOYEE NUMBER
TlllS l!."'1PLOYF.E HAS BEEN SUPERVISED BY ME I-UR THf, Yl/LL REVIEW PERIOD. (dRCl,F. ONE) O'ES) NO
IF THE ANSWER IS NO, now LONG lL\V!. YOU sun1t.,1SF.DTHIS F.MPJ.OYEE_ _ _ _ __
I, TIil': FOLWW'ING NAllRATIVl. OE.'iCIUBM Tlll!: Y.Mf'WY&l!:'SOVERALLJOB-RELATED PERFORMANCE FOR TIOS PAST REVIEW
PERIOD, IT IS BASED ON SHARED EXPECT AllONS A."m UTABLISBE.D RnlEW ClUT!l;RIA. IT SHOULD ADDRESS
QUALITY OF WORK. PRODUCTIVln', Dl!.PPJl,'DADll.JTY, L''JTlATIVE AND OTYER CIIARACTERISTlCS TOA. T IMPACT
PERFORMANCE. IT lNct..VDES A DISCUSSION OF nm EMPWYEl!'S RESPONSIBILITTES FOR AFFIRl\lATIVE ACTION' A."iD
EMPLOYl:lt R~Al.'fQ AND li;.AFETV, IF A-PPRO.PIUATt
Jerry Waszczuk's overall performance for this past review cycle has been very good. During this period Jerry has
become a very knowJedgeable and effective central plant operator. Jerry is very conscientious and thorough in

performing his job. During this N!porting period Jerry has also assumed the responsibility of monitoring and
dispatching Meta.sys alarms and selling excess power to the California ISO via the automated dispatching system.
Jerry assists the plant mechanic with maintenance work to benefit central plantopP.tation.,;_ Thi" ha;,;; incJuded RO
piping system.repair, numerous steam leak repairs, and auxiliary boiler and HRSG repairs. Jerry has also assisted
with monthly plant shutdowns for gas turbine water washing and maintenance and annual preventive
maintenance on the HRSG and boilers. He has also assisted w-ilh tube deaning on the chiller units, as weU as
routine preventive maintenance items. Jerry has worked numerous overtime hours and a varying schedule to
insure safe, efficient and reliable operations of both the central plant and old boiler plant Jerry Cc1J1 be counted
on to make thP right OJ:w>Tatinnal riPCi<:1nn,; regru"ding tho plant, and to kCt'.lp hin ::;upcrvfaor informed of the
operational status of the plant and its equipment. Jerry is a valuable employee committed to the future succes.c;
of i:he Medical Center.
T'RIS EM7WYEE COMPLETED TRF.lR Al'lNirAI. K\FF'.TY TR.U.-..""INC(lNCLt,'DL"iC PRRSONAL 5/IJETV, £1,EC."l'lUCAL !:!Al'ETY, l'lRE
SAF!n, IJiFEC.TlON CONTROL, INJtffiY l'Rf;VENTlO!i ANO OCCUPATIONAL S>J'ETY) ON Z/28/00
11un JERRYWASZCZUK •s Pl!RFOR.\U.'llCF. FOR TJIJS ~V1EW PEJUOD AS (CIIECK O~E):

( ) l1"SAT1SFACTORY• (CONS1STENTLY PERFOR.\iW Dfil.OW EXPOCr A.TI0'.11S AND ST A,.'\'DARDS-J
( )L'fl'ROVEM!l'•ff NF.EDF.D• (l.\lPWYEE OFTI.N FAll.S TO MEET D..'"Pl!CJ'ATIONS Al'<"O Sl'MIDAJU)S.}
( ) FUI.LY SATISFACTORY (CONSISTVoTLY MET EXPECTATIONS A."ffi STA.NDARDS.)
(X)VIJlY COOD (OFTEN £XCU'.D£P EXPECfATlONS ANO STANDAJU>S.)
( )01ITSTA."ffl[NG (CO:'l!Slff'ENTLY EXCEEOED F.XPF..crATIONS A."''l> STAl-."l)ARDS.)
*MUST Bt C1,,,\JllFlltD IN 'Jitt NARRAID'"f~

(PLEASE SEE RJffERSE SIDE)
OEF1:274
)
ll. COMPLETE THIS SECTro;v O:'iLY FOR EMFWYEl!S WITH RF.SPONSWILJTV FOR Rt:MAN PATfE(lff ASSF.SS~lENT,
TREATMENT OR CARE.
FOR THOSE ST AM WHO ASSESS, TREAT, OR CARE FOR THE FOLLoWI!'lG PATIENT POPULATIONS. PLUSE
CHECK THE AG£ GRO(JP(S) SERVED A."'l'D ADORF'.SS TifP. St;CCES..'i WITH WlUC..11 THf, C,.:OIVIDl;AL PRODUCTS
TlIE EXPECTED RESULTS OF O,U.1CA.L lNTF.R\'E!'ollONS.
L~fA.''ITS(O. 12 MO~TKS)
CHILDREN {U MO;l,:TRS - H Ii YEARS)
AOOLESCR~S(9-111 \'V.RS)
ADULTS ( lt YEARS -~ YFARS)
01!.IUATRJCS (6!1 YEARS AND OLDt.R.)
EWJ,UATION OF THE ABOV!. RESPONSIBILITY:
•••• ...... •••n...........••••••• .. ••••••••no•••••••••••••••••••••••••n•••••oooo ♦ oouoo•u•o•••••---•••••••u•••••••••ouo

ffi. Ol!.C"ITSSI0/11 OP l<l.lTURI: CO,U.ll, £.IQ>ECTATIOJIJS AND J>ERFOMtA!'ICE RY.VIEW CJUTEk.J.A:
Jerry will assist the Sr. Superintendent in revising and refining the preventive and predictive maintenance
program as well as the Central Plant operating arid emergency procedures. He will continue to increase his
operating knowledge of the central plant equipment and systems, and the Metasys system to mcrease reliability,
safety, and the economical operation of the plant and the Medical Center. Jerry will also assume responsibility
for dispatdung emergency work orders during the off shifts .

.......... , .. •••••• .......................................• .. ••••••• ............................ 0 ........... ,,,0••••••••••0•••
I HAVE MET WITH THE ABOVE NOTED EMl'LOYP.E TO DlSCUSS RISl'Hl!.R PERFORMA.~CT. DURJJIIG THE PA.!17 YEAR.
WE DAVE DrSC:USSfl.O PO.'ITT10!11-Rl'.:LAT£D PERFOR.\IA.llt(.'E EXPECTATlONS A."ID l'ERFORMANCE REVIEW CRITiRIA
FOR fllE NEXT Yf.A(l.
SIGNATURES;
f.MJ>LOYU'S C0M)'IE1'7S (Di A."O');
--------------------
DE.f'ARTME:-IT ~AG ER'S COMME.-..TS (IF ANY):
DEF 1275
EXHIBIT# 5
r.MPJ,OYEr. PERFORMANC:F. RF.PORT
WASZCZ°"'JAROSLAWJ. PCN: 012333 9900 - CENT PLT OPE
SRPPMECH 8172U 1844.llO

PA VROLL TITLE TITLE COD£ $=========-'/
CURRENT REGULAR SALARY ~.,..=,-
PEPSOJlil","l:LPROGAAM: PSS PERCE~"TAGE OF APPOINTMENT .J.QQ....__%
H 1009900 SUBG 100007734

I I I
CHART ACCOUNT SUR-ACCT OBJECT EMPLOYEE NUMBER
THIS EMPLOYEE HAS ■£EN S\.11'ERVISED BY ME FOR TIIE FULL REVIEW PERIOD, (CIRCLE OSEJ NO
IF TifE ANSWER IS NO, HOW LONG HA VE YOU SUPER\1IS£D THIS EMPLOYEE _ _ _ _ __
L THE f"OLWWING SARKA TlVE DESCRIBES IBF. EMPLOYF.Ji'S OVERA.Ll,JOB-Rt:1..ATt:D PERfORMA.NCF. FOR llllS PAST REVJIW
PERIOD. IT IS BASED ON SHA.RED EXPECTATIONS AND FSTABLISRED RF.VIE\\' aun:RIA. IT SHOULD ADDJU>.SS
QUALITY OF WORK, PRODVCllVITY, DEPENDABILITT', INITIATIVE ,\J,11) OTIIEK CIIAJUCTl:RlSTICS 11{,\T ™1'ACT
PtRFOJt\lANCL IT INCLUDES A DISC'IJ&ION OF Tift EMPLOYEE'S llESPOSSIBll.ITIES FOR AJTIRMATIVE ACOOS AND
EMPLOYEE HEALTII ANDS.4FET¥.JF APPROPRIATE.
Jerry Waszczuk's overall performance for this past review cycle has been very good. Jerry has become a
knowledgeable and effective central plant operator. Jerry is very conscientious and thorough in performing his

job. Jerry occasionally ass~ts Ute plant mediartic and instrument technician with maintenance and repair work
to benefit central plant operations. Jerry can be counted on to make the right operational decisions regarding the
plant, and to keep his supervisor informed of the operational status of the plant and its equipment. Jerry is a
valuable employee committed to the future success of the Medical Center.
THIS EMPWYEE COMPLETED TilEIR A.'1/SUAL SAFETI' TllAlNTNG (NCLL'DL'l;G PERSONAL SAFETY, ELECTRICAL S.U'"ETY, FIRE
SAl't,TY, INHCTJOS CONTROL, INJURY PRE~TION AND OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY) ON February 15, 2001
, RA TE JERRY wASZCZUK _•s PER.FoRMAscr Fok nns REVIEW PUlJOo AS fCHECK oNEJ:
( ) UNSA.fflFACTORV• (COSSISTEl'-.TLY PERJ.'ORMED BELOW EXPECTATIONS Ai'ID STM'DARDS.)
( ) IMf'ROnMENl' NU:Uu,~ {Utl'W'tt:J:; 01'Tt:.~ MJLSTO MElff .t:XJ'U:CATIONS AND STANDARDS.)
( ) Fl'LL\' SATISFACTORY {CONSISTENTLY MET EXPECTATIONS Mll STANDARDS.)
(XWERY GOOD IOFl"EN f.XC[F.DED .t::XPt:CfATIUNS A,'1,jO !ffANOARDS.j
( )OUJSTANDlNG (COriSISTENTI, Y EXCEEDED EX.PECJ'ATIONS A.ND STANDARDS.)
•MUST BE CLAIUJ1F.D 1N THE NARRATIVE.

(?"LEASE SEE REVERSE SID£►
DEF 1272
·,
D. L'OMPLETE THIS SECJlON ONLY FOR EMPLOYEES WITH RF.SPONSJBILITY FOR HUMAN PATIINT ASSESSMENT,
TREATMENT OR a.RE.
FOR ntOSE STAFFWIIO ASSESS, TREAT,OR CARF. FOR THE FOIJ.OWING PATIEl\'T POPUlATIO'.'.S,PLMSE
CHECK nu; AGE GR011P(S) SERVED AND ADDRESS THE :,,;ccESS wm, WHICH Tin: IJt,l)IVIDl:AL PRODUCES
TIIE EXPECTI:D RESULTS OF CUM CAL INTERVI'.1'-iTIONS,
INFAN'l'8 {0• 12 MONTHS)

am.DREN (12 MONTHS· 15 ½ Yt:A.RS)
ADOLESCENTS 19 • 18 VF.ARS)
ADULTS ( 18 YEARS - 6"" YEARS)
GERIATRICS (6!: Yt".AQ AND OLD.ER)
EVALliA TION OF THE ABOVE Rr..SPONSJBll.JTY:
...................................................._......................" ...................................................
1IL DISCUMION Ol' Rm!RE GOALS, l:Xl'ECl'A.UUNl:i A.°'D l"UtfURM,U~C.E REVIEW CJUThlUA:
Jcny will assist the Senior Superintendent in revising and refining the Central Plant's operating procedures and
emergency contingency procedures. Jerry will also assist the Superintendent - Maintenance and Repair with
refining the Central Plant's preventive and predictive maintenance program. He will continue to increase his
operating knowledge of the Central Plant equipment and systems, and the Metasys energy management system
to improve safety, increase reliability, and enhance the economical operation of the Central Plant and the Medical
Center.

I DAVE MITWITH TH£ ABOVE NOTED F.MPLOVEE TO DISCUSS HIS/HER PERFORMANCE DURING THE PAST YEAR.
WI HAVE DISCUSSED POSmON-RELA TED PERmRMANCE EXPECTATIONS AND PERH>RMANCE REVIEW CRITERIA
FOR THE NUT VEAR.
DA
EMPWYE['S COMMENTS (rF ANY):
- ljz ?/o1
ATE
DEPARTMENT MA."rt.4.GER'S l'OMME~TS (IF A."JY):
DEF 1273
EXHIBIT# 6
') EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT
Waszczuk. Jaroslaw J PCN; 00012333 990(). CentPJtOpe

Sr PPM 8l72C 1881.60

$ I
PA YROJ.L TITLE TITLE CODE CURRENTREGULARSALARY STEP
l'ERSONNEL l'ROGR.A.M, PSS J'El(CEJIITA.Gl:: 01' AP!-'UtNl'M.t:N'f ...J.Q!!.__~
_H __I 1009900 /~~~~.;SUBG_ l 00007712

CHART ACCOL'N'J' SUB-ACCT OBJECT EMPLOYEE NUMBER
nns EMPLOYEE RAS BEEN SUPERVISED BV ME FOR THE FULL REVIEW PERIOD. (CIRCLE ONE} (YES} NO
lFTIIE/1.NSWBRlSNO,BOWLONGHAVEYOUSUPERVISEDTIWEMPLOYEE_ _ _ _ __
I. TifE fOLLOWING NARRAITV£ DESCRI!IE.S THE EMPLOYEE'S OVERALL JOB-RELATED PERFORMANCE FOR THIS PAST REVIEW
PERIOD. IT t~ Jl,+.sF.n ON SRA.Rm F.XPF.CTATIONS 11,NU E!STABLLSHED llEVJ£WCruT£1U,•,.. IT Sl:lOOJ.ll ADDRESS
QUALITY OF WORK, PRODUClTVJTI', DEPEJ'lo'DAlln.ITY, lNITIATIVE AJ'lJ) OTIIER CHARACI'EJUSTICS TIIAT IMPACT
PERFOR.\fANC&. rr INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF nm EMPLOYEE'S RfSPONSmn.me-s FOR AFflRMA TIVE ACTION AND
EMl'LOYEl!. HEALTH ANDSAFll:TY,IF AJ'PROPRJ.ATE.
Jerry is a very knowledgeable and effective Central Plant operator. Jerry is very conscientious and thorough in
his operation and maintenance performance. ferry regularly assists the maintenance and insh'ument technicians
with maintenance and repairs. Jerry can be counted onto make the right decision.,; and to ke-ep management

informed of the status of the plant and equipment, Jerry is a very valuable employee committed to the success of
the Medical Center.
EMPLOYEE COMPLETED TiiEJR ;L"fflUAL SAFEn' TRAINU'IG QNa,UDlNG PERSONAL SAFETY, ELECTRICAL SAFETY, FIRE
SAFETY, IJl,'FECTION CONTROL, INJURY PREYE:i'TI.ON AND OCCUPATIONALSAflITY) ON February 12, 2002 .
I RA TE Jerry Waszczuk 'S PERFORMANCE FOR nrrs REVIEW rERIOD AS (CHECK ONE):
( J UNSATISFACTORY• {OONSISI'ENTLY PERFORMED BELOW txPECTA UONS AND STM'DARDS.)

( ) lMPROYE.-.U:NT NEEDED" {EMPLOYEE OFTEN FAn.s TO MEET EXPECTATIONS AA'D STA.'IDAROS.)
( ) FULLY SATISFACTORY (CONSISTENTLY MET EXPECTATIONS AND STANDARDS.)
{ )VERY GOOD (OFTEN EXCEEpED EXPECTATIONS ANDSTAM>A.ROS.)
(X)O\ITSTANDl:NG {CONSISTENTLY EXCEEDED £XPECTATIONS AND STANDARDS.)
•MUST 6£ CLAIUflED 11" nm NARRATIVE.

{PLF.ASE SEE REVERSE SIDE)
DEF 1270
.- ·1
II. COM.PLETE THISSEcnONON,. ).OR E."ll'LOYF.F.'< "1.lTil RJ.:S'PONSUllLlTV i;oa._~~ PATIENT ASSMSl'>tEWI',
TREATMENT OR CARE.
FOR fflOSESTAf'f WHO ASSESS, TREAT,ORCARI!: FOP. THE FOLLOWING PATI£NT P()Plll',ATlO!<tl.C:, Pl..£A.SE
<.:&CK THE ACE GROUP(S) SERVED AND ADDRESS THE SVCCF.SS WITH WHJCl::l TRE lNDrvIDUAL PRODUCES
THE EXPECTED Rf.SUL TS OF CUNICAL tNTERVENTIONS.
11"/FA."ITS (O. 1: MONTHS)

CHlW~ CU MONTHS -15 \~ YEARS)
ADOLF..Sa:.'o"I'S (9 • 18 YEARS)
ADVLTS ( J8 YEARS • '4 \'£..\.RS)
GEJUATR.ICS (65 YEARS AND OLDER)
EVALtJA TION or THE-ABOVE RESPONSIBILITY:
•••••.. •.. ••••••.. ••• ..•••••••••••••o••••••••a.u .. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..••••••••• ..•..•••••.. •••••o•noooHoOHHOHoOO

m. DlSCUSSJON OF FUTUR£ C'..OAlS, EXPECTA.TI0:-1S A.'ID PERFORMANCE REVIEW CRITERIA:
Jerry Waszczuk will continue to assist the Central Plant management in refining the Central Plant maintenance
program, operational procedures and repair goals. He will continue to increase his operational knowledge of the
Central Plant e4uipment and systems and, enhance the operation of the Central Plant and Medical Center.
J JlA VE MET WITH 'IltE ABO D EMPLOYEE TO DlSct:SS fflS/HER PEJtFOR.'1ANCE DUJUNG THE PAST YEAR.
WEHAV TED PEilFORMA,"CE EXPECTATIONS ANO FER.FORMANCE REVIEW CRITERIA

FOR
£ -0 z....
DATE
DATE
EMPLOYEE'S COMMENTS {IF ANY):
~ , I d ) # < ,"t)
DEPARTMEh7 MANAGER
DEPARTMENT MA,.-.iAGER'S COMMErn-5 (IT ANY),
DEF 1271
EXHIBIT# 7
·,1•nuary M•Y □ Jyty O October 0
0 Revrew Cyele Ch&dc on,
2003
Year
WASZCZUK, JAROSlAW J PCN: 0001Z3l3 9900 • CentpltOpe

EmployM name Department
SR PPM 8172C $ 1909.60

Payroll Title ntle Coda Current S1..w&ekly Salary
Per,onnef Prt>gram: PPS 18! CUE O AFSCME O CNA 0 Pertel'ltage of appoin'lment 100
UPTE O other
H1009900
A.ocount Fund Sub
SUBJ 100007732
PPS Number ---------------
Thia employee has been supeni\sed by me, for the tun rttvieY/ poriod. Yes (81 No 0
!f the an$wer ii no, how long have yc,u aupervised thll employ•?
J. The followin11 narrative de$Cribes the empJoyee's overall job--related performance for this past review periOd. It is bas&d on shared
eii:pectatio,,s and establislied review criteria. It should ao'dri,ss quality of wori<, produdlvlty, dependability, Initiative and other ch■ramrl!ltic:s
thal inpac:t pem)m'lance. II includes a discussion of lhe empbyee'1 responsibUities for affirmative action and employee lleattt, and ea~, If
appropriate.
Jeny Was.iczuk.'1 over.ill perfonnanoe th!S reporting perlOd /'las been outstanding. Jerry i$ a w,ry knowl&dgea~ and effedive C&ntral Plant op&rator.
Jerry is very conseierrtlous and thorough in his operation and maintenanoe, perfOITTlanoe. Jerry reo;iularty assis~ the matntananco and instrument

technicians Wfth malrt'lat1anco and ropelri,. Jerry c:en be oountltd on lo make the right decision$ 11r>d lo keep rnanagi,,,,tmt inh>rnltld uf ttiv ,n;itu,. gf ltltt
plant and equipmer,t Jeny la e very veluable employee committod to t h e ~ of the Med~I Center.
This employee completed their anriual safety training (incluo'il"lg personal safety, electrieal safely, fire safety, infection control, lnjUry prevenliOn and
oc,;upallonal safely) on FebruaN 4 2003
D Unlatisfedocy'" {Con.si:sten:ly performed below e,:pectations and stand.aids.)

0 Improvement nee,je,j• (Employoe often fai~ to !Met eq>ec:talions and standar,;1$.)
0 F,dly S1114f11.eto~ (Gonslst.nlly met eiq)e(:lal:lon.s ano' stan<latd.s.J
0 Very Good {Often uO&eded e)(pedatioM and standards.)
[2] Outs.landing (Consist•nlly •~Cffded •i1pectation1 •nd atandarda.)
"Mu111 be cJarffled In nal"T8liVe
DEF 1268
}
II. Compiete' ltti, ~ion only for omployees with l'eSl)On$!bmty for human patient assessmeril tlllatmenl or care.
For those ,taff who a.ueas, treat, or care for 11\e following patient population&, please Cl'l&cll the a~ groUJ)(s) seNfld sn!I addrau the suCCMS;
with which tt'le illdiViclual prodllC6S th& expected resu!ts or c{i!\ieal intervenlion11..
8□ Infants (0-12 months)

Chiklren {12 months - 15 ½ y,ea!'ll)
Ado!Moentu (9·18 yool'l))
D Adulb (1!1 )IHB - 64 )IHI'$)
D Geriatrics (65 ye..ars and older)
E'.va!u.tkm or thtt 11ll<MJ r.spcns!blltry:
tit. Dilcus,ion of Future Goals. ExpectaUons and Perfonnaritb Rev~ Criteria:
.le"'i Waua.uk 'Mtt continue to assist t!\e Central Plant mana~ement in refining the Centre! Plant maintenance progcam, operalional procedures and
r&pair goals. He wm cooti/'lua to increase his ooenrtional k.nO\MedQtl of tho C<!l~l Plan! e,:iulpm•i,t ..,.,,:1 1yat•m•. and 1111hanoo tho oporalion QI th•
<:antral Plant and MedlC8! Cenler.

Supervisor
Employee le
Emp!oYff's comments (If any):
dd?z.a.~~r:::::=-----.:o~lf.;-"~22.7'--,A"'"'o3'-
=o.-.-.--~c"'=M"•"""'"•"c"",_,...~-
Department Manager's COfl"tM/lls {If any).
Rev. &/23101
DEF 1269
EXHIBIT# 8
_,, .. -... ,-- ................................... .
Waszczuk,Jaroslaw .J PCN"! 00012333 9900 -CantP1tOpc

Sr PPM ,a112c $ 1978.40 I
PAYROLL TITI.E TITI.E CODE CURRENT REGULAR SALARY STEP
.PERSONNEL PROGRAM: PSS PERCENTAGE OF APPOINTMENT 100 %
II / J..009900 / I SUBG 100007732

CHART ACCOUNT SUB-ACCT OBJECT EMPLOYEE NUMBER
11-IIS CMPLOYEC HAS BEEN SUPERVISED ev M~ ~OR THe ~uLL REVIEW PERzoo. (CIRCLE ONE) G NO
IF THE ANSWER IS NO, HOW LONG HAVE YOU SUPERVISED THIS EMPLOYEE._ _ _ _ _ _ __
I. ntE FOLLOWING NARRATIVE DESCRIBES THE EMPLOYEE'S OVERALL ,JOB-RELATED PERFORMANCE FOR THIS PAST REVIEW
PERIOD. tT IS BASED ON SHARED EXPECTATIONS AND ESTABLISHED REVIEW CRITERIA. IT SHOULD ADDRESS
QUALITY OF WORK, PRODUCTIVITY, DEPENDABILITY. INITIATtVE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS THAT IMPACT
PERFORMANCE. IT INCLUDES A DISaJSSION OF THE EMPLOYEE'S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ADHERING TO lliE CODE Of
CONDUCT ST/INDARDS,JF APPROPRIATE

SEE A'lTACHED
THIS EMPLOYEE COMPLETED THEIR ANNUAL SAFETY TRAINING (INeLUDING PtQSONAL SAFETY, ~LECTAICAL ,AFETY, FIRE
SAFETY, INFECTION CONTROL, INJURY PREVENTION ANO OCQJPATIONAL SAFETY) ON 1/27/04
I RATE Jaroslaw Waszczuk S PER.FORMA.NCE FOR THIS REVIEW PERIOD AS (CHECI< ONE):
)Does not aeet expectat tom; *

OOOMeets expectations
( )Exeeeds expectations
*"'-'ST SE CLARIFIED IN THE NARRATIVE.
(PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE)
DEF 1265
II. CCliPLCTE THI$ St:CTICJN 0NLT l"0k t:NPLOYl:C:S WlTH R&::SPONSIBILll"Y fUI< 11.1/IIAN 1-"ATit.Nl ASSl::SSMENT.
TREATMENT OR CARE.
FOR THOSE STAFF WHO ASSESS. TREAT, OR CARE FOR THE FOLLOWING PATIENT POPl.lLATtONS, PLEAS~
CHECK THE AGE GR0UP(S) SERVED AND ADDRESS THE SUCCESS WITH WHICH THE OIHVIDUAL PRODUCES
THE EXPECTED RESULTS OF CLINICAL INTERVENTIONS.
INFANTS (0-12 MONTHS)
CHILDREN ( 12 MONTHS - 15 f /2 YEARS l
ADOLESCENTS (9 - 18 YEARS)
ADULTS (18 YEARS - 64 YEARS)
_ GERIATRICS (65 YEARS AND OLDER)
EVALUATION OF THE ABOVE RESPONSIBILITY:
III. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE GOALS, EXPECTATIONS ANO PERFORMANCE REVIEW CRITERIA:
Jerry Waszczuk will continue to assist the Central Plant management in refining the Central
Plant's maintenance program, operational procedures and repair goals, He will continue co
increase his operational knowledge of the Central Plant equipment and systems and,
Gnhancc the. operation of the C1.:11tn1l Plant and Medical Cencer.

······································•*••······················································
.l HAVE MET WITH THE ABOVE NOTED EMPL0VEE TO DISCJSS HIS/HER PERFORMANCE DURING THE PAST VEAR.
WE HAVE DISaJSSED, POSITION-RELATED PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW CRITERIA
SUl'f:RVISO DAU
1-.2.(-0
EMPLOYEE DATt:
1
E~LO'iEE S CONMENTS (IF ANY):
DEPARTMENT NANAGER
DEPARTMENT MANAGER'S CO,_.ENTS (JF ANY):
DEF 1266
Jaroslaw Waszczuk evaluation 7-14-04
Jeny is a very knowledgeable and effective Central Plant operator. Jerry is very conscientious and thorough
in his operation and maintenance performance. He assists the maintenance and instrument technicians with
maintenance and repairs as directed. He can be counted on to make the right decisions and to keep
management informed of the status of the plant and equipment. Jerry is a valuable employee committed to
the success of the Medical Cen1er.
DEF 1267
EXHIBIT# 9
) EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPOR'
waszczuk,Jaroslaw J PCN: □ 0012333 9900 -centPl tape

Sr PPM p112c 2057.60
I
PAYROLL TITLE TITLE CODE CURRENT REGULAR SALARY STEP
PERstHIEL PROGRAM: PSS PERCENTAGE or APPOINTMENT 100 %
H 1009900 SUBG 100007732

I I I
THIS EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN SUPERVISED BY ME FOR THE FULL REVIEW PERIOD. (CIRCLE ONE) 9 N)
If THE ANSWER ts NO, HOW LONG HAVE YOU SUPfRVISEO THIS EMPLOYEE, _ _ _ _ _ __
I. THE FOLLOWING NARRATIVE DESCRIBES THE EMPLOYEE'S OVERALL uOB-RELATED PERFORMANCE FOR THIS PAST REVIEW
PERIOD. IT lS DA.SC0 ON SHARED EAPECTATlONS AND ESTABLISHED REVIEW CRITERIA. IT SHOULD ADDRESS
QUAUTY OF WORK, PRODUCTIVITY, D£PENOABILITY, INITIATIVE AND OTHER CHARACTER'.ISTICS THAT lMPACT
PERFORMANCE. IT INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF THE EMPLOYEE'S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ADHERING TO THE CODE OF

CONDUCT STANDARDS, IF APPllOPIU.ATt; •
(SEE AirACHED)
THIS flllPLUYH COMPLETED THUR A)ff.JAL SAFETY TRAINING CINCLUDING PERSONAL SA:;r:i)_::rgrsRICAL SAFETY, FJRE
SAFET'f, INFECTION CONTROL, lNIJt.JRY PREVENTION AND OCCUPATlOMAL SAF'ETY) O N - - - - - - •
03380 Annual S£ty Test-Scantrcn
I ltATf --'J!.!•!!r:so"'sc,le,ao,w_w,,_a,.se,ze,c,cze,u,,k,__ _ _~s PERFORMANCE FOR THIS REVIEW PERIOD AS (CHECK ONE);
)ooes not 1111tat expect•ttans *

«:x )Meets expactatfons
( )Exceeds expaetattan~
•MUST BE CLARIFIED IN THE NARRATIVE.

DEF 1262
Jl, CONPLfTE THIS SECTION ONL'/ FOR EMPLOYEES WITH RESPONSJtllLITI FOR t-1.JMAN PATIENT ASSESSMENT,
TREATMENT OR CAA:E.
fOR THOSE STAFF WHO ASSESS, TREAT, OR CARE FCIR THE FOLLOWING. PATIENT POPUL ..TIONS, PL!Eill!:
CHECK THE AGE GROUP(S) SEtl:VED ANO ADDRESS THE SUCCESS WITH wt-lIOi THE INDIVIDUAL PR00UC£S
TltE El<PECTED RESULTS OF CLINICAL INTERVENTIONS.
_ INFANTS {0-12 WINTWS)
_ _ CHILDREN ( 12 W>NTH$ - 15 1/:l \'EARS)
_ ADOLESCENTS (8 - 18 YEARS)
_ _ ADULTS ( 18 YEARS - BC YEARS)
_ GERIATRICS (85 YEARS Pl«J OLDER)
EVAI.UATIDN OF THE ABOVE RESPONSlBJLITV:
Ill. DJSQJSSJON OF FUTURE GOALS, EXPECTATIONS AND PERFORMANCE ll:EV?EW Cltl'TERIA:
Jaroslav Wazczuk will continue to assist central plant management in refining the
maintenance program, operational procedures and repair goals. He will continue to
increase hi~ operatioua.l knowledge o! central plant and the medical center .

.•.•..•.................................. , ....................................................•.
J HAVE MET WITH THE ABOVE NOTED EMPLOYEE TD DISCUSS HlS/HER PERFORMANCE DURING THE PAST VEAR -
WE HAVE D!SCUSSEO, POSITION-RELATED PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW CRITERIA
FOR NEXT YEAR.
SIGNATURES:
SUPERVISOR DATE
DATE
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE'S COMMEKTS (If' Pl('():
/}JaJL..a4'------------lj?f-51/~~(.os-~
D£PAATMEHT N.ANAOER
DEPARTMENT MANAGER'S COIIIIIENTS f If Nf'I):
DEF 1263
Jaroslaw Was2c2uk 100007732 EYaluation for Octobtr 2005
Jerry is a very knowledgeable and effective central plant operator. He is very thorough in his
operation and maintenance performance. Jerry regularly assists the maintenance and instrument
technicians with maintenance and repairs as assigned. He can be trusted to make the right
decisions and keep management informed of the status of the plant. Jerry is a valuable employee
committed to the success of the central plant and the merlical center.
DEF 1264
EXHIBIT# 10
) EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPOR"
REVI£W CYCL£; OCTOBER 2006
Waszczuk,Jaroslaw J PCN; 00012333 9900 -centPltOpe

EMPLOYEE NAME
CoGen aper
PAYROLL TITLE
fJ094
TITLE CODE
____________
DEPARTMENT
._2262.40
CURRENT REGULAR SALARY
/ 03
STEP
PERSO...iEL PROGRAM: PSS PERCENTAGE OF APPOil'ITMENT 100 I
H 1009900 SUBG 100007732

I I I
THIS EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN SUPERVISED BY ME FOR TME FULL REVIEW PERIOD. (CIRCLE ONE) ~ NO
IF THE ANSWER I$ NO, HOW LONQ HAVE YOU SUPERVISED THIS EMPLOYEE _ _ _ _ _ __
1. THE FOLLOVIHQ twlRATJVf OESCRIBfS THE EMPLOYEE'S OVERALL JOB-RELATED PERFORMANCE FOR THIS PAST REVIEW
~ERIOD. IT JS DASEP ON SHARED EXPECTATIONS AND ESTABLISHED REVIEW CRITERIA. IT SHOULD ADDRESS
QUALITY OF WOAK, PRODUCTIVITY, DEPENDABILITY, INITIATIVE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS THAT IMPACT
PERPOltMAHCf. IT INCLUDES A DISOJSSIDN Of THE EMPLOYEE'S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ADHEAINQ TO THE CODE OF

CONDUCT STANDAR0S,IF APPROPRIATE
Please see attached.
THIS EMPLOYEE COMPLETED THEIR AANJAL SAFETY TRAININCI (INCLUDING PERSONAL SAFETY, ELECTRICAL SAFETY, fJRE
SAFETY, INFECTION CONTROL, IN.JURY PREVENTION AND OCQJPATIONAL SAFETY) ON Ol B:2 JOOS... ""2. / /
03380 Annual Sfty Test-Scantron 'Ff.3 r jDI..
1 RATE Jarosl.Rw W'aszczuk S PERFORMANCE FOR 1'1US REVIEW PERIOD AS {CHECK ONE):
)Does not meet expectations •

( X )Meets exp.etat1ons
C )Exceltds eicpet:t•tlons
*141.JST BE CLARIFIED IN THE NARRATIVE,

DEF 1259
JI.
.
COMPLETE THJS SECTION DNL'I FOR EMPLOYEES WITH RUPONSIBILITY FOR tlJMAN PATIENT ASSESSMENT,
TREATMENT Oft CARE.
FOR THOSE STAFF Wl-"D ASSESS, TR£AT, OQ CARE FOR TH£ FOLi.OWING P~TUKT F'Ol'ULATlONS, P'Ll!:ASI!
atECK THE AGE GROUP(S) SERVEO AND ADDRESS THE SUCCESS Wllli WHICH TiiE INDIVIDUAL PROOOCES
THE EXPECTED RESULTS OF CLINICAL INTERVENTIONS.
_ INFANTS (0-12 M0NTH$)
_ OtILDREN (12 MONTHS - 15 1/2 YEARS)
_ ADOLESCENTS (9 - 18 VEARS)
_ _ ADULTS (18 YEARS - 84 VCARS)
_ GERIATRICS (BG YEARS ANO OLDER)
EVALUATION OF TH.E A80VE RESPONSIBILITY:
Ilt, DlSOJSSION OF FUTURE GOALS, EXPECTATIONS AHO PERFORMANCE REVIEW CRITERIA:

I HAVE 14ET WITH THE ABOVE NOTED EMPLOYEE TO DISCUSS HIS/HER PERFORMANCE DURING THE PAST YEAR.
WE HAVE DISCUSSED, POSITION~RELATEO PER~ORMANCE EXPECTATIONS AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW CRITERIA
DATE
EMPi,.QYEE'S COt4ilENTS (IF ANY):
OEPARTNENT MANAGER DATE
DEPARTNENT MANAGER'S C:OMMENTS: (XF AAY),
DEF 1260
EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT
Review Cycle: October 2006
JAROSLA W WASZCZUK
PCN 00012333
Employt:t: Number 100007732
Jerry is a very knowledgeable and effective Central Plant operator. He is very thorough in
his operation and maintenance performance. Jerry regularly assists the maintenance and
instrument technicians with maintenance and repairs as assigned. He can be trusted to
make the right decisions and keep management informed of the status of the plant. Jerry
is a valuable employee committed to the success of the Central Plant and the Medical
Center.
Jerry's perfonnance meets expectations.
GOAL
Jaroslaw Waszczuk will continue to assist Central Plant management in refining the

maintenance program, operational proccduri:s aud n:pair goals. He wiU continue to
increase his operational knowledge of Central Plant and the Medical Center.
DEF 1261
t:lvtt'LV I t:t: NAIYllt: Ul:l-'AH I Mt:N I
CoGen Oper !3094 $ 2342.40 /_ 04
PAYROLL TITI-E TITLE CODE CURRENT REGULAR SALARY STEP
PERSONNEL PROGRAM: PSS PERCENTAGE OF APPOINTMEITT' l.00 %
H / 1009900 / / SUBG 100007732

CHART
nus
ACCOUNT SUB-ACCT
EMPLOYEE HAS IEEN SUPERVISED av '"

OBJECT EMPLOYEE NUMBER
FDR THE FULL REVIEW PERIOD,
IF THE ANSWER IS NO, HOW LONG HAVE YOU SUPERVISED THIS EMPLOYEE_ _ _ _ _ __
(CIRCLE IJ<El b Ntl
. .
I. THE FOLLOWING NARRATIVE DESCRIBES TI-iE EMPLOYEE'S OVERALL uOB-RELATED PERFORMANCE FOR THJS·PAST ~EVIEW
PERIOD. IT IS BASED ON SHARED EXPECTATIONS AND ESTABL!SHED REVIEW CRITERIA. IT SHOOLD ADDRESS
QUALITY OF WORK, PROOOCTIVITT, DEPENDABILITY, INITIATIVE ANO OTHER CHARACTERISTICS THAT IMPACT
PERrORMANCE. IT INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF THE EMJ>LOYEE ' S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR AIJ-IERINCi TC THE CODE OF
CONDUCT STANDARDS: If APPROPRIATE .
During the past review cycle Jaroslaw Waszczuk worked for two differen_t wtits in Plant
Operations & Maintenance. Prior to April 23, 2007 he was assigned to Central Plant and worked
for Superin:end~nts Tom Kavanaugh and Steve McGrath. Beginning April 23, 2007 he was
assigned to the HV AC/Plumoing unit and works for Senior Development Engineer/Supervisor
Patrick Putney. This evaluation is a cumulative review of his performance by these three
supervisors
by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Please see attachment.
THIS EMPLOYEE COMPLETED TiiEIR ANNUAL SAFETY TRAINING ( IN:WDING PERSONAL SAFETY, ELECTRICAL S~ETY• fIRE .
SAFETY , INFECTION CONTROL', INJURY PREVENTION AND OCQJPATIONAL SAFETY') DN
03380 Annual Sfty Test-Scant~on ·
67
OJ r?OAli . ~00 "II I,,,. I
CJ
m
Tl
_,.
I RATE ..::r1i~O~Ll\"'-1 Wt\S'ZC..2-Vl°::>. s PERFORMANCE FOR THIS REVIEW PERIOD . AS (CHECK ONE):
N
(Jl
m
( )Does . not meet expectattons •
~ e t s expectat tons
INFAKTS (0-12 "10NTHS)
CHILDREN (12 MONTHS - 15 1/2 YEARS)
ADOLESCEIITS (9 • 18 YEARS)
ADULTS (18 YEARS - 64 YEARS)
_ _ GERIATRICS (65 YEARS NO OLDER)
EVALUATION bF THE ABOVE RESPO~SIBILITY:
•••••••••••*********'***********•••••*****•**••*•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••****'******a
III. DISOJSSION OF FUTURE GOALS, EXPECTATIONS ANO PERFOR.IIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA:
I would fue Jerry to attend Metasys training.
···········~·-·························*•·············································•*****•*•'
I HAVE MET WITH THE ABOVE NOTED EMPLOYEE TO DISCUSS . HIS/HER PERFORMANCE OORING THE PAST YEAR.
WE HAVE DISCUSSED. POSITION-RELATED PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS AND PERFORMANCE REV[EW CRITERIA
FOR NEXT YEAR.
by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

EMPLOYEE DATE
EMPLOYEE'S COJ,!MENTS (IF IWY):
[lf-N IC ·-o , H- E
IJ,L <j) L lt-1-..-1 A- (:-- i f-J(?_ FE"J "1otvTH
(> £:. INVO l-b<NTl'f-lL 'LY Ex, Lf T
0
m
04if MG
DEPART)ENT MAW.GER
7-Z.S-O]
DATE
'Tl
......
N
u,
---1
DEPARlMENT MANAGER'S COMMENTS ( IF ANY);
EXHIBIT# 11
EXHIBIT# 12
Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk
Central Plant Operator
UCDMC-HVAC
PO&M Dept.
Phone: 734-8015
July 26, 2008
Charles Witcher
PO&M Department Manager
UCDMC -Sacramento
RE: Comments to my Employee Performance Report signed by Charles Witcher on July

2:;;·2oos· ··· ·
Dear Mr. Witcher,

According to the UC PPSM 23 -Perfonnance Appraisal and UCD Procedure 23.1-Apraisal
Of Carrier /Regular Status Employees, Thave the right as an UCDMC employee to write a

comment about my Annual Performance Report and my comments shall be attached to the
Report.
Dy utilizing the o.bove mentioned UCD policy, I am providing my comments below imd I
am requesting to attach this letter to the 2008 Perfonnance Report.
When I was working in the Central Plant, the employee evaluation procedure was a little
different than it is in HVAC Shop, where I am working now.
As I recall, every year since 1990, my direct Manager or Supervisor in the Central Plant
discussed with me my job performance and goals. Thereafter, at the end of the evaluation
meeting, my ::;upervisor and I signed the Performance Kepon and a few days lat~r I received a
copy of my Annual Performance Report dated and signed by PO&M Manager.
I believe that such procedure was consistent with UCD Procedure 23.1 e, f ,g (below)
e. The supervisor drafts the appraisal and discusses iJ with the empUJyee.
J. The supervisorfinalizes the appraisal, gets the employee's signature (and comnumts, if
any). A copy ofthe Summary ofAccomplishments and the employee's comments are
attach,d to the appraisal.
g. The department head signs the appraisal The original is sent immediately to Human
Resources to be placed in the employee's personnelfile. A copy is routed to the employee
and one copy is placed in the employu 's tlq,artment personnel file.
As I stated previously, I have observed that this year's employee evaluation procedure has not
been consistent with UCD PROCRDURE 23.1 f.
I believe that it was Friday July 21, 2008 when I discussed my joh performance with my
direct supervisor, Dorin Daniliuc. At the end of my short meeting with Dorin, he provided me
2008 Employee Performance Review 1

DEF 1251
- - - - -- - - - ----- -------·
with a copy of the document that he generated in regards to my job performance. As I remember,
I asked him to specify the exact period of time I have been working in the HVAC Shop because
the document that he gave me on]y stated that I ::im working in HVAC Shop for several months.
Beside the above, I was very pleased with Dorin Daniliuc and Patrick Putney1s appreciation
for my work.
"Jerry Waszczuk
Jerry has been a very valuable member ofour staff Jerry has been assigned the task of
monitoring Metasys alarm during the day shiftfor the last several months. J/is
pe,formance has been ex.cellent and there have not been any problems with missed
alarms during his shift ·
.Terry u·taJentt!d., precise and his-dailypaper-work-is-~ellenL Jer,:y..communicat.es v.~zy

well and always passes on information from his shift, let1Ying detailed messages with the
central plant operators.
Jerry was very instrumental in the setup ofthe computer and office area for the
building auiomation monitoring. lie has shown a strong knowledge of computer

software and hardware. He has been able to solve many computer problems and
install software programs when needed.
His overall job performance is outstanding. He is always willing to accept extra work and is
very dependable.
Future goals:
I would like Jerry to attend Metasys training."
On July 25, 2008 my Manager, Patrick Putney, called me into his office and handed to me my
Employee Performance Report for review and signature. This report was only signed by POM
Manager Charles Witcher and dated July 23, 2008. Patrick also provided me with similar
documents thnt I received a week ago from Dorin Daniliuc.
Jerry has been a valuable member ofour staff. Jerry has been assigned the task of
monitoring Metasys alarm during the day shift/or the last several months, and there have
been no problems with missed alarms during his shifl
He has shown a strong knowledge ofcomputer software and hardware. Jerry has been able to
solve many computer problems, install software programs when needed, and was active in the
setup ofthe computer and office area/or the building automation monitoring. lie is al.so
p,oviding computer .~uppnrtfor the PM and HVAC shops personnel
Jerry effectively prepares daily paperwork, passes on information from his shift, and leaves
detailed messages with the next .\:hift personnel He is willing to accept extra work and is
dependable.

DEF 1252
Since being reassigned to our unit in the spring of2007, Jerry has improved
!tis communication skills and interactiom; with co-workers.
Jerry's overall job performance is Meets Expectations. Thank you for

your contributions this past year.
Future Goals: Jerry is encouraged to sustain his improvements in

communications on the job and maintain positive interactions with co-workers.
Also, I would like Jerry lo a/tend Metasys training.
After I read the above pasted docwnent. I told Patrick Putney that I won't sign my
Employee Performance· Report oecauseilie-ruuratiVe ·aocumehts contains the statement·which·
indicated that I had communication and interaction problems with co-workers prior to the spring
of 2007 under his and Dorin Daniliuc supervision, even though I did not work in the HVAC
Shop prior to the spring 2007 Dorin and Patrick were not my supervisors.

In response, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc told me that they are not responsible for
these statements and they did not alter or have any intention to alter the previous statement I
received last week
Further more, Patrick Put:l;ley has informed me that he received the altered document from
PO&M Manager Charles Witcher. In such circumstances I asked Patrick to provide me with a
copy of the whole Performance Report Package because I would like to add to my comments and
I will sign the evaluation on Monday morning (July 28, 2008). Patrick agreed and gave me a
copy.
I see nothing wrong with the Department Head adding his comment or his suggestions to
the employee Performance Report ifhe has reason to do so. The Performance Report form bas
the space for Department Manager's Comments and I believe th.at the Manager has the right to
have the last word on an employee evaluation after his discussion with the employee's direct
supervisors.
However, it is my understanding from whole situation that Department Manager Mr.
Charles Witcher altered Dorin's Daniliuc's evaluation narrative document by inserting
statements that do not belong to Dorin Daniliuc or to Patrick Putney.
The UCD PROCRDURE 23.1 g states:
g. The department head signs the appraisal The original is sent immediately to Human
Resources to be placed in the employee's personnelfile. A copy is routed to the employee
and one copy is placed in the employee's department personnelfile.

DEF 1253
It appears that there is a reason in this policy that after the Department Head signs the
appraisal, the original is sent immediately to Human Resources jnstead of to the employees
direct supervisor/manager and tn the employee for their s ignature. This is my 11nderstJ1nciing from
the above Policy that the Department Head should sign Employee Performance as the last person
(If I am wrong, please advise).
My major concern about this Performance Report is the alternation of another person's
document with contradictory and very suggestive statements that Jerry Waszc~ prior the
spring of 2007, was an evil person and had a major problem to communicate with his coworkers
under the supervision of Patrick Putney and Dorin Dauiliuc.
It is not to difficult to conclude that Mr. Charles Witcher, in his suggestive statement, makes
reference to the orchestrated assault on Waszczuk in 2006/2007 by him and the Labor Relation
Manager Mike Sheesley. (Thank God he is gone). If the Waszczuk's case would be handled by a
court of law instead of an UC arbitrator than alteration of documents with the evil and malice
intention would be prosecuted under Penal Code 132 which states:
Every person who upon any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or

investigation whatever, authorized or permitted by law, offers in
evidence, as genuine or true, any book, paper, document, record, or
other instrument in writing, knowing the same to have been forged or
fraudulently altered or ante-dated, is guilty offelony.

In addition to the above, I would like to mention the two complaints filed against
Waszczuk with the Mr. Witcher's and HR Office on March 14, 2008 by two individuals from
the Central Plant.
In these complaints Waszczuk was accused of committing more serious crimes than
alleged improper interaction or communication with coworkers.
Somehow, Mr. Witcher and former Labor Relation Manager Mr. Sheesley (Thank God
he is gone) forgot to provide information to Waszczuk about these complaints as usual.
One of the complainer/accuser has concluded his complaint with the following words:
" I am convince.i that Jerry and William have committed conspiracies on their bosses and
coworkers and I also believe they will continue this in the work are to try and get us all to
either leave for a new job or quit ..
Al the above is true "
The whole complaint sounds like a recorded or eaves dropping of my phone conversation
with William Buckans on February 1, 2008 regarding the meeting I had with Charles Witcher on
this day (PENAL CODE SECTION 630-638) or the complainer/accuser broke into Waszczuk e~mail.
It makes me wonder if the accuser from the Central Plant got a good evaluation for his
effort.
Hypothetically and by taking into consideration the above mentioned complaint, the
Waszczuk's interaction with his coworkers in the Central Plant does not sound good as stated in
the narrative evaluation document

DEF 1254
In conclusion, If Mr. Witcher will not discontinue his "get him" attitude toward Jerry, I
have nothing left but only to apologize to Mr. Witcher that 1 was born in Poland and I am Polish.
I hope Mr. Witcher wi11 accept the offered apology and stop his unwarranted aggression toward
Jerry
CC: Patrick Putney

Dorin Daniliuc
Stephen Chilcott - HR Labor Relation Interim Manager
Mike Garcia

DEF 1255
EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT -\
I
UVImf CTCI.ISl 0C'70Bmt zooe
Waszezuk,.l<!lroslaw J FOi: 00012333 9900 --centFl toPe

EMPLOYEE NAME DEPAR11\1ENT
CoGen Opor 2-137.tlO 05
PAYROI.L TITLE TITl.E CODE

"------~----'-
C\ffiRENT REGULAR SALARY STEP
....
PERCENTAGII! Of APPOJNlllfNT 100 I.
• I 1009900
I I
l.0000773Z
CHAAT ACCOUNT SUB-ACCT OBJECT EMPLOYS! NU\IBER

TICU !IIPLDYH HAS HEN SWERVISEII •v Ml!' FOR nm !'\JU. lil:£Vltv f'il!fUOO, (ClkCl..f: ONC)(9)NO
II' THI! ANSWl!R IS NJ, l-l>V L.DNll HA.VE YOU SUPERVUED MS ENPLOYE!,_ _ _ _ _ __
I, THE POLLDVINGI NARAATIV! De:SCRJBE5 THE ENPLOYE! 'S OVERALL JOI-RE~TED PERFORNNCE FOR THIS Pl.ST RM!II'
,.tll:DD. JT :rs IASl!D 0N SHARD> El<Pl!CTATlON5 AHO ESTAIILU,HED RMR' CRITERIA. n
stt:U,,CI ADIR!SS
QUALITY o,WORK, PltOCUCTIVITV, DEPDIJMIUTI, lNITlATIV? NfD 0ffll!Jl ~ERJSTICS TttAT llPACT
Pl!R10fitltANCI. IT JNCUID"IS A OJSCUSSl:ON or THE ENPLOYEE'I Rl:Sf'ONSJHUTZU rOfl ADtDJHCI TD nc GOPr: o,
C0Nl1JCT STANJARDS,IP APPROPRIAT! •

See attached
nus hflLOYt:I ct>NPLETl!D n-lEIR ANI.IAL SAFETY TRAJN[NQ (1'N:U.IDtNII PEllSONAL $ ....CTY "'1 ..~~CAL SAFET'I'. f'tlU!'
~fir 'Jl'if°5ffl!(,"!ll3:'l".,'-<i ,,_,.,.y PREVENTION,,., DCCIIPATIOIW. SAl'ETYJ DH 5/19/2008 •
J RATE __;J~•~r~0=•=l=aw:::..=w=..=•=c=""==•:.. ____s POl'OftMANCC r01\ THU REYU;W PfKIOU A$- (DU;Q. tJN!;):
)0... not - t e,q,ectattans •

( :ic) . . . ts ~ • U o n s
( ) ~ ~tatfons:
__,ST 81! CLMIFI!D IN TME NARRATIVE,
(PLEA.SE SEE RMRSE SIDI!)
DEF 1248
11. Compl.ele this section Oflly for Individuals wlh responsJbfllty for humAl'J potJent ~trc8bnent or ._.u,.
Pleas& ctJeCk tne age group(s) S&JVed ,tf 1he lfldMduaf has the responslbility to 8.!SeSS, treat, or cara tor patient populettons.
_ Infants (0 - 12 month&) _ Children (12 montt\S- 15½ yea~) _ AOOl&SCttnts (9-18 ye!ll'S)
- AduJts (18-64 years) - GGrlattics (65 years and olde~
Pl~ addrc:5:S the sua::ess With Wlllcn me lru:Uvk:lual pl'tlduces the expected resuJts of cBnloel Interventions.
Does this employee ensure tllat_patfents r&eelve effecUve, understand~, and_ respectful can, that ts provided in a manner
eornpatiblewihthefrcultvral health bellefs, pract>cos, -11nd pntrentKJ C.tnguage7
Yes_ No CommOflb: IllIf
!Ir. For tNs employee to strtve for excellence, I would recommend fOOJSlng on tho l'olk:PMng:
watt Performance Attendance/Punetuallly - Pllld\lCIMIY Customer Servlee
Time Management lrwtJBtlve _ Mftetfng Goal& _ 0th«:,_ _ _ __
/1114-
V. Discussion of future goals, expedtUoos, and performance revl~ criteria:

have met ¥!NI a,e above noted emplOyee lo dlscuss his/her perfonnance du,tig lhb past year. we have diswSSed
JOSttioMelated pesto~ · and partormance revlaw'c:rileria for the next year.
SIGNATURES (\ /4
7/g,1/n
Emplo,-. Dale/ I
Employee's comments ('If any):

f'L €-lrJ E s E: € f.7\J CL-OJ t'\.J ~ F fH; E-.!
)epartmeri Manager
Department Manager's comments fff any)
DEF 1249
Jerry Waszczuk
Jerry has been a very vnluable member of our staff. Jerry hilS been assigned the task
of monitoring Metasys alarm during the day shift for the last several months. His
performance has been excellent and there have not been any problems with missed
alarms during his shift
Jerry is talented, precise and his daily paper work is excellent. Jerry communicates
very well and always passes on information from h.is shift, leaving detailed messages
with the central plant operators.
Jerry was very instrumental in the setup of the computer and office area for the
building automation monitoring. He has shown a strong knowledge of computer
software and hardware. He ha.ll been able to solve many computer problems and
install software programs when needed.
His: overall job performance is outstanding. He is always willing to accept extra work
and is very dependable.

Future goals:
I would like Jerry to attend Metasys training.
DEF 1250
EXHIBIT# 13
•) EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPOR, )
Waszczuk,Jaroslaw J PCN: 00012333 9817 -PO&M

AsocDevEng t7102 i 2681.99
I
PAYROLL TITLE TITLE CODE CURRENT REGULAR SALARY STEP
PSS'
PERSONlilEL PROGRAM: PERCENTAGE OF APPOINTMENT 100 ~
H 1009817 SUBG 100007732

I I I
THIS EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN SUPERVISED BY NE FOR THE FULL REVIEW PERIOD. (CIRCLE ONE)@ NO
If THE ANSWER IS NO , HOW LONG HAVE YOU SUPERVISED THIS EMPLOYEE_ _ _ _ _ __
I. THE FOLLOWING NARRATIVE DESCRIBES THE EMPLOYEE 'S OVERALL JOB-RELATED PERFORMANCE FOR THIS PAST REVIEW
PERIOD. IT IS BASED ON ·SHARED EXPECTATIONS AND ESTABLISHED REVIEW CRITERIA. IT SHOULD ADDRESS
QUALITY OF WORK , PRODUCTIVITY , DEPENDABILITY, INITIATIVE N«J OTHER OIARACTERISTICS THAT IMPACT
. PERFORMANCE . IT INCLUDES_A DISaJSSIDN OF THE EMPLOYEE 'S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ADHERING TO THE CODE OF
CONDUCT STANDARDS .If APPROPRIATE .

Jerry has been a very valuable member of our staff. Jerry bas been assigned the task of monitoring Metasys a Jann
during the day shift for the last 2.5 years. His performance has been excellent and there have not been any problems
with missed alanns during his shift.
Jerry is talented, precise and his daily paper work is excellent. Jerry communicates very well and always passes on
information from his shift, leaving detailed messages with the next shift personnel. He is providing computer support
for the PM and HYAC shops personnel.
Jerry is very instrumental in maintaining ofthe office computers and Metasys Server for the building automation
monitoring. He has shown a strong knowledge of computer software and hardware. He has been able to solve many
computer problems and install software programs when needed.
Jerry is also helping with closing work orders and maintaining the Work Order System back log.
His overall job perfonnance is outstanding. He is always willing to accept extra work and is very dependable.
THIS EMPLOYEE CCIFLETED THEIR NNJAL SAFETY TRAINING ( INCLUDING PERSONAL SAS~!l'S-~S~RICAL SAFETY . FIRE
s~l!I!r WA,~b~ CS~'ionLe INJURY PREVENTION AND OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY> ON _ _ _ _ _ •
J..
I RATE _ _ u.,.k______s PERFORMANCE FOR THIS REVIEW PERIOD AS (CHEQ< ONE):
ar,._o..,s..,l.,.aw....__.V..,.a..,s..,.zQ!c..,z...
( )Does not Meet expectations•

( )Meets expectations
(:z: )Exceeds expectations
*MUST BE CLARIFIED IN THE NARRATIVE .
DEF 1245
II. Complete this section only for indlviduf..1 ith responsibility for human patient asse!. } ent,treatment or care.
Please check the age group(s) served ,if the individual has the responsibility to assess, treat, or care for patient populatlons.
_ Infants (0 - 12 months) Children (12 months - 15½ years) Adolescents (9 - 18 years)
- Adults (18 - 64 years) Geriatrics (65 years and ol_

der)
Please address the success with which the individual produces the expected results of clinical interventions.
Bot: applicable
Does this employee ensure that patients receive effective, understandable, and respectful care that is provided in a manner
compatible with their cultural health beliefs, practices, and preferred language?
Yes__ No__ Comments: Not applicable
>111. For this employee to strive for excellence, I would recommend focusing on the following:
Wor1( Perfonnance Attendance/Punctuality Productivity Customer Service
Time Management Initiative l Meeting Goals _ Other:._ _ _ __

IV. Discussion of future goals, expectations, and perfonnance review criteria:
Jerry would like to attend more Metasys training:
I have met with the above noted employee to discuss his/her perfonnance during this past year. We have discussed
position-related performance expectations and performance review criteria for the next year.
Date
Date
Employee's comments (if any):
Department Manager Date

Department Manager's comments (if any)
EXHIBIT# 14
f PLOYEE PEP.FORMANCE REPORT
RCYICW CYCLE, OCTOOCn 20~0
waszczuk,Jaroslaw J PCN: 00012333 9817 -PO&M

__A_s_o_c_D_ev_E_n~g_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ / 7182 $ 2681.99 /
PAYROLL TITLE TITLE COOE
":-=-'-::'="-==::----:----,-,-----
CURRENT REGULAR SALARY STEP
PERSDNIIEL PROGRAM; PSS PERCENTAGE OF APPOINTMENT --1.Q.Q%
H / 1009817 / I SUBG 100007732

THIS EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN SUPERVISED BY ME FOR THE FULL REVIEW PERIOO. (CIRCLE ONE)~ NO
IF THE ANSWER IS NO, H:IW LONG HAVE YOU SUPERVISED THIS EJo!PLOYEE, _ _ _ _ _ _ __
I. TH[ FOL.LOWING NARRATIVE DESCRIBES THE EMPLOYEE'S OVERALL '-'OB-RELATED PERFORMANCE FOR THIS PAST REVIEW
PERIOD. IT IS BASED ON SHARED EXPECTATIONS ANO ESTABLISHED REVIEW CRITERIA. IT SHOULD ADDRESS
QUALlTY OF WQR)(, PRODUCTIVITY, DfPENOABJLHY, lNITlATlVf; ANIJ OT11£~ CHARA.CTflUSTlC:S THAT lMPACT
PERFORMI\NCE. IT INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF THE EMPLOYEE'S RESPoNSIBILlTIES FOR ADHERING TO THE CODE OF
CONDUCT STANDARDS,AffIRNATIVE ACTION AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAfETY,tr APPROPRIATE.

See attached
SAFETY , fJ RE
ANNJAL SAFETY TRAINING (INCLUDING PERSONAL SAFETY, ELECTRICAL
THIS EMPLOYEE COMPLETED THEIR PREVENTION ANO OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY I ON 4
02 2 -ZOlO.
SAFETY, INFECTION CONTROL, IN,JURY
06445 MAT 2010 Online
)Does nClt ineet el<pec1;.,tions *

{ }Meets e)l(peetattons
( X )Exceeds expectattons
•MUST BE CLARIFIED IN THE NARRATIVE.

OEF 1242
IL Complete this section only for individ1, )with responsibility for human patient as.s fTient,treatment or care.
Please check. the age group(s} served ,if the lndividual has the responsibility to assess, treat, or care for patient populations.
_ Infants (0 - 12 months) Children (11 mon1hs- 15½ yF!~r"-) Arlo!P.sr:entc: (9- 18 yea,s)
- Adulls (18 . 64 years) GeMalrics (65 years and older) Not applicable
f-'lease address !M success w,th whicn tne Individua! produces tile expecied results or chnica! Interventions.
Does ttiis employee ensure that patients receive effective, understandable, and respectful care that is provided in a manner
compa1ible with their cultural health beliefs, practices, and preferred language?
Yes No Comments: Rot applicable
Iii. For this employee lo strive for excellence, t would recommend focusing on !he following
Work Performance Attendance/Punctuality ProductiVily Customer Service
Time Management lnitia1ive x Meeting Goals Other:. _ _ _ _ __

IV. Discussion or rulure goals, expectations, and performance review crileria:
See attached
I have me! willl the above noted employee to discuss his/her pertormance during this past year. We have discussed
position-relaled perlormance expectations and pertormancc review cnteria for the next year.
Date ~-
Dafe
Employ
Employee's comments (if any):
oa1e
Department Manager
Department Manager's commenls (if any)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - D E F 1243
Jerry Wa:.zt:L.uk
Jerry has been a very valuable member of our staff. He has been assjgned the task of
monitoring Metasys System alanns during the day shift for the last 3 years. His
performance ha:s been excellent and there have not been any problems with missed
alarms during his shift.
Jerry is talented, precise und his daily paper work is excellent. Jerry communicates
very well and always passes on information from his shift, leaving detailed mes.,;;age~
with the next shift personnel. Jerry is helping ,vith managing the work order system in
the Plumbing/ HV AC Shop. He is also providing computer support for the PM and
HV A('. shops personnel Jerry has been very helpful this year providing BMS
transaction infonna1ion to senior staff during incident mvestigation.
Jerry is very instrumental in monitoring the alarm/ status of critical equi11ment and
maintaining documentation for the building automation monitoring. He has shown a
strong knowledge of computer software and hardware. He has been able to solve
many comimtcr prubk1m, and install sofrware programs when needed.
His overall job performance is outstanding. He is always willing to accept extra work

and is very dependable.
Jerry's performance this year has exceeded my expectations.
Future goals:
I would like Jerry to attend Mctasys training.
(le, ~~ve,.> L,
J-17~ .2xinz
~~J
;,#-
DEF 1244
EXHIBIT# 15
Porter Scott - News Page 1 of 2
PORTER 5 C O TT
ATTORNEYS
350 University Ave., Suite 200

T: 916.929.1481 IF: 916.927.3706
Six Tips for Preparing Employee

Evaluations
by: Michael Pott and Katherine Mola
Employee performance evaluations are a

critical part of the employer-employee Michael w. Pott
relationship. Well-done evaluations provide Shareholder
guidance and feedback to employees to help mpott@porterscott.com
them develop and improve their skills. This, in

tum, benefits the organization. Performance
evaluations are also an important part of minim izing liability if an employment dispute
arises. If an employee challenges a disciplinary action or termination based on
performance problems, a fair and accurate evaluation can be a critical piece of evidence
in defending the case. Conversely, a poorly prepared evaluation can undermine the
employer's credibility before a judge or jury, or worse, provide the plaintiff-employee
with the evidence needed to prove their claim.
Here are six tips to follow when preparing employee petformance evaluations:
1. Be honest : Confronting struggling employees about their weaknesses can be

uncomfortable. However, honest feedback is a crucial component of the evaluation
process. Employees who do not know they are failing cannot improve. Moreover, a
string of positive performance reviews that are inconsistent with the given reason for
disciplining or terminating an employee can cast doubt upon the employer's credibility in
litigation. If you are professional and honest in communicating the need for
improvement, most employees will heed the advice even if they are initially upset.
2. Provide specifi c feedback and goals: When a supervisor simply tells an

employee to "keep up the good wor1<" and does not provide specific examples, both the
employee and the employer suffer. The employee misses an opportunity to internalize
the feedback and improve his or her job performance the following year. The employer
misses an opportunity to set specific goals for the employee that, if met, will help
achieve the organization's goals.
3. Evaluat e petformance for the e ntire review period: Many organizations have
an annual employee performance evaluation process. It can be challenging to remember
how an employee performed - well or poorly - more than a few months prior to the
evaluation. Thus, the supervisor may rate the employee based primarily on events that
took place close in time to the review, which may not be an accurate reflection of the
employee's overal l performance. The "recency effect" can be avoided by keeping notes
http://www.po1terscott.com/articles/takenote/94
Porter Scott - News Page 2 of 2
throughout the evaluation period about your employees' work and reviewing the
documentation when preparing the evaluation. These notes can also be used as
evidence of performance problems in the event of litigation.
4. Provide feedback year-round, not just at the review: An employee should

not learn about a performance problem for t he first t ime during t he performance
evaluation. If the supervisor ident ifies an area that needs improvement , the supervisor
should alert the employee as soon as possible so that the employee has an opportunity
to improve before t he formal evaluation. The supervisor should also provide regular
feedback on positive performance.
5 . Discuss the evaluation with the employee: The supervisor should go over the
performance evaluat ion with t he employee in detail so the employee can ask questions
and participate in the goal-setting process. This should occur before the employee is
asked to sign the evaluation. If lit igation occurs, this meeting will be critical for
establishing that t he employee was on notice of the performance problem .
6. Listen to the e mployee' s concerns about the review: Frequently, employees

disagree wit h the negative aspects of their evaluations. Consider including a space for
the employee to com ment on the review prior to signing it. Allowing the employee to
express his o r her point of v iew demonstrat es that the evaluation process is a t wo-way
street, and t hat the employer is willing to listen to the employee's point of view, whether
or not it u ltimately makes a difference in the ratings. The employer may learn new
information that could change the evaluation. If the employee refuses t o sign the
evaluation, the supervisor should make a not e for the fi le including the dat e the review

was provided and the employee's refusal to sign .
Developing a nd implementing a fair and reasonable performance evaluation process can

be overwhelm ing for employers and supervisors. Nevertheless, it is a critical process
that should be trea ted seriously and performed in accordance with t he employer's
pol icies and procedures. Porter Scot t's attorneys would be happy t o assist you in
implementing an effective evaluation process for your employees.
©2010 Porter Scott. A Professional Corporation. All rights reserved
http://www.po1terscott.com/articles/takenote/94
EXHIBIT# 16
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Plaintiff JAN - 7 2015
In Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209.663.2977
Fax: 209.247.1089
E-mail: ucdmclaborchat@att.net
January 6, 2014
Hon. David l. Brown

Department 53-Civi l Law and Motion
SUPERJOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
County of Sacramento
720 9'11 Street
Sacramento, CA 95& 14
Re: Jaroslaw Wa5zczuk vs. the Regents of the University of California.

Case No. 34-2013 00155479-CU-WT - GDS filed on December 4, 2013
Defendant Anti -SLAPP Motion filed on December 2, 2014
Hearing Scheduled for January 7, 2015 Dept.53 2:00 PM

Dear Judge Brown,
I respectfully request that court take Judicial Notice of the following enclosed correspondence in
regards to the Defendants deliberate denial to provide most crucial docwnents I requested under
Public Record provision from the University of California General Counsel PRA Office on
November 3, 20 14.
I could not find help and I run ohime to write and file proper motion to ask court for
continuance. I will ask court to continue the case at time of hearing on January 7, 2015
My Ex-Parte Application dated December 30, 2014 was denied by the court due that filing was
in violation of California Court Rules.
Enclosed Correspondence.
Letter to Well Fargo Bank dated December 3l,2014 in regards to my former Attorney's Douglas
Stein Retainer Account I helped to open for him with Wells Fargo Bank.
January 4, 2015 letter to the University of California General Counsel , Charles Robinson in
regards my Public Record Act dated November 3, 2014 plus related to the e-mail
correspondence exchanged with UCOP - PRA office.
-~ - -
January 4, 20 15 letter to the Judicial Council of California Re: SLAPP Doc~ments.Per CCP-&
425.16 /~ . ,\ '\
f ) . , • .• .
JAN 2015
Judicinl Notice.
201
January 4, 2015 Response to United States Senator Hon. Diane Feinstein Letter dated October
31 , 2014
January 5, 2015 Letter the State Bar of California. Re: Douglas E. Stein Bar# 131248-lnquiry #
31877.
All the listed documents were provided by fax and electronic mail to Defendants on January 5,
2014
I apologize to the court that it have to communicate this way with court until I will find new
attorney for my case . I don't Iike to be label by the court as a Vexatious litigant in Pro Per by
the court. I am not and I don't like to be. I just need more to deal properly with this case.
R,~uAt" on January 6, 2014 by Overnight US Mail
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintif, In Pro Per.
Judicial Notice. 2
202
EXHIBIT# 17
• Fax Transmission
Attention to:-
Nam e: Do,iakl R. Ste..dm an- State Bar
Date: 201 S•Ol-05
Time: 01:.34:33 A
~
Name: Juo$l~w WJszczuk
Pages: 23
Sen cler's fa)(#: 2092471089
RE: Douglas E. Stein Bar # 131248- lnquiry # 14-31877
Comments/Notes:
Jaro'.:l;iw •Jerry" Wa!:.Zczuk

2.2.16 Katzalcian Way
\.odi, CA %242
Phone: 209-H9-19S2
Cell: 2()9-6€d•2977
Fax: 209-247-1069
Emai\: jjw1980@!ive.com
January 5, 20,s
Audit ar,d Review

OffiCQ of the Chief Trial Counsel/lnta~e
The Sl:ite ear of CaHtomia

1149 South Bar Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 9001 S-2299
• Donald R Steedman
Svpervising Senior Trial Counsel.
The Srate Sar of California
Office Of the Chief Trial Counsel Enfor<em ent
180 Howard Street
San Francisco. California 94105·1639
Subject Complaint against Attorney at Law Do uglas f. Stein Bar I: 1, 12,18

Inquiry 11 14-31877
To Whom It My Concern:
Please include into my complaint against attorney Douglas Stein the following dcxJments:
1) Letter to University of California General Counsel Mr. Charles Robinson da ted Jan.4 , 2014
Re; Public Record Act Request (PRA), d ated November 3, 2014
UCOP Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg'sWhistleblowing Retaliation Complaint
lnve~tigation Report and r.?lat<1d documents versus UC Anti-SI.APP Motion fil ed on
December 2. 2014-Sacramenlo County Superior Court Cas~ No. 2013·00155479
2) Letter to Wells Fargo Bank dated December 31, 2014

Re: Wells Fargo Account Gold Business Service Package 6826900995- Check' Routing Transit Number 124042882 Request for all account
statements from June 6/2/2014 to 12/26/14
Sincerely.
Jaros/aw Waszauk
213
•
• Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-339-1982
Cell: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-247-1089
Email: jjwl980@live.com
January 5, 2015
Audit ru1d Review

Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake
The State Bar of California
1149 South Bar Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299
Donald R. Steedman
Supervising Senior Trial Counsel.
The Stale Bae of California

Office Of the Chief Trial Counsel Enforcement
l 80 Howard Street
•
San Francisco, California 94105-1639
Subject: Complaint against Attorney at Law Douglas E. Stein Bar# 131248

Inquiry# 14-31877
To Whom It My Concern:
Please include into my complaint against attorney Douglas Stein the following documents:
I) Letter lo Univcrsity of Califomia General Counsel Mr. Charles Robinson dated Jan.4,
2014
Re: Public Record Act Request (PRA), dated November), 2014
UCOP Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg's WhistlebJowing Retaliation Complaint
Investigation Report and related documents versus UC Anti-SLAPP Motion filed on
Dcccmbe-r2, 2014-Sacramcnto County Superior Court Cnse No. 2013-00155479
2) Letter to Wells Fargo Bank dated December 31, 2014

Re: Wells Fargo Account Gold Business Service Package 6826908995- Check Routing Transit
%"%~;;,240]:ue~ fo, all >c<Ounl stalomonts f,om lune 612/2014 10 12126/14
1.t:.. lt,,,.
1
Complaint Against Douglas Stein Bar# 131248
214
•
EXHIBIT# 18
• Fax Transmission
.
Attention to:- From:•

N3111 e: Wells Fargo Dispute Resofutiort Name: Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Datl!! 2014-12-31 Pages: S
Time: 10:05:55 P Sender's Faxt:; 2092471089
RE: Wells Fargo Account Gold Business Service Package 6826908995
Comments/Notes;
Re: Wells forgo Account Gold 8usines:;Service Pad<age 6826908995- Check Routing Tran;it Number 124042882. Requ~:. t fora II account
statements from June 6/2/2014 to 12/26/14

•
215
•
'
Jaroslaw"Jerry•· Waszczuk
2216 Kat7.aki:m Way
Lodi. CA 95242
Phone:209·339-1982
Cell: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-247-! 089
Email: jjwl 080rtiHive.com
December 31, 2014
CorporJJtc Offices
Wells Fargo
420 Monrg,inier~• Stre.,?r
San f-rane-isco, CA 94104
Wells Fargo Di.~putc Resolution Dcp:i.rtmcnt

MAC: N8235-04M
P.O. Box 10347
Des Moines, !A 50306

Re: Wells Fargo Account Gold Business Service Package 682690899S • Check Routing Transit
•
Number I24042882. R~quest for all account statements from June 6/2/2014 to 12/26/14
Dear Sir or Madam;
In May 2014 I hirerl Mr. DougJa~ E. Stein, SBN 131248, as legal counsel for my wrongful
tennination lawsuit against the University ofCalifornia. The Retainer with Mr. Stein was based
on $2.0,000.00 and contingency.
On May 19, 2014, I gave Mr. Stein a check for$ l 9,500.00 plus $500.00 cash according lo the
retainer. On June 2, 2014, Mr. Stein called me and asked me to help him open an accoWlt with
the check I had given him for the retainer beca!..l~e he hfld no ac:connt in any bank. Thi.c. wai; my
understanding. I went on Jwie 2, 2014, to Mr. Stein's residence in Eldorado Hills, California, and
we went to the Wells Fargo Bank Empire Ranch Branch 5556 in Folsom, California, on 25015
Blue Ravine Road. Mr. Stein deposited the check into a special account he opened wilh my
signature.
I did not have any clue that I would be personally responsible for this account, and I was sure
that the accoum was opened to put Mr. Stein in compliance with the C.alifomia Stale B:ir
regarding the attorney-client relation.
216
•
• Tht: Wdls Fargo Bank Officer in Folsom, where the nccount was opened, did not provide me ruiy
infonnation ro indicate 1hat I would be liab!t- for this account and did noc give me any documents
atmching me to this account
Around December 14 or I 5, 20 i"4, I received several calls from Wells Fargo Bank on both my
cell phone and my home phone number, and the person calling from Wells Fargo was asking for
Douglas Stein. l w1derstood ihat Wells Fargo was trying to collect the money from Mr. Stein,
who was my attomey of record in the wrongful tennination lawsuit I answered that I am not
Douglas Stein and infonned the person caJling lhat Mr. Stein is my attorney.
I dismisse.d Mr. Stein from the case. on December 16, 2014, and sent him e-mail to ask why
Wells Fargo was calling me on my phones and asking for him. Mr. Stein was vague about
:r.nswering my questions. When I called Wells Farso Bank on Decemhcr 26,2014, and asked
what was going on, the person J spoke to at Wells Fargo Bank redirected me to the local Wells
Fargo branch.
On the same day I went to 1he local Wells Fargo branch in Relay's Grocery Store in Lodi,
California, and spoke to 3 Wells Fargo officer with n brief explanation what is going on. I gave
him my Wells Fargo (WF) accoum number because r have been a customer of Wells Fargo Bank
for many years, and the WF officer told me that my accounts are in good standing. Then r told
him that something must be wrong ifJ had been called by Wf and I was directed to a local
branch.

Thereafter I was asked for my Social Security number, and 10 my surprise J was informed that I
am responsible for a debt of$19! .33 on the accoun1 I opened June 2, 2014, at the WF Bank in
Folsom, and l have to pay .$191.JJ ifJ want to close this account. Funhelillore, the WF officer
stated that he had never before seen such an account and did not want to discuss this with me. I
paid $191 .33 to close the account. At this poinl I understood that Mr. Stein had used the account
for which I was legally respons.ible for wrong purposes without my knowledge. Wells Fargo
Bank had failed to inform me properly that I wns fully responsible for the account and had failed
to provide me with at least limited access to the account with the right to stop the transaction if
needed or if account was misused·.
Ifl had been infonned properly by Wells Fargo Bank how this account worked, then I never
would have allowed this to happen and the accowlt wouJd never have been opened. If Wells
Fargo had given me limited access to the account, then fraud would have been prevented and
stopped right away if I had seen Ihai the money was being used for the wrong purpose. Now, I
don't have an attorney and I don't have $20,000.00.
The closing account statement says: Tax Responsible: Customer Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Client - Sole. Additional Customer - Douglas Stein.
How did it happen that I was responsible for an account and Wells Fargo Bank did not provide
me access to tne account? After I received the closing account statement on December 26, 2014,
I UI1de~wvd that the ~rune rules would apply ifI were to get a credit card in my name and
authorize. another person to use the account; However, I would be the person who in control of
ihe account and I would have full access to the account.
2
W F G8SP 6826908995
217
•
In this case Wells Fargo failed t0 inform me how this account worked and what l could expect.
In conclusion, I am asking Wells Fargo Bank for compensation for incum:d losses and full
disclosure of monthly statements.on this accoun1 from June 2, 2014, to December 26, 20 I4.
[ run liYing off Social Security and off the retirement e.ame<l from my form~r employment, with
medical insurance provided for me by my wife's employer.
r appr~.:;iat.; your prompt response in this mal1cr.
Enclosed. Gold Business Service Package 6826!)08995 closing statement dat~d

Deccmbi.:r 26, 2014
Copy of deposited Citibank Check# 21 l 77 for amount of$ J9,500.00 dated May J9, 2014

•
3
WF GBSP 6826908995
218
Check Tmagt'. - Citibank Page 1 of l
dfr
A'lLVOebit C1.rd:.)i.l")tv,\,'((~. x.·~..(,.~!:') t
lis,,11~- >~.,n-: j 01 •x: ::sr
SERVICES Cheek OetalJs

~ecutity T )p; Ched.:tmag4? rif~ rr.ay b0 .)Uto~tic.e,lly ~aw-,Y-1 on the h ard drivii: d ~f$ co111pute1·. U other- peopf~ U!is this:
= --·
c.ompvi:er ~cu ;hculd D;ilere tf>Qsa files so !hat no <>ne will ha"e acc:,,s.s IX> vour cne:~ images .nd account lnforma!Joo. le.>1•
219
http$:/fo nJ i11e. ci! ibi11ik.c l,mfUS/usbafci/p rcsen!CI 1ec.tjn1 age.do ll/24i2014
Wells Fargo StoreVision Platform Page I of 2
Q~l,k Profilt I C••-Ll,r !OJ I

Soarch I Salas I Bank,r Toolb>r I Admioislra~O<J ! Ma;n I Sign Off
r:J c,1u,u•,
Account
Gad lluoln~• Sorvl c~ Pock<>g<t ~ . i l l
8ml C.OWFORNJA I 00ll4 ~ I ~ I !U.tlm: I ~ I SfOQ Payra•ot> I li?l<t•tetUo•• I Qlwu•lll~su .., J iIDJil
flu
a:u~ Otri?t> I ~ f C1J"1Pmor fa:1101 t1itl90' I ~
Checking/Savings Account Detail ISe1ec1 action ...

Hl< Responsible Customer JAROSLAW WASZCZUI< Clien1 - Sole
Additional Customers ~s..E..~ Anorni,y/law Firm TrvSlee
LAW OFFICES QF DOUGLAS E Slf\!~ .A.ssocia!Bd Pa~y
Sllltamanl/Malling Name JAROSLAW WASZCZUK ATTORNEY-CLIENT
JAROSIAW WAS:ZCZUK
DOUGLAS E STEIN ATTORNEY-TIE
OBA U..W OFFICES OF DOUGLAS E STEIN
Aacount TIN TIN o~ ~le
CertiflcaMn Not Certified. W,~'iholding
Basic
oateo~~d 06/0212014
O:.lo Clooed Pemfir,g
Reason for Closing No longer needs a«ounl
Status Pending dose
Ledger Balance .S194.33
Av~ll:ible Balanca $0.00
Av&age Balance last 12 Months $7.592.84
lnsuff~ent fun~S/OvP.rdraR foa~y No

Salence Sweep None
Pl~d90• NO
Holds No
Stop Paymenl3 No
las! ACH Direct Deposit None
Money ~r,,iCC$ 0~sine~:) No
Fee Weiver None
Rg!~Uonship Pricing No
AV 720S2
~ock Routing Transil Number 1:1104288~.
Loc.atlon 5525 EMPIRE Rt..NCH
EMPIRE RANCH, 25015 BLUE RAVINE RO
FOLSOM, CA S5630
0/t.<;<,r/Portfolio CO079 MAI IARAJ.ANJANI P-cUST 9 16·817-0160
Line or Business RETAIL BUSINESS
Overdraft Protection
Primary Protection None
O,erd,ah Last 12 Months 2
Relumec Item, Lasl 12 Montr,s 0
Pay!f'le1vm Roturn a llllfo chorge/Closiog
0.erdraR limit $000
O,erdratl. Charge S0.00
Ra1urned Item Charge S0.00
Debit Card Overdraft Setv!co
DeM Ca.rd Overdraft Seivice Yes

Statement
Slatement Cycle Endo! Monlh

~SI Slalem61ll Date 1'1/30/2014
Combined Stalemeol No
Lan~uage Preference English
Statement Type Check Safekeeping
Relurn Ched< Fee Ya~
Wells Fargo StoreVision Platfom1 Page 2 of2
•
. Statement OptiOn
Serialized Stalemenl
Statement Copies
Interest/Dividend
Interest Rsle
P•per
Yes
1
0.000%
Rate lndica1or St:indard
Interest Paid YTO S0.00
Mutual t=und C.:cde None
Dividends Paid YTO S0.00
Convenience Services
?MA Relationship No
i'ael<.a~e Prtmary Acc.)un1 .GoJC: 8ysines.s ~rvices Pacl<,;!9e Sumroani
Linked ATM/Debit Cards

i>rcduct Account
None
erokerage Settlement Relationships

Relationship Accovnt
I-lone
Seati;h l Sales t ~2rnli:e1 rootoor I Mmir.istr.i·.:.of\ l Milin i Sio.r,O':t

•
221
•
•
I-'"""'"
w '-- .L1 l,.....
.t. .....,
C-,_ - _,._
• -\J. Jt .:=, ,..,
0 ........... 1...
.._, It.JI I s..r,..
,..,... -v--.~-,....t.; , __ . . .
t J.. L.J.t t..JU!...., ....&..~• •
o,....,.., "'l~,.....
.s--
t ,'L..,c......\.-
t
of n
u

,--... ,,........ - _.,_ i _,_ __ .,;,
LIC:.,,_,CJ~ .I. ' C U
•
.
T{'- k •-..,..,•
.L t. ::,\..HJ.
YOU;,
222
EXHIBIT# 19
Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 9.5242
Phone : 209-563-2977
Fax: 209-247-1089
E-Maii: jjw l 980@live.com
January 4, 2015
Charles Robinson, UC General Counsel

University of California
Office of the ~neral Counsc:1
UC Office of the President
11 11 Franklin Street
Oakland, CA 94607-5200
Re: Public Record Act Request (PRA), dated ~ovember 3, 2014

UC.OP Pri11cipal Investigator Judith Rose.nberg's Whi!.tleblowing Retaliation Complaint
Investigation Report and related documents versus UC A.nti-SLAPP Motion filed on December
2, 2014-Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 2013-00155479-OPEN LETTER
Dear General Counsel Robinson:

By thi~ letter, I a!ll repeating my November 3, 20 I 4 PRA req11e~t, which I sent to your office,
•
with inquiries to produce and send to me, without further delay, Judith Rosenberg's
Whistleblowing Retaliation Compf(lint Investigation Report and thousands of pages of
documents related to this report.
It is my understanding tha1 yon are in charge of the L'niwrsity of California legal department,
and you arc also monitoring and managing all lawsuits filed against the Regents of University of
California, including the \\Tongful termination lawsuit of Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of
the University of California, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court on December 4, 2013.
Furthermore, it is also my understanding that the UC Office of the General Counsel is in charge
of the Information Practices/Public Records office at the UC Office of the President (UCOP).
Pursuant to my r ights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250
et seq.), on November 3, 2014, I requested under the PRA a copy of the UCOP Principal
Investigator Judith Rosenberg's Report plus related report documents of her 14 months in my
Whistleblowing Retaliation Complaint investigation, to be held by the University of California,
Office of the President Public Records.
According to the UCOP General Counsel web page, http://www.ucop.edu/general-counselncgal-

rc3ourccs/infonnntion-prncticcs/frcgucntly-nskcd-gucstions-nbout-p1.1blic-rccords.html,
UCOP has JO d.iys to "determine whether the r.::qt1est. .. seeks copies of disclosable public
records in the possession of the UCOP and shall promptly notify the person making the request
1
UCOP-General Counsel -<harles Robinson
PRA Document$ :and Anti-SI.APP Motion.
228
• of the determination and reasons therefore" (Government Code 6253(c). This means that UCOP
is supposed to no1ify the requester within 10 days ifhe has requested deliverable public records,
exempt material, or some combination ofthe two.
On November 19, 2014, I received an e•mail from the UCOP-PRA ofticc informing me that a
search for a responsive record was underway. 111e notific:ition came after a few days' delay, but
it was no big deal, and I was waiting for a second notification. When a requested record is ready
to send, I will check for it and send to the UCOP-PRA office a request to pay for the copies. It is
the first time I requested documents under the PRA provision, and the UC Davis Campus Office
staff were always very cooperative and professional in dealing with me and my requests. I would
say that it was never a big problem to get documents when the filed documents were not
deliberately destroyed (as it h:ippcned to be on a few occasions, according to the infonn:ition I
received).
I did not w:1n1 to deal with the PRA documents from the UCOP on my own, bcc:rnsc I was
represented by an attorney and it is was his job to make the PRA request for Judith Rosenberg's
Report and related documents, after I received a decision on my Whistlcblowing Retalialion
Complaint on September 10, 2014.
My counsel of record, Mr. Douglas Stein, in the wrongful temunation lawsuit against UC
Regents .ind UC Davis individual employees, refused to make the PRA request and obtain the
vital documents for the lawsuit. It came to the point that I was ready lo dismiss my attomey on

October 22, 20 14, for this reason. TI1e other reason was that I almost dismissed Mr. Stein in
September 2014 (I regret that I did not do it). Tiie Second Amended Complaint was amended
•
incorrectly and filed against my will and instniction on September 30, 2014, by stipulation of UC
Counsel Mr. Pott, when Mr. Stein had no valid attorney license.
Consequently, the University ofCalifornia legal counsel, Mr. Michael Pott, was wheeling and
dealing with Mr. Stein in the period from September 22, 2014 to October 24, 2014, when Mr.
Stein had no valid attorney license. Today, l have no doubt that Michael Pott knew that Dougl.is
Stein operates.with a suspended attorney license, and that they both had an urgent goal to keep it
quiet.
In this time period, the Ex Parte Application was filed and the stipulation was filed on Seplember
22, 2014. The Court Order granted an application with a stipul:ition to file a second amended
complaint, which was filed on September 25, 2014. The Second Amended Complaint was filed
on September 30, 2014, and the Defendant's (University ofCalifornia) Answer to Second
Amended Complaint was fikd in Superior Coun on October 17, 2014.
By observing how my nnomey acts and hnndles the case, receiving weird tei.1 nnd e-mail
messages, trying to manipulate me; I knew that something was very wrong. I fell that something
was coming on me, but did not bave a clue what it was. Since July 2014, Mr. Stein was avoiding
me aud did 1101 want to have a meeting with me. He bcc.1mc uuapproachable, vague and
manipulative, to get the Whistleblowing Retaliation Complaint Investigation Report and rel:ited
documents from the UC Office of the President.
2
UCOP- General Counsel -0.arles Robinson
PRA Documents .and Anti-SlAPP Motion.
229
•
.
On October 22, 2014, I sent flus e-mail to Douglas Stein:
Doug,
Where are my 2010/2011 a11d the 2011/2012 Employee Perfonnance Rt'views, the
Rosenberg Report, and all the docwm nts rrlatcd to 18 months of the Whistle HlowiJtg
Retaliation Comrl:tint?
This is the lust time I am asking you to take care of these two most importru1t elements in
the lawsuit right away, and you will amend the complaint. I want to see that you are t:ilJng
action rij!ht awaJ' (confirmed action). Otherwise, you are out and ) 'OU are in St::ite Bar for
dcceh·ing and mis representing your client. I am not lddding, :ind think about the
consequences of what you are doing. You are m essing with wrong guy, ntiste r.
Jerry.
On the same day, Doug Stein responded with the words: "(f ( get them, and give them to you,
do you promise not to write a letter to anyone at UC?"
Stein's response re:illy get m<l going, and I fired back as follows: "It is not only to gi·ve to me,
but about how to use it in a lawsuit. This is why we need it, and you don't have it; but, you

should han it. I want to see your formal attorney request for these documents. Do your
offid:tl job as an attorney-don't conspire and don' t do a ny underground crap: I don't
want it. Evel")1hing must be official and on reco1:d. I h :we no nrc-d to write any letters if you
start workin~ for me, not for UC."
TI1ercafter, I checked Douglas Stein's status on the Slate Bar web page and I found out that his
attorney's license is suspended. I wanted to dismiss Stein right away, but somehow, I was
convinced by David Greenwald who is hosting the Davis Vanguard Blog, not to dismiss Stci.n,
when I asked him to help set an appoinhnent with an attorney who advertises on his blog.
However, on October 25, 2014, I sen! an e-mail and phone te:-..-t message to Stein and asked him
to clarify with the court the Status of Second Amended Complaint filed in court on September
30.2014. with a suspended altorney licensee followed by the Defendant, the University of
California's answer to the Second Amended Complaint tiled in court by UC counge( Michael
Pott. No response came from Douglas Stein.
I got tired convincing Douglas Stein to get tl1e Whistleblowing Retaliation Complaint
Investigation Report and related documents from the UC Office of the President. On November
3, 2014, I sent on my won the request for Judith Rosenberg's Investigation Report and related
documents to Managing Counsel, Ms. Margaret Wu, in your department, by fax and e-mail with
e-mail· and fax cc: to you.
My attorney, Douglas Stein, was fi.irious that I sent the requc.st for reports and related documents
for the PRA office.
3
UCOP- General Counsel -0.arles Robinson
PRA Documents and Anti-SLAPP Motion.
230
•
'
On November 3, 2014, I did not have any cll1e I.hat the Anti-SLAPP law exists, but I understand
how important the Judith Rosenberg report and related documents could be in the legal action
against individual defcndnnts listed in the wrongfi1l rermination complaim, especially those who
caused my employment termination.
On November 11, 2014, I requested lo postpone the Step 11 Appeal hearing for Mr. frank
Gonzales for whom I am providing representation in his UC Davis Medical Center complaint
under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 and with US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
against UC Davis Medical Center for discrimination. I was planning to go to Poland in
December 2014, for one month, and asked for hearing continuance until January 2015 (request
cnclos.:d). I sent A copy ofth.? r.::quest to Stephen Chilcott, Mike Boyd, n11d Cindy Orop.::zn, who
arc the listed defendants in my wrongful termination lawsuit against l,;"C Regems.
On November 19, 2014, I reC'.eived by e-mail a general confirm:ition from the: UCOP-PRA Office
that niy PRA inquiries were received.
On December 2, 2014, instead of receiving PRA documents from the UCOP-PRA office, I
received notificalion via e-mail from Sacramento Superior Court that legal counsel Mr. Michael
Pott, representing UC Regen1s in my wrongfitl 1ennina1ion lawsuil, filed with the court 200
pages of motions and decbrations applying Anti-SLAPP Iaw, which I was completely uil.famil iar

with. The sp;:~ial motion was to remove my four causes of action and dof.::nd:mts Stephen
•
Chilcott, Mike Boyd, Cindy Oropeza, Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert from the lawsuit. All
five defendants are re!>l)Onsible for the despicable fabrication of false accusations and lies to
tenninate my employment and who are directly responsible for my employment tem1ination with
the UC Davis Medical Center.
On the same day, December 2, 2014, I scnc via e-mail all copies of filed documents to my
attorney of record, and asked him what these motions are about. In response, my attorney sent to
me "not very promising" statements.
"The issues are much broader and n10r<' difficult than a p]c.1dlng issue. It would be hdpful
if you could focus Jess on the co111plaint, und n1ore on the fact that, no matter what, there is
a very narrow opening to sue UC."
I staned educated myself on the Anti-SLAPP law by reading Striking Out the Plaintiff Using Tire
Anri,SLAPP Sta/11/e, Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, 011d What. Who, Wire re, When, Why and
How, by Manuela Albuquerque from Burke, Williams, & Sorensen, LLP. After I read over a
hundred pages about Anti-SLAPP law, I got the general idea that I got slapped by UC quite
precisely. Furthermore, I had no doubt that my attorney Douglas Stein was working against me,
but I did not know why my counsel was fighting not to get the UCOP Investigator Judith
Ro~enberg lnveS'liga1ion Report and related documents.
4
UCO!>- General Counsel -0.irles Robinson
PRA OocumQnts ~nd Anti-SLAPP Motion.
231
•
.
Quickly, I came to the conclusion that I was ambushed "'ilh this Anti-SLAPI' motion, and an
objection to the motion would be almost impossible to object without the most important
admissible documents related to the Investig.:1tion Report related to my Whistleblowing
Retaliation Complaint, which I filed on March 7, 2013, and which concluded after 18 months of
investiga1ion on September 10, 2014.
After r read the Anti-SLAPP motion and all five defeudants' declarations in motion support, I
realized that the motion and all defendants' declaration, :md my two Amended Complaints by the
counsel ofrccord, Douglas Stein, which were filed in court on June 16 and September 30, 2014,
are so similar and lacking.the same cn1cial e!cmer1ts, which are UC Davis Policy PPSM 23, UC
Davis PPSM 62, and missing my 2010/201 I and 2011/2012 Employee Performance Reviews;
my April 2012 Notice Intent to Suspend; my objection to th;: Nolie¢ Intent to Susp~nd, which
was submined to the Skelly Reviev,·er; my May 2012 Lener of Suspension and Skelly Re.,.iewcr
Decision; the September 2012 Notice ofln1cnt to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct;, my more
than 20-page Response Brief to Notice of Intent to Dismiss, submitted to ~ke!Jy l{eviewer in
November 2012; Skelly Reviewer Decision dated December 3, 2012; and Letter of Termination,
dated December S, 20 12.
The most important missing element in the UC A.nti-SLAPP motion (five defendants'
declarations and my two Amended Complaints filed by my counsel of record, Douglas Stein, in
court on June 16 and Scptember 30, 2014) is my more than 30-page Whistleblowing Retaliation
Complaint, which I filed with the UC Davis Vice Chancellor Office on March 7, 2013 and which

was invcs1igatcd for 14 months by the UC Office of the Pre.siclent Principal Invel:tig:itor, Ms.
Judith Rosenberg, and was concluded on September I 0, 20 14. The investigation was monitored
by two UC Senior Vice Presidents, Ms. Sheryl Vacca and Daniel Dooley, and the Director of
UCOP Human Resources Depanment, Joseph Epperson. Toe proper pleading in my two
Amended Complaints and 1he PRA admissible documents in my Whistle Blowing Retaliation
Complaint would not give any chance for the UC Allti-SLAPP motion to be filed in court. My
counsel and the University of California General Counsel Department's despicably deceiving
behavior to defeat me in an outrageously unprofessional and unethLcal way in court with a
sneaky and gi-oundless Anti-SLAPP motion is nothing else but derniling of the C:ilifornia Court
and Justice System.
Due to stiff resistance from my legal counsel to file any objection to the Anti-SLAPP UC motion
and to file a Motion for Continuance until PRA documents are produced by the UC Gencr:il
Counsel PRA office, on December 12, 2014, I sent an inquiry for an update on my Request for
Production of Documents u11der the PRA provision. I was not aware that the objection to the
Anti-SLAPP motion was already due within two or three days, and nothing was done by the Law
Offices of Douglas Stein, who is trying, togetl1er with UC, to defeat me with the money J paid
him.
On the same day, December 12, 2014, I received this response from the UCOP General Counsel:
PRA-OUicl':From: Karin Rice (mailto:Karin.Rice@ucop.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 3:58 PM
5
UCOP- General Counsel -Oiarles Robinson
?RA Documents and Anti-SIAPP Motion.
232
• To: 'jjw1980@live.com'
Cc: UCOP-PRA
Subject: RE: CIPA #14-044: Records Related to Whistle blower Complaint •Request for update
Dear Mr. Waszczuk.:
We have completed our search for reconls potentiaUy responsi"e to your request submitted
on November 3, 2014 and have identified se,•er:il thousand pages of r<~c-ords. The
Investigation Report, whkh is 266 pages long, was receh-ed by ou1· office today. We have
begwi the review process and ,rnticipate a rolling production of responsive documrnts not
deemed exempt by applicable California 13w: we will begin our re,·iew with the
lnnstigation Report so that you can receive that document first. Please note that the
University receives hwidreds of requests eac-h year and we have limited st:ifT d edicatrd to
processing those requests. Thank you for your patience in this matter.
Sincerdy,
UCOP Public Records

UC Offic:-e ofthC' President
1111 Franklin St.
Oakland, CA 9-'607-5200
I don't have the'! 266-page Investiga1ion Report and several thous:md pages of admissible

evidence to object and de.feat ihe frivolous and de~eptive UC Anli-SLAPP motion. How could I
have this important record if the UC General Counsel Office is overseeing all lawsuits against
•
.
the UC and any attempt to receive these documents would be a futile attempt until the General
Counsel Office will achieve its goal in a deceptive way in conn.
On December 14, 2014, very late at night, I got into an argument with Stein about his behavior
and asked him whether he could clarify with the court the filing of the Second Amended
Complaint while prncticing the law with suspended attorney license and whether the Second
Amended Complaint is a legitimate court document; I reminded him ah out my e-mail and phone
tcx1 message I sent him on Ociober 25, 2014 to clarify this issue with the court.
After I mentioned his attorney licensee issues, Stein, within two hours on December I 5, 2014 at
12:47 a.m., sent tJie following letter to UC Counsel Michael Pott:
I disdosed fi.ling the SAC to tJu.' State Bar on or about October 8, 2014. I realized,
on or about October 81h, that filing the complilint <"onstituted pra<'tidng law
without a license. However, my train of thought did not turn to obUgations to notify
anyone else or the impact on the validity of the compl.1int. The subject did not enter
my awareness again until late in the evening on SWlday, December 14, 2014. As I
was drafting my response to the State Bar inquiry, it suddenJy dawned 011 me that
thP SAr i~, mMf likPly, nnt ('lrOpPrly hi>fore the ('Ollrt. fl nil, flt. th~ \·ery IP:ist, r 01'1'0
to notify you and the cour1.''
Furthermore he wrote:
6
UCOP- General Counsel -charles Robinson
PRA Documents <1nd Anti-SlAPP Motion.
233
• I will be calling Department 53 as early as pos:sible on December 15, 2014. I
intend to ask the clerk if the Department has rncountt.'red anything approaching
this situation. However, in the m eantime, there is a real risk of invalidnting the
entire motion if we proceed without fin ding out what must be do nt-.
On December 14 or 15, 2014, Stein should have had an Objection to the Anti-SLAPP Motion
ready to file in the court regardless of whether the Second Amendment Complaint filed on
Sep1ember 30, 2014, was legitimate or not.1l1e fact that it suddenly "dawned on him on
December 14, 20 14 the Second A.mended Complaint" was a result of my reminder .from October
25,20 14, and State Bar consequences, not made-up lies.
In the second statement, my counsel Stein is worried about the defendant Anti-SLAPP Motion to
be in risk of invalidating. The Second Amended Complaint (SAC) and Motion should be
invalidated because SAC was filed when Stein had no righ1s to practice the law, which Mr. Pott
knew :1boul.
On December 15, 20 14, at 10: 00 a.m., Stein sent me the following te:-..1 message:
text_0 (3). h."t
I set an ex pnt1e for the first a,•allable day and time, wed at 10 a m...the judge, whom l
h ave knon11 for O\'Cr 20 year:;, will h:n·c options to allow the continuance of the SLAPP
morion, and lJC wiU not o ppose, so the molion will be continued ..(srnnned photo of the
message enclosed).

I r.:spundi::d to his text mesi.age by e-mail and wrnte lalt:r in my Ex Parle Applic<1tion for
•
Postponement on December 29, 20 14. Especia11y, I did not like that my lawyer would go to court
in front of a judge and lie that he realized on December 14, 2014, that he had made a mis1ake and
filed the Second Amended Complaint when his licen~c was suspended.
I am reminded that two defendants in lhe lawsuit who knew UCDMC Director Robert Taylor got
their positions at the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance without proper
qualification and education by applying 1hc formula "It is not important what you know but who
you know."
However, what could I expect if the whole UC A.nti-SLAPP Motion and Defendant Declaration
was based on lies and false statements, crafted in outrageously dcccptivc ways and assembled in
similar ways as the Plaintiff First and Second Amended Complaint by Douglas Stein? It is hard
to recognize what is relevant and irrelevant, tnie or false, if you don't know all the facts and
events leading to the lawsuit against the University of California.
On December 17, 2014, Douglas Stein against my instn1ction and with fu!l cooperation with UC
counsel Michel Pott, st.ip11la1ed hy F.x-P.\rte motion a few days' e>..1.e n sirn1 and Hon. Oavid L
Brown granted continuance from December 30, 20 I 4, to January 7, 20 15.
Douglas Stein. in his E>.-Parte Application for Relief. v.Tote on page 7 of 7:
l disclosed filin g the SAC to the St ate Bar on or abo ut October 8, 2014. l realized, on or
about October 8th, that filing; the complaint constituted pmctidne loiw without a license.
7
UCOP- General Counsel -Charles Robinson
PRA Document, :1nd Anti.SlAPP Motio n .
234
•
llowevfr, nn t rain of thought did not turn to o bUgations to notify anvone dsc or the
impact on Che v:1lidity of the comploiint. The subject did not enter my awareness a gain wttil
ble in the evening 011 Sund;:iy, December 1~. 2014. As I was drafting my response to the
St:lte Bar iJ1quiry, it suddenly d:mned on me that the SAC ought be invalid and, at the very
least, I need to takt" corrective or prevt>nfative mt>as ui·es.
The above statement does nol need any comments and is self-explanatory.
Hon. David Brown by Ordn dated Decembt>r 17, 2014, gr:mted continuance by words:
The Second Amendt>d Complaint OJe d o n Sept JO, 2014 Is deemed v:illd & fllf d per
agreement;
Mr. Pott agrcn to continue the pe nding anti-SI.APP Motion from Dccc-mbcr 30, 2014, to
Jnn. 7, 2015, at 2pm D-53.
On Decemb.;:r 16, 2014, I dismissed Douglas Stein from further rcpresent3tion and filed a
complaint against Stein with the California State Bar Inquiry# 14 -3 1887- UC Counsel Michael
Pott was perfectly aware in September 2014 that the Second Amendment Complaint was filed in
court by Stein d uring his suspension to practice law from September-October 2014, but the race
against time was the factor to take advantage of Douglas Stein's problems and make him dance
to music especially composed for h im by the University of California legal team
UC counsel Mr. Michael Pott and UC General Counsel were perfoctly aware and informed on

December I 6, 2014, that I dismissed Douglas Stein from further representation and he is not
doing anything on my behalf but only on his behalf and on behalf of the UC legal team. Douglas
Stein was not only dismissed because of the invalid Second Amended Complaint filed on
Septemher JO, 2014, hut also hecam:e oft he invalid f)efencbnt•.~ (Univer~ity of~alifomia)
Answer to Plaintiff Second Amended Complaint filed on October 17, 2014. l11cn, this was
followed by frivolous and deceptive, invalid Defendant (UC) Anti-SLAPP Motion filed in court
1Jn De<.:ember 2, 20 14, followed by Lhe Court Order dated December 17, 2017, which granted
continuance on invalid docum ents filed by Douglas Stein and UC counsel Michael Pott.
On December 23, 2014, my dismi~scd counsel, Dougie:., Stein, filed a SLAPPED together
Opposition to the Defendant's Anti-SL APP Motion without having thousands of admissible
documents related to the Whistleblowing Compliant [nvestigation conducted by the UCOP in the
period from March 20 I 3 to September 20 14.
My dismissed counsel Opposition was followed by the Defendant's Replay Brief in Support of
Defondam·s Special Motion to Strike a nd Objection to Plaintifrs Evidence in Opposition to
Defendant's Special Motion to Strike filed on December 30, 2014.
Tiu: evc::ul~ lhal look pla.:e from Sc::plt:111ber 30, 2014, Lu December 30, 2014, I view as dcspi.:able
and an unacceptable dirty legal game against me carried out by the University of California
General Counsel office, which took advantage ofmy counsel's personal problems. The UC
General Counsel office through representing UC legal counsel deception, deceived Judge of
Superior Court Hon. David Brown, leading lo a misc;irriage of justice. lvlr. Pott, together with
Mr. Ste in, i:honld he kept in contempt nf court for what they have done toeether.
8
UCOP- Ge neral Counsel -<:harles Ro binson
PRA Docum ents a nd Anti-StAPP Motion.
235
Mr. Stein was dismissed not only because his b~havior practicing law without valid attorney
license and invalid Second A.mended Complaint, but also because he grossly misrepresented me
in this proceeding. On December 15 and 16, 2014, Wells Fargo Bank called me on both phones
and asked me for Mr. Stein, trying to collect debt from him (See artached letter addresse,/ to
Wells Fargo Bank dated December 31, 201.J).
[n conclusion of this letter:
I completely fail to understand why the almighty University ofCalifomia Management from 1he
bottom ofHVAC Shop in the UC Davis Medical Center to the top of the UC Davis Chancellor
Office and tbc UCOP General Counsel Offic1-, Senior Vice Presidents, and other UCOP
personnel and staffis so unbelievably destmctive and abusive toward employees who have valid
and legitimate complaints about management v.-rongdoing, abuse of power, corruption, safety
violations, hostile and intolerable working conditions, etc.
Why is the UC Davis unconstitutional manifesto entitk d "UC Davis Principles of Community,"
which is not official Vniversiry of California policy and which I could only translate to
"Principles of UC Davis Communists" in reference to similar manifostos in communist
countries, being notoriously and unscrupulously used to attack and violate UC employees' civil
and human rights, destruction of employees' lives who have valid complaints against
management hostility, corruption, misuse of University resources, safety issues, intolerable

workins conditions, etc.
•
I completely fail to understand why the UC General Counsel Office used deceptive law m.:thods
in court in an anempt to destroy my life ag:iin, with nothine lefl in thi~ life, knnwine that niy life
was completely destroyed by the University of California already by terminating unlawfully my
employment on December 5, 2012, at age 6? and fired me perhaps with ticket which prevented
me from finding any employment in the i;ummljob mark.cl; al~o, I ~Lrugglc with my age und my
health condition, with 9 different medicines to survive every day. To have more fi.m in hunting
me down, the UC General Counsel Office decided to instruct the UC Davis Medical Center to
deny my un.::mployment benefits.
111c stake in this lawsuit must be a lot bigger and more important than the life ofa 63-year-old
Polish refoge who escaped communist oppression and was promised protection from oppression
in his new country by the US government. Instead of protection from oppr.:ssion, the Polish
refugee received trcatm.::nt from University of California that has been a lot worse than the
treatment he received in the Polish communist prison where the communist's prison guard was
more respectful to the political prisoners than UC management to its own employees. I
represented and defended and I am still representing some of them today from the oppressive UC
Davi& Ch:incellor Katehi't regime, which is a.notorious violator of employe.:s' huin-ln rights by
using for this ill purpose the Manifesto entitled "UC Davis Principles of Community."
9
UCOP- General Counsel -charles Robinson
PRA Oocuments and Anti-SLAP P Motion.
236
• I am completely lost as to what the UC General Counsel and his staffarc trying to achieve by
further destruction of my life, which was already tnrnishcd and de~troycd by the UC Davis
Medical Center (UCD1·1C) Executive HR Department Director Stephen Chilcott and his
subordinates, UCDMC Facilities Executive Director Mike Boyd and his subordinales, UCDMC
Manager of Benefits, EEO, Resident/Fellow Program HR Administrator, Title.IX Otlicer -
Sexual Harassment, Mediation Services, ASAP, Early Resolution/Inclusion Cindy G . Oropeza
and her subordinates, and UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo and her
subordinates.
What are you trying to achieve with this deceptive, frivolous, and deceiving Justice System
Anti-SLAPP motion, Mr. Robinson?
Are you trying to send me again to the Trauma Unit with cardiac arrest as in the unsuccessfol
attempt on May 31, 2012, by the special UC Davis "Death Squad" assembled by Chilcott,
Oror>e7.a, Delmendo, UC Davi~ Police Chief Matt Carmichael and a few other perpetrator~?
More likely than not, the attack was ordered by Chancellor Katehi who requested a
confidential report on me in November 2011 just shortly prior to a gas attack against
protesting students on the UC Davis Campus,
Is this what you want, Mr. General Counsel Robinson?

Or perhaps:
• You are one of countless in the University of California system which are in course of business
abusing tht: power, violating cmployi;es civil and human rights beyond human t!C(;t:nl:y,
causing UC employees commits suicide, having unusual admiration for porn and child
pornography, attacking employees even during times of their love one's funeral, firing 60 years
UC Davis Auditor who by his duty disclosing credit card's embezzlement by com1pted
managers, or attacking viciously employees who arc disclosing serious safety violations in
UCDMC Hospit.il which endangering patients and hospital staff safety not to mention illegal
medical experiments on the patients and tons oflawsuits for medical malpractices against the UC
Davis Medical Center.
TI1is is what nnd who you arc Mr. General Counsel Robinson?
Who you trying to protect Mr. General Counsel Robinson? Child Pornography felons and
wide spread corruption around you?
Or perhaps:
You are trying to make me feel hopeless and defenseless as was done to my coworker Todd
Georlich from the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant who committed suicide on
December 22, 2010. I have every d~t:iil ofwha.t happened and why in Ccmr:il Pl:int in '2010.
Do you want to hear these details Mr. General Counsel Robinson?
10
UCOP- General Counsel --Olarles Robinson
PRA Document~ and Anti-SLAPP Motion.
237
• Or perhaps:
UC General Counsel enjoys and is very pleased to hear that the employees' civil and human
rights have been violated beyond human decency, causing UCDMC employees to commit
suicide.
Or perhaps:
UC General Counsel have unusual admiration for porn and child pornography or is very pleased
lo hear that an employee has been viciously attacked, humiliated and ridiculed for no reason
during arrangement of his mother funeral. This the case which I am handling with U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission representing UCDMC 60 yea.rs old Paint Shop worker
Frank Gonzales.
Or perhaps
UC General Counsel had unusual pka!:urc and fun when he heard that
60-year old UC Davis auditor William Printable was fired from the job because he confirmed
by his audit the r.::portcd credit card embezzlement by comipt.;id UCDMC managers.
Did you have a glass of champagne with Mr. Jeremiah Maher and congratulated him for firing
from the job 60 years worker after 11 years of outstanding service for UC dear Mr. General

Couusel Robinson?
•
Mr. Printable is not only victim of this reported credit card embezzlement by comipted manager
in UC Davis Medical Center.
.
Or perhaps:
UC General Counsel had lot of fon and enjoyment when he heard that UCDMC worker cried in
UCDMC HR Labor Relation office because he became a subj ect ofviciolls anack by his two
supervisors from the HVAC shop who were trying to provoke him for physical confrontation,
ridiculed arid humiliated him up front of many people in UCDMC Hospital Cafeteria. The tnpc
from camera recording this event was quickly destroyed according to PRA request. The
mentioned employee was Dcreck Coles who in 2012 disclosed serions safety violations in the
UCDMC Medical Center Hospital which were seriously endangering patients and hospital staff
safety. I still a copy of2012 Letter Right to Sue Dereck received from the California Fair
Housing and Employment.
Perhaps by prevailing in the anti-SLAPP motion and h3ving the court order/decision removing
Stephen Chilcott, Mike Boyd, Cindy Oropeza, Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert from the
lawsuit because they are just merely were hearing officers and public persons who are, by course
of business, obusing their power, you ore trying to get off the hook two former UCDMC
Directors,RobertTaylorandShelton Duruisseau, in connection wi1h UC Davis Chief
Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo and her decision dated March 7, 2012, or get off the hook
11
UCOP- General Counsel -otarles Robinson
PRA Oocum<!nt~ and Anti-SLAPP Motion.
238
•
• UC Davis Chancellor Katehi who ordered confidential report on me in November 201 J, or get
off the hook Assistant Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson and his Skelly skills dated December 3,
2012, or get off hook Hugh Parker, UC Davis Chiefof Police Matt Carmichael, and his Lt.
James Barbour for their preparation to send me to UCDMC Trauma Unit on May 31, 2012, or
get offhook fonner UC Davis Chief Counsel Steven Drown who signed the February 2008
Settlement Agreement on behalf of the UC Regents with me and trashed the settlement two
years later
I believe that Mr. Steven Drown is sitting ne>..t to you in the UCOP officer. Drown is not off
hook. He is the one who should stop assault on me in July 2011 aud he did not.
Next arc UC Davis Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter, UC Senior Vice Presiden1s Sheryl Vacca and
Daniel Dooley, UCOP Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg, UCOP Director ofinvestigation
John Lothse, and UCOP HR Director Joseph Epperson, responsible for the Whistleblowing
Retaliation Complaint Investigation I filed on March 7, 2013 with Mr. Hcx1er office.
Perhaps by your deceptive anti-SLAPP motion you are trying to take my Social Security income
and make me homeless.
This is what you are trying to achieve by this dc.ccptivc UC anti-SLAPP motion, Mr. Gc.neral
Counsel Robinson?
I 11m not sun, if you con, but toking inlo con~iderntion that you alrnody took my job in September
2011 and awarded it to my coworker who was giving illegal access to the shop computer for the
twice-convicted child porn felon, you took away my short-1eml disability benefits in an attempt

to get me on my knees, then you ma.de an unsuc,;essful attempt to ddiver me to UCDMC
•
Trauma Unit No. l l to end my employment with University of California. Thereafter, you
fabricated false cause for my employment termination, and you sent me out of the UC gate at the
age of61 in such a way that I became unemployable and without health insurance. You denied
my unemployment insurance benefits, and I am not yet eligible for health insurance with early
Social Security benefits.. I was forced to cash out my UC retirement to maintain the living I had
before the departure; I have been living in a rental house instead ofmy O\'rll, which I h:id before
the termination. You took the house from me as well Mr. General Counsel Robinson.
I :im blamini: you directly and personally for the misery I have been going through since April
2011 because I signed the February 2008 settlement agreement with the Regents of the
University of California, and you are General Counsel representing the Regents of the University
of California and UC President of the University ofCalifomia.
The 2008 settlement agreement with the UC Regents was despicably violated and trashed by
University ofCalifornia staffwith your full knowledge aud approval in July 201 l; this is well
documented.
I am quite certain and sure that the Superior Court Judge would be interested why a 266-page
report and a fow thousands pages of documents were generated in an investigation involving an
12
UCOP- General Counsel --01arles Robinson
PRA Document~ and Ant i.SLAPP Motion.
239
• ordinary worker from UC Davis Medical Center and ~by there is so much rush with this anti-
SLAPP motion filed by UC in lighrofan invaJid plaintiff's second amended complaint followed
by an invalid UC answer to the second amended complaint and invalid anti-SLAPP motion.
It is not first time that your office tiled or supported frivolous and deceptive motion. I would like
to remind of Joiner in Motion (Demurrer) filed by your office together Califonua Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board Attorney 'Ashante L. Norton. Demurrer was removed from the court
calendar on June 9, 2014.
Don't you like to consider to remove.the deceptive and deceiving court Anti -SLAPP motion
and produce all the PRA docwnents I requested from your office on November 3, 2014 instead
of challenging me and court by deception and lies submitted to the court by several Defendants
under penalty of perjury.
CC: UCOP General Counsel Staff and Personnel, California State Bar, Judicial Council of

Cnlifomfa, US Senators Hon.Barbara Boxer and Hon. Diane Feinstein , Hon. David I. Brown
•
US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of the Federal Contract Compliance
Programs
.
Enclosw-e:
13
UCOP-General Counsel -charles Robinson
PRA !)ocumenb and Anti-SLAPP Motion.
240
EXHIBIT# 20
SAN BERNARDINO PAC ,,,,,,,,,...... Employment
PO BOX 641
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402-0641 EDD
......_
Development
-< Department
State of California
Mail Date: 05/14/2014

SSN: 449-59-6448
Claimant Phone #: (209) 339-1982
EDD TELEPHONE NUMBERS:

JAROSLAW J WASZCZUK English 1-800-300-5616
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY Spanish 1-800-326-8937
LODI CA 95242-4799 Cantonese 1-800-547-3506
Mandarin 1-866-303-0706
Vietnamese 1-800-547-2058
TTY (non-voice) 1-800-815-9387
website: www.edd.ca.gov
NOTICE OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIM FILED
You filed a claim for Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits effective 12/16/2012. When you filed your claim you stated:
1. Your last employer was: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

EMPLOYEE & LABOR RELATIONS
DAVIS, CA 95616
2. The last day you worked for that employer was 12/07/2012.
3. The reason you are no longer working ror the above employer is:
TERMINATED
4. You are not receiving a pension or other income that may be deductible from your UI benefits.
5. You are able and available to accept full-time work ..
6. You have the legal right to work in the United States.
Please review the above information carefully. No action is required by you if the information is correct. The EDD
considers this information correct unless you report-other information within 10 (ten)·days from the mailing date of this
notice. Any response after 10 days may result in delay of benefits. To report other information, you may call the EDD or
mail your response to the EDD address above. Remember to include your name and Social Security number in all
correspondence with the EDD.
Although federal and state laws prohibit the revealing of information about your employment and your UI claim to your
spouse, relatives, friends, non-interested parties, and private interest groups, federal legislation requires that such
information be made available to state and federal welfare, medical assistance, CalFresh (fonnerly food stamps),
housing, and child support enforcement agencies. Confidentiality ,s the responsibility of agencies using the information.
You have the option of cancelling a regular California UI claim (refer to your Notice of Unemployment Award for the
cancellation requirements). If you do decide you want to cancel your claim, do not certify for benefits because once
you are paid benefits, the law does not allow you to cancel your claim.
Benefit payments are issued to the EDD Debit Card5 M. You should refer to your Guide to Benefits and Employment
Services handbook for information about the EDD Debit CardsM. If you were previously issued a card and need a
replacement, you must contact Bank of America EDD Debit Card Customer Service toll-free at 1-866-692-9374.
DE 1101CLMT Rev. 6 (3-13) cu

State Bar -Exhibit # 127-Page # 6
Start Here -- EDD Web-Cert Page 1 of 1
~ Employ men t EDD Web-Cert

GOV l DP Development
D e partmen t Welcome Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Claim History
This page has a summary of your claim history.
For more help view the Continued Claim Form tip sheet: English I Spanish I Chinese I Vietnamese
If a certification period {one or two -weeks) has a status of:
• "Ready to File": You may certify for that period today. Please select the "Continue" button at the bottom of the page.
• "Submitted": Your information for that period has already been received. Please allow ten (10) days from the
submission date for processing
• "Use Paper Form": You must use your paper claim form for this period
If a particular certification period is not listed: Use your paper "Continued Claim" form to certify for that period.
Beginning Ending Weeks Status

12/01/2013 12/14/2013 2 Issued 05/17/2014
06/23/2013 07/06/2013 2 Issued 07/09/2013

06/09/20 13 06/22/2013 2 Issued 06/26/2013
05/26/20 13 06/08/2013 2 Issued 06/14/2013
05/12/2013 05/25/2013 2 Issued 06/04/2013
04/28/2013 05/11/2013 2 Use Paper Form
04/14/2013 04/27/2013 2 Use Paper Form
You have submitted all current claim forms and do not have any claims to submit at this time -
State B ar -Exhibit # 127-Page # 7

https ://cccwpd.edd. ca.gov/CCCW/Default.aspx 5/21/2014
EXHIBIT# 21
2..v, 2-
HOURLY CALL Ol'TION
POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALlllORNIA

SACRA1\1ENT0 ML'I'<'ICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
TABLE OF CO'.'/TENTS
2 1\..R.TICLE I l)EF.c-Jrr10>1s ···················•······••·••·•···············.. ······································· ... ·,,, ................ 5
3 ARTICLE 2 TER.!\.1 A.i~D TER.Nlfi\lATION .......... , ........................................ : ............... 7
i ARTICLE 3 OPTION RIGHTS .............................................................................................................. 7
s A1{11CLE 4 Dt.r:v!P ENERG!'" .......... , .................................................... ;., ................ 8
5 ARllCLE 5 DEUVERY ... . . ······················ ............................ 8

7 1\RTICLE 6 PRICE ......................................................................................................... .................... 9
a ARECLE 7 SCHEDUUNG OF PO\\/ER .................. ..... ........................... .... ............. .............••. I 0
9 ARTICLE 8 QUi\NllTY ..........................................................................•............................•......... 11
lO ARTICLE 9 DfW..AGES .....................................................................................,.............................. 11
:1 ARTICLE I0BILLTNGM"DPA11v(D..! ........................................................................................ 12
12 ARTICLE 11 AUDIT RIGHTS .......................................................:...................................... . . . . . .... 12
13 .t\RTICLE 12 NOTICES ................................................................................... ,............ .............. 13
14 ARTICLE 13 DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES ................................................................................. 13
2
ARTICLE 14 LIAB!LllY ................................................................................................................. 15
2 ARTICLE 15 DISPUTE RESOLlfflON ........................................................................................... 15
l ARTICU: 16 ASSIGNMEN::- ............................................................................................................ 15
.-: AR'llCLE 17 FORCE ~1AJEtJRE ................................................................................ , .................... 15
l ARTICLE 18 MISCELLANEOUS ................................................•.................................................. Is
o EX!Ill!T A. EXAMPLE OF REDl;cTION OF OPTION PREMICM PAThi ENT FOR

7 EXCUSED F.A!LuRE TO DELIVER

8 EXHIBIT B. EXA."IPLE OF REDUCTIOl\ OF OPT!OK PREMIUM PA ¥:-,!ENT FOR
' UNEXCUSED FAILURE ro DELIVER
IO EXHIBIT C. UNIVERSITY'S SCHEDULED OUTAGE FOR Tiffi l"NIVERSIT\' POWc1l

11 PLAt-;T
12 EXHIBIT D. EXAMPLES OF DUMP ENERGY PRJCING

1J
14
i5
16
17
18
19
20
2J
""
••
23
24
25
"
27
-...• 3
EXfilBJTC
Qniversi~chedulcd Outage fm: the Un~.v.~rsity Power Pl.ant
The following is the University's maintenance schedule for the University Pow;:r Plant:
2012
February 9, 20 l2------------'-(0500-2000)
March 26. 2012 (0500)------March 3,b, 2012 (2000)
May 3J 2012------·------+--(0500-2000)
July 26, 2012--------·--------'-(0500-1000)
September 20, 2012---···--·---~(0500-2D00)
November 15, 21!1Z---- -----~0500-2000)

2013
January 10, 2013 • - - - -----------i-(0500--:2000)
* The Urivcrsity must notify SMUD at tl1e earliest possible ,date but at least 30 days in
advance; of the :.11e1..:ifh.: LI.Lttes and rimes for Outages H tl1Ucrcl:nt trom the above. Overhaul
Outages will result in a reduction of the Option Pre.:nkrn pa:1/ment as calculated in Exhibit A
to this Agreement. The Uc.iversity sh.all use best efforts to avoid scheduling Overhaul
Outages during the months of May through October. These :schedules may only be changed
by mutual agreement oft.ic Parties. All changes will be ma~e in v.Titing and signed by each
Party's Authorized Repre:.entative.
3
POWER PURCHASE AGRE)!:MENT
2 BETWEEN
3 SACRAMENTO IWUNICJP AL UTILITY DISTRICT
Al',1)
5 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORl'{IA
6
7
8 This HOCR':. Y CALL OPTION POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT (the "Agccernent")
9 is m:,dc Bl\d entered into on 1J1e date last signed below ("Effectiv,c Date"), by and between the
10 Sacramento Municipal Utility District ("SMUD"), and The Regipts of the University of California
11 (''the University''") on behalf-0fits UCDMC Plant Ope::ation a..'"1J;M'aintenancedivision. SMLlD and
12 the UnivcrSlty a..r-e sometimes referred to in this Agreement indi,..Jdually as a °'Party" and
13 collcctive:y as the "Parties''.
14
RF.CHALS
"!6

:: A. The University and S.MUD have entered into a Coordination and Interconnection
18 Agreement bet\:veen the Sacramento Municipal Utility District and The Regents of the
19 University of Califorr,ja (''Coordination and Intcrconnectton Agreement').
2,
21 B. The Uni..,.crsity owns and operates a thirty (30) rne;gawatl cogeneration facility
22 located on the campus of the University of California at Davis MedicaJ Center
23 ("Facility''), in accordance Vlifr. the tenns and conditions of the Coordination and
24 Interconnection.
"
26
Z?
C. Service Schedule 5 of the Coordination .ind Intercom}ection Agreement allows the
University ancl SM1.TD to provide the other Party with firm ~nd non-firm energy, in
28 accordance with the terms and cond:iioos mulually agreed to by the Parties.
29
30 D. Pu:suant to Service Schedule 5 of the Coordination 8J:ld Intercormection Agreement:-
3I the University and SMUD desire to enter into this Agreefl1ent, which allows SMl JD to.
32 among other things, call upon the Gnivcrsity to provide SlvlliD at least 8 ~ of firm
33 energy from t:l.e Facility, except for instances set forth in .A'Iticle 5.2 of this Agreement, in
J4 accordunce witb the terrns and cond:tiom: m11tua.ll1· agreed to ·hy th.c Parties.
:36 E. Tbe University desires to have the abiJity to dispat1?h up to 6 MWH of enerb'Y per
37 hour to SML'D ,vhen the University f!lUSt operate the Facili(y to meet the air quality
38 standards set fo1th in the Univecsity's liccrne to operate L11.e Facility.
39
4
F. The University agrees to dispatch the Facility when called upon by SlvfUD in
2 accordance wit.ti the terms and conditions set forth herein, and t!'.erefore is willing to
3 enter into this Ag;eement \.\'lth SMUD.
4
5 G. SMUD agrees to accept and pay for such energy pursuant to the terms and
6 conditions set forth herein.
7
8
IC '
II NOW THEREPORE, in consideration oftht: mutual covcO.ant<; contained herein, and of
12 '
other good and valuable consideration, tt.e receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
13 acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: '
I•~
15
16 1. DEFINITIOi',S
17
l8 As used in this Agreement, the following terms ha,!,e the following mennings when
l9 used with initial capitalization, whether singular or plural:
20
21

22 Agreement; This term shall h;:1ve the meaning given to it in (he preamble.
23
24 Busin,g,-:s Day: Any day 'Monday through Friday, inclc1sive, hut excluding day5 that are
25 obs1.:rvcd as business holidays by either Party or that are stat,hory holidays in the VlECC.
26
27 Coor9_in.!lliW. ®-d Intercow~ction Agrecmer~:!: That agreement entered into bcrn•een SMUD
za ruid tfo::. Uui'vc:n,ity, d.:1.lt::l.l tvfa.rd1 5, 1996, im:ludlng any amenarnents and a!tacbrncnts
29 thereto, which is incorporated by re.:'erence into this Agreement.
30
31 DefaY.Jting Partv: This term shall have the meaning given to h in Article 13.2 of this
32 Agreement.
34 Dispatch Notice: This term shall have the meaning given to h in Article 3.2 ofihis
35 Agreement.
36
37 Rump Energy: This term shall have: the mcanlng giveu to it in Article 4 of this Agr~cmcnt.
38
39 Effective Date: This term shal~ have the meaning given to it in the preamble of this AJ?Ieement.
'-0
41 Facility: This term sho.U have the meaning given to it in the Recitals of this Agreement.
42 - '
"
44
Force Majeure Event: This term shall have the meanidg given to it in Article 11 of
the Coordi:..ation and Interconnection Agreement.
45
5
I Forced Outage: An occurrence, as declared by fae University Lo SMUD at the
2 University's discretion under this Agreement, of an unplarined reduction or suspension of
J the elcclricaJ output from the Fzcility in response to mechapica1, electrical, or hydraulic
4 control systems tri?s or operator-initiated trips or shutdown~ in response ~o unit ala;.""OOs or
5 equipment malfunction ?.t the Facility, or to prevent such tripS, alarms or ma:functions.
6
7 KW: lb.is term shall mean kilowatt.
8
9 M!nimum Requested MW: This lcnu shall mean & MW, except as set forth in A..-rticle 5.2 cf
JD this agreement.
lI
12 Monlhlv Availability factor: This term shall mean a ratio,.row1ded to two (2) decimal
13 places, equal to: (a) an amowit. in MWHs, equal to the to~ On Peak hours in the mooth
1-f minus the MVll-1s in such month not delivered due to aniForce Majeurc Event, Forced
15 Outages, Overhaul Outage, and/or Unscheduled 1vbintenancc OJtages. d:\ided hy(b) an
16 amount, in MWHs, eq,Jal to the On Peak hour,; m such month.
t7
18 MW: This term shall mean megawatt, or 1,000 kW.
2IJ ~fWH(s): This term shall meanmegawatt-bcur(s),

21

22 Non~Dc::::faulting~: This term shall have the meaning given to it in A.-ticle 13.2 of
23 this Agreement.
24
25 Notic~ of Default: l11Lc;; term shall have the meaning given to it in Artjcle 13.2of
26 this Agreement.
27
28 Off Peak: TI1is term shaU mean all ho:.rrs other than On ]'eak hours.
29
,,
30 On P~.~!r This term shali mean the hours from hour ending ("HE") 0600 Pacific Prevailing
Time through HE 2300 Pacific Preva:ling Tir:1e, Monday thrciugh SW1day.
32
,,
]3 Option: This term shall have the meaning given to it in Artidle 3.1 oft.11.is Agreement.
35 Qp_tion Premium: This term shall have the meaning give □ to it in Article 6.1 oftbis
35 Agreement.
37
38 Pvcrbaq.L Outage: An occurrence, as declared by the UniVersity to SMUD at the
'.:9 University's discretion under this Agreement, of a planned reduction or suspension of the
40 electrical out.put from the FaciHt:y that occurs over a period:longer thai, one calendar day.
41 The University shail use best efforts to avoid scheduling Ovtrhaul Outages during the months
42 of May through October. All Overhaul Ou~ages shall resu1t!in a reduction of the Option
...
43 Prem1wn payment as calculateC according to Exhibit A to ·this Agreement.
45 Parties: Dus term shall have the rr.eaning given to it in the preamble of this Agreement.
46
6
P-_~((y: This tenn shall have the meaning e;iven to it in the preamble ofth'.s Agreement.
2
3 Person: This term shall mean any indlvidua1 or a corporation, limited liability
4 company, partnership, bust, incorporated or unincorporated association, joint vcnrure,
' joint stock company, govcnment (or any agency or political subdivision thereof) or other
entity of any kind.
'
7
'
9
Point of Delivery: Tius term shall mean the SMUD Mld City Substation.
10 Power: Electrical energy, resource adequacy, and capacity from the fiacifity, as mensureC at
11 the Point of Delivery,
12
13 Revised Minbmm: This term shall mean 6 \.11,V, as specified in Article 5.2
14
.,,. SMUD: Tbis term has the meaning given to it in the preambie of this Agreement
16
J; -Sched-...dcd Maintenance Outage: Thifi term shall mean 8.ny outage or reduced
18 generating capability at the Facility that V.'Otlld atTect deliveries herennder, as specificclly set
19 forth i~ Ex.b.ibit C.
20
21 Univ_i;:r§_hy: This term shall have the meaning given to it in the preamble of this Agreement.

22
23 Tenn: This tenn shall h.ave the meaning given to it in Article 2. l of this Agreement.
24
L;J Terminatlon f.$.ymcrn: This term sna11 have the meaning given to it in Article L3.6of
26 this Agreement.
27
28 Un~;_~heduled ::Vfaill.tensl.Q9.e Outage: This tenn shall meal1 any outage or reduced
29 genera':ir..g capability at the Facility that would affcd de1iveri6 hereunder other than a
30 Scheduled Maintcrumce Outage, Forced Outage or an outage due ' 10 11 Force Majeurc Event.
J!
,,
,. 1\'ECC: This term means ·western Electricity Coordinating Council.
33
34
35 2. TERM AND TERMINATION
36
37 2.1 Te1m. Unless terminated as provided in_Article 13, this Agreement shall bhd
38 the: Pa.iii es upon its exccurion arcd delivery as of Jur_e l, 2012•, and shall tcnninare at 2400
39 hours Pacific Prevailing Time, on May 31. 2013. (the ''Term":).
10
41 3. OPTION RIGHTS
42
43 3.J Option Tyne. SMUD shaJI have the right, bi.:t not tbe obligatior., to direct the
44 University to dispatch the Facility on an hourly basis duril1g On Peak hours with no
45 minimum number of calls per month (the ''.Option").
46
- 7
3.2 Exercise o_fOption. SMUD may call upon the Univer1>ity up to twenty
2 (20) minutes before the delivery hour to deliver energy to the Delivery Point (the
3 ''Dispatch Notice"). The Dispatch Notice shall specify the time of comm er.cement of the
4 delivery period, and the duration of the deJivery period; provided, however, that SMUD
5 shall specify a continuous block of four or more hours in which it will receive energy,
6 provided that once each day, SMCD shall cnly be requi:ed to specify a two hour b'.ock in which
; it wiil receive e;:.ergy. Ifnc Dispatch Kotice fo!1ows for the hqur af:er the t\vo hour b!ock, then
8 SivICD may not issue a Dispatch Kotice for the two hours fo[6wing the end cf the previous
9 Dispatc~ Noti.::e. ·
10
11 3.3 Oblig<1ti.C!A to Delivet_Puring Off Peak Houis. Jf S:'vf UD exercises the
12 Option and the time of commencement of the delivery peridd struts ·during any On Peak hour
13 in ar.:c.;ordance with Article 3.2, above, the University shall ~e obligated to deliver energy to
14 SMUD tor the duration stated in the Dispatch Notice, everi if the duration of the Dispatch
15 Notice would require the University to deliver energy duriug OffPeakhours.
16
17
18
19 4. DUJ\,~ENERGY
2; 4.1 The University may dispatch up to 6 ::-..1\VH of~nergy per hour to S1--1lJD when

22 (a) required to meet air quaiity standards set forth in the Uni)'ersity's license to operate the
1~ Faci1ity, and (b) generation from the Facility exceeds the University's campus load ("Dump
2e Energy"), in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
25
26 4.1.1 Generation During Dump Energy Ramp Period. At no point shall
27 SMUD be obligated to pay for any Power generated when th'c gencrator/s arc rampjng up at
28 the request of the I; nivt!rsit}' in order to produce Dump Enerb. for avoidance of doubt,
"JO onc1: the generator has completed ramping ar:d reached t!:c sCheduled generation level per
Article ,1.1, SMUD will pay for the prescheduled energy in a_ccordance with Article 6.3 and
3l Article 7.2 of this Agreement.
32
33
J.i 5. DELIVERY
35
36 5.l Delivery of Power to SMUD unCcr Ootion. The 'Cniversity shall, in response to
3-; a Dispatch Notice from K\11.iD, dispatch the Facility at the Minimum Requested M\V io
38 accordance with the Dispatch Notice, subject to the limits d~cribed in this Agreement and as
39 set forth in Article 5.2. Tne University may dispatch the Fai.iility at a ievel greatc::.- lhan the
40 Min.imum Requested MW without incurring the liquidared d;hnagcs described ln Section 1.3
,: J of Attachment Ill of the Coordlliation and Interconnection A.4;recm.ent Administrative
42 Operating Procedures Revision 3. If, in rcspo:ise co a- Dispat¢h Notice issued by SJ.,fUD. the
43 University elects to dispatch the Facility at a level greater thap the ~1inimum Requested MW,
44 S],,,flJl) shall purcha.,;e such energy at the rates set forth iu k!iclc 6.2 oftb.is Agreement.
45
8
i
I 5. I .1 Generation During, Option Energy Ramp Period. $MUD shall be !
2 obligated to pay for Power per Article 6.2 of this Agreement", up to and in.eluding the first sro
3 kW generated when the gcnemtor/s arc ramping up at the re~ue.st of SMlJD in order to ·
4 produce Option Energy. Generation abo\'C 500 kW during the Optio□ Energy ramp period
shall be credited to the University's deviation account set up between the Pon:ies. Fer
'
6 av·oidance of doubt, once the gcr,erator he.s completeC ramping an<l reached the prescheduier
? genera lion level per Article 5 .I, SMUD will pay for said energy in accordance ·.vith Article
s 6.2 and Article 7.; of this Agreemt.:nt.
9
10
11 _ 5.2 Fur a_ l~tcl ~f 21 in<iividual days_ annually, d~e i50Iely t? hous: l?ad j
I
22 ccqurrement.s, th:! Umvers1ty shall only be obhgated to debv~r a Revised Mm1mum of 6 M\\·
13 when Wspatched by SMUD. The Cniversity shail make a g~od faith effort in notifying
'4 SMl.,TI of the 2.fplication of the Revised Minimwn as soon ~s possible. Any single
15 application of the 6 M\V Minimum by the liniversity with.in!a day shaU count (owards a fu1
16 day in the annual allotment· for which the Revised Minimum' applies. However, this does n t
prevent the university from applying the Revised Minfrnum for multiple hours within one d y
"
:s whiJe still counting only one full day ofme for the annual allotment. If the Urivers!ty is ab~e
1,
2J
to dispatch the Facility at a level greater fhad the :VIinimuin Requestecl MW then $MUD sha\1
purchase such energy at the rates se: forth in 'Article 6.2 of this Agreement. j

21
n 5.3 .De!iven• of Dump Energy. Prior to commeacement of delivery c>fDump
23 Energy, the Univcrsily's Ccntrel Plant Operator will call SMUD's Real Time Trader to
24 confirm the commencement of Dump Energy and to notify h1nvher ofau.y changes contain <l
2.5 in the preschedules provided by the University pursuant to Article 7.2 cf this Agreement.
26
27 5.4 SMt7D Exercise of Option During 0UT}1J?. Enetigy' D_eli•,ery lfau:rs. If'SMUD
28 issues a Dispatch Notice during any hour(s) that the Univcrs~t)' is delivering Dump Energy,
w any Dump Ene:gy delivered by the University during such hli>ur(s) set forth in the Dispatch
30 ~oticc: (a) shall count towards the University's obligation to ~cliver the Minimum Rcqucste
31 MW set forth-in Article 5.~ oft!us Agreement, and (b) shall be paid for by SMUD at the rakjS
32 set forth in Article 6.2 ofthiS Agreement. I
Jl
34 5.5 Point ofDcliy_m. All :Power soJd to SMlJD u.tider this Agreement shaIJ be
35 delivered to SMUD at the Point of Delivery.
36
Ji 6. PRICE
38
39 6.1 Option Premium. SMUD shall pay the Univer~ity $6,000 per month for the
40 Option described in Article 3.1 of tJ-:is Agreement (the •·option Prer.1ium"). The Option
a1 Premium for the first month ofthisAgreemer.t shall be proralec! if the Effecti\'e Date of this
.;2 Agreement :alls after !h::: frrst oftl:le nontb.
44 6.2 l;;nergv Prict;_. SMUD sha!! pay the U:i.iversi1y.for each M\VH of energy
45 delivered by the Cnivcrsity to SMUD, in response to a Dispatch Notice fasued by SMUD
46 pursuant to the following formula: ·
9
2 6.2.! Energy Price= Prepurchase :.\farket Price ($/Dth)"' Heat Rate+ O&M +
3 $10.00/fvfWH.
4
5 \Vhere Prepurchase Market P::ice = the a.mount specified on the
6 document entitled Prcpurch~e Market Price, which is provided by the
7 Stare of California to the University and reflects the University's cost of
8 natural gas;
9
IO Heat Rate"' 7,900 Btu/KWH; a..,d
II O&M ~$2.00/MWE
12
n 6.2.2 University shall email th::: Prepurchase Market Price to Sh1UD by th~
14 close of business on the fifth (5th) day of each month.
15
16 6.2.3 University shall emai! the Prcpurchase Market Price to the following
:7 addresses:
i8 michael.troth@.~mud.org
19
2:) 6.2.4 SM:UD sha]I calculate the En:!rgy Price to be paid to the University by
21 the sixth (6th) day of eacb month and such Energy Price shall be effective until the sixth (6th)

22 day of the following month.
23
2..i 6.3 Dump Energv Price. SMUD shall pay t:le Uni'Ycrsity the Dump Ene:rgy Price
25 for each MWH of Dump Energy delivered by the University:ro SMUD pursuant to Article 4
26 of L1.is Agreement and according to the following pricing.formula;
20
28 6.3.1 Dump Energy Price= The lesser of;
29
30 a) Prcpurchase Market Price ($/Dth) * Iieat Rate.
JI
32 \Vhere Prepurcbasc Market Pric~ ="" the muowit specified on the
33 document entitled Prepurchase Mark~t Price, which is provided
.M by the State of California to the University and reflects the
35 University's cost ofna:ucal gas;
36
37 Heat Rate = 4,000 Btu/KWH; or
J8
39 b)$45/MWh
,,o
6.3 .2 Provided, however, that if SMUD issues a Dispatch Notice pursuant to
"
42 Article 3.2 during any hour(s) in which the University! has scheduled Dump Energy,
43 SIYITID sha.11 pay the energy price !.el forth in Article cl.2
for the Dump Energy
,14 de-livered to SMUD during such hour(s). S~UD shaWhave no obligation to pay for
any Dump Energy delivered by the University to SMUD in. excess of the amount
prcschcduled by the University pursuant toArtidc 7.2 of this Agreement; as such
10
l preschedules may be adjusted by the Uni.versity prrsuan1. to Article 5.2. Exhil:it D sets
2 fortt: examples of how the D-Jmp Energy price is det~rmined under this Article 6.3.
3
4
5 7. SCHEDl:LlNG OF POWER
6
7 1. t :JMUD .:,\;1i1:Uul!IJI! uft'uwtlr t.·aocr op.1Ion. m acc~raance wnn ~ecnon .: .1., no
8 Iat1..-r than twe:tty (20) minutes bcfo:'.'e the delivery hour, SMUD's Day Ahead Trader or
9 Real Time Trader may call the U11lversity's Central Plant Operator to request the
10 com1nence.rnent of power deliveries uncier this Agreement
11 7,2 Ua.iversit)" Scheduling cf Dump Energy. No 18.ter than 0:::i00 of c::cb
l2 prcsclledule day, the University's Central Plant Opera-.:or Jho.li provide SMuo·~ Day
13 Ahead Trader with a schedule or schedules of expected hour:y 1\,f\V levels of Dump
:,1 Encrgy that the University wilI schedule into the SM.)Dsystcm. 1lieUaiversityDumpF.ncrgy
:5 p.eschcdules should be sent to the fo1JO\.,ing ad.c.resses:
"
17 7.2.1 d£ya1:eadtreding@smu<l.org
18
19
2, 8. QUA;:QTrY
21

22 8.1 For purposes of calculating billings pursuant to Article 10. the detennination
23 cf Jv[\VH delivered to S~CUD for a month shall be based up~n the sum of the actual daily
24 energy in suet month delivered by the Universit}' to SMUD and measured at the Delivery
25 Point.
"
27
28 9. DAJ"\iAGES
29
JO 9.1 Red_uction of Oplion Pavmen:
3!
32 9.1.1 Excused Failu..re;. ff the :Jniversity fails to deli\•cr the M;lUmwn
33 Requested MW when requested by S!V11JD pursuant to a Dispatch Notice issued in
34 accordance wi:h the tenns of this Agreement and as set forth; in Article 5.2, and such :8.ilure
35 is due to an Unscheduled Maintemmce Outa{;c, Forced OutaSe, Overha:.1I Outa,ge, or F"o:ce
36 Majeure Evenfc- the Option Premium for that month shall be -!-educed in acco:da'l.ce vmJ.1 the
J'J formula. set fonh in Exhibit A. The Option Premium wHl ooi! be reduced if lhe UniveTsity
38 fails to deliver the Minimum. Reques:ed MW if such failure is excused due to a Scheduh:d
39 Maintenance Outage that is not an Overhaul Out2..ge. or if such fa:lure results solely from
40 Univcr3ity's compliance witb dispatch ramping ir.structions ~ct forth in lhe Dispatch Nocice.
41
'12 S J.2 Cnexcused Failure. If the University fails to deliver the Minimum
43 Requested M\\' when requested by $MUD pursuant to a Dis~atch Notic::: issued in accordance
44 with tlle lerms .:.fthis Agreement, and such failure is not due lo any ofthe ::ircumstances
45 expressly set forth in Section 9.1.land 5.2, the Option Premiuµi. for that mcnlli shall be
46 redt:ced in accordance with the formulrt set forth i.rt Exhibit B. 1
11
2 9. l .3 Daily_~dting Reporls. For purposes of ca]culating the reduction in
3 the Option Premium set forth ln this Article 9. t .I, the Paclli~y's Monthly Availability Factor
4 shall be determined by reference to the Dai1y Operating Rep0rts required to be submitted by
5 the Uni\'ersity to SMUD pursuant to Sec:1.on 4 of Attachment II to the Coordination and
6 Interconnection Agreement Administrative Oucratine Pror.ertth.rr-.s Rt-.vi"irin 1
7
8 ?.2 Liguid.~ed Damage~ for Failure to Deliver En,<;:rgy Under Cption. In addition to
9 the adjustment to the Option Premium described in Section 9. I, if the University fails to
10 sc11cduk: ?.nd1or deliver the Minimum Requested MW when ~ailed upon by SlvfUD pursuant
II to a Dispatch Notice issued in accordance with the terms oftri1is Ag.recmer.t, and such failure
}2 is not excused due lo any of the circumstances expressly set ~orth b Section 9. I. 1 and 5.2, for
ll each M'~1·I of defciency the University shall pay tCJ SMUD Fquidated damages pursuant to
14 Seetion 1.3 of Attachment ill of the Coordination and Interc?nnection Ag£"ceme:nt
15 Administrative Operating Procedures Revision 3. The ParticS acknowledge that it is
16 extremely irnpr.1.ctical and difficult to assess actual damages :if the University fails to deliver
17 eoeq,•y pursuant to a Dispatch Kotice issued ur.der this Ag1e~men1. &ch Party therefore
agrees tliat the liquidated damages set forth i.o this Article 9.2 n!present a fair and reac,onable
"
II calculatioc of actual drunages to SMUD.
20

2. 9.3 lJqyidaLed D£1,rnages for Failure ~o D,;livcr Pomp Er_er,gy. If the U:1iversity
n fails to Ccliver the full amount of Dump Energ-y scheduled inlaccordance with tb.e terms offais
23 Agreement, and such failure is nor excused due to a ScheduI~d Maintenanc:c Outage,
2< Unscheduled Maintenance Outage, Forced Outagc 1 OverhauljOutage, or Force Majeure Event,
25 for ea:.:h JVfWH of deficien~y the University shall pay to SMUD liquidated damc.ges purmant
26 to Section 1.3 of Attachment Ill of the Coordination and Interconnection Agreement
27 Admi.n.istrative Operating Procedures Re,·ision 3. The Portie$ acknowledge that it is
28 ff
extremely llllpractfoaJ and difficul~ to assess ac~ual damages the University fails to deliver
?9 Dump Energ)' in accordaucc with the terms of this Agreement. Each Party therefore agrees
JO that tbe liquidated darnagcs set forth in this Article 9.3 representia fuir and reasonable calculation of
31 actc.a'. dari:.ages to S:MUD.
J?.
34 ] 0. BILLIJ',,G AND PA Y\ffi.VI'
"36 lC. 1 Energy Payment. All energy scheduled to SMiuD from tl:c L~nivcrsity during
37 fr.e biIHni period wil.J be c:.ccounted for and billed to SMUb b occordarice wii.h the
3il provisions of Section 7.4 of Attachment TU of the Coordination and Interconnection
39 Agreem~nt Administrative Operating Procedures Revisi6n 3.
4C
41 l 0.2 Optio1t Premium. S~1UD shall submit the Option 1•r~mium for the first
42 s<ervice month under this Agreement no later than either ~Wle 1, 2012~ or ten days after
43 Lhe effective date of this Agreement, whichever is later. $MUD shall ~ubrnh: the Option
4<1 Premium for each remaining month no later than the last day 1ofthe month preceding the
~<; .-IPli".,.'1' m-:>nth. To ib.> <>Htont that Dl-,1'CJD ovv-.,.,, .1uvu'-'.1 tv l.11J Uuivc:1:-.lly fuJ. llt:IJVt::l'lt::.S Of
'1:3 energy under this Agreement, SMUD shall submit the Option Premium to the University
at the swne time that SMUD submits payment to the University for energy delivered by
2 the Universify in the preceding month. For example,. at the end of December, SMUD will
3 suhmit to th~ University the Option Premium for Jar.uary, aiong '\\ittl the energy payme:1t for
/4 deliveries ma:::le by the Unive:-sity to SMUD in November.
5
6 10.3 Right to Offset. SMUD shall be entitled to j:iffset any amounts_ t~at
7 become due and pay.able by SMUD to the. UniversHy und~ this Agreement against any
8 amounts that become due and payable by the University to SMUD pursuant to Article 9. To the
9 extent that the to'.al amount due and payable to SMUD by thc-iUniversity pursuant to Article 9
1.J exceeds the, amount owed b}' SMUD to the University und~r this Agreement, th~ S:MUD
11 Accounring Department shall invoice the U nivcrs.ity for the remaining amount di,;c and
12 payable. 111c University shall pay Sl'vIT.)D for the remaining amount due \vithin thirt)' (30)
13 days of recelp: of the ir..voice.
14
15
16 11. AUDIT RIGHTS
17
18 11.I During the Te~ offais Agreeme::1.t (and for a period of sixty (60) days after the date
19 on which this Agreement termiuales), eijier Party may rcvi~w the clher Party's records, as
20 those records relate directly to this Agreement.

21
22 ]2. NOTICRS
,.:,
24 121 Q~neraL Except as specifically provded below, any notice or nmification
required,. permitted or contemplated hereuuder shall be in Vf(iting. shaU ~ addressed lo the
26 Pzrty to be no':i.fied at the address set forth below or at such Other adcress as a Party may
27 designate for itself from time to time by notice hereunder, ~n<l shall be deemed to have
been validly served, gjven or delivered (I) five (5) Busine.5s Days following deposit in
"
29 the United States mail, with proper first class postage prepaid, (ii) the ne."-ct Business Day
JO atler s1.1ch notice was delivered to a regularly schedl!led o~emight delivery carrier with
JI delivery foes either prepaid or an arrangement, satisfactory r,rith such carrier, made for th.e
32 payment of such fees, or (jii) upon receipt of notice giYcn by fax or personal derivcry:
33
;'4 To the University:
,5 Manager, P:,mt Operation and r.iaintenar,cc:
:6 University of California Davis, Medical Center
4800 Second A venue, Suite l 500
"
38 Sac;:-amento. CA 95RT7
39
40 With a copy to:
41
42 Business Conttacts & Analysis
,,
43 One Shields Avenue
Dzvis, CA 95616
45
"
13
ToSMUD:
2 Manager, Energy Trading & Contracts, Mail Stop A404
Sacramento Munit:ipal Utility Dbtrict
'4 6201 S Street, P.O. Box 15830
5 Sacramento, CA 95852~1830
G rax: (916) 732-6C01
7
8 122 Force ){ajeure Evect and Forced Outage Noticies. Notices ofa Force Maje·.rre
9 Event or Forced O'Jtag"'-S declared tr; the University shall be mad'e in accordance v,ith Seetioru 5 and
10 6 of Attachment J of the Coordination and In:erconnection Agreement Administrative
11 Operating Prcr.P<lllrP~ R1:1vision 3 for .comm,.1nic3ti.ono witll SMUD fw.- Pot-cc Majcurc Events
12 and Emcrgen<::y anC. RoutJnc Oper£tion events.
I]
!4
:s 13. DEFACLTS AND REMEDIES
16
17 13.J Defaults. Th:::. follov.ing events shall constitute: defaults under this AgTee::i:m:
"
1$1
1
i3.l.l Paibre of a Pa:ty to perform any mate rial duty im:,oscd U;>on that
20 Party by this Agreement (includll'!g but not limited to failure! to make a payment when due);
;, l

22 13.l.2 Failll!'c of the University to provide cnJrgy to SMUD when c~lled upon
2] pursuant to A!'t.icle 3 of this Agreement, w!ten such failure ls not cxct:scd pursuant to
24 Section9.t.l and5.2;
25
2, 13.1.3 Filing of a petition in bankruptcy by 'Pr again:-t a Party if such
petition is not with<lraV\on or dismissed ,:vi.thin sixty (60) c.8.y~ after it is filed;
"29 13, 1./4 Assignment by a Party for the benefit of cr~Cltors;

JO
31 : 3.1.5 Allowance by a Parly of the ap;.iointrne:d1 of a :eceiver or trustee of all or
32 any part of its prope:-ty if such receiver or tostee is not dis Charged within sixty (60) days
after his appoir.tment.
"34
35 13.2 N9_tice of Default. The Pa:ty ii_t default under this Agreem<:11t slall be
36 tefcrred to as the "Defaulting Party," and th~ other Party sl)all tc referred to as the ''}.fon-
37 Defaulting Party." The Non•Defaulting Party shall havethd right to gi_vc theDefimltin.g
38 Party a written notice of default (tlie "Notice of Default"), which shall describe the default in
39 reasonable detail and s:ate the date by which the default muJt be ::ured. In the case of a
40 default described in Article.s 13.I :J.. 13. '!. .3, 13.1.4, or 13.1.5 there v..rilf be no cure period
4.1 and no opportunity to cure. In the case of all Jlhcr defaults, the default :nust be cured ·within
1
42 t:1irty (30) days after receipt of the J\otice of Default.
43
44 LU i.'poortun.ity to C~ Jfwithin tt-.e thirty (30)fday ;icrioc'. described in Article
45 13 .2, the Defaulting Party cures the default, the Notice of n:efault shall be ino1:erative, and
4-5 the Defaulting Party shall lose no rights und~rthis Agreem:enL If, within the specified
14
.applicable periods, the Defaulting Party C.oes not cure tht! default as provided above, tl1e
2 Non-Defaulting Party may exercise the remedies contemplated by Articles l3.4 and 13.5.
3
4 13.4 Rights Upon DefauJt. After pro Yi ding notice and, if appJicable, upon
5 expiration of the cure period provided in Article 13.3 without a cure having been effected, the >Jon-
6 Defaulting Party shall have the right (but not the duty) to terminate this Agreement by giving
7 written notice to the Defaulting Party.
8
1~
• 13.5 Remedies Not Exclusive. Each and every power and reme9"y givrn to
the NonDefaulting Party (a) shall be in addition to every 9ilier power and remedy now or
11 hereafter available to lhe Non-Defaulting Party at law or in' equity (including the right to
12 specific perfonnance), (b) may be exercised from time to tiine and as often and in such order
13 sq
as may be deemed expedient, and (c) sba11 be cumula~ve, that the exercise of one power or
I< remedy shall not waive the right to exercise any other or oth~rs. No delay or omi.'>Sion in the
15 exercise of any power or remedy m1d no renewal or extension of any performance due under
16 this Agreement shall impair any such power or remedy er waive any default.
11 Notwi6.standing any termination oft.:lis Agree:::ncnt, all finaaciel obligations that have accrued
18 under this Agreement shall remain until paid.
19
20 13.6 Net O•.it of Payables Upon Termi~. Without limiting its remedies under

71 this Agreement~ upon tennination of this Agreement for default, t11c Non-Defaulting Party
22 may elect to aggregate all payments due and amowr~s otberw'ise owing under ti-tis Agreement
23 into a single amount by: netting out (a) all paymen~ and oth~r amounts that are due to the
24 Defaulting Party u11der this Agreement against (b) al~ payme'.,nts and other amormts that are
- 25 due to the Non-Defaulling Party under this Agreement, so treat all such amounts sb1ll be
netted oul to 11. sing]e liquidated amount (the "Termination Payment'') payable by one Party to
26
27 the olher with.in thirty (30) days of the date on which the No~-Defaulting Party notifie::, t_he
28 Defaulting Party of the amount of the Termination Payment! The Termination Payment shaJI
29 be payable to or from the Non-Defaulting Party, as appropri!te. This provision is intended lo
JO net ocly amounts due undec the terms of this Agreement as st:t forth above, and the Non-
JJ Defaulting Party shall under no circumstances be required to :pay the Dcfap.lting Party for any
32 amounts other thar. amounts due wit, respect to performan~ prior to the effective date of the
1
33 termir.ar!on.
34
35 13.7 Closeout Setoffs. After calcula~jon of the Terminallon Payment in
36 accordance with Article 13.6, if the Defaulting Party v..uul4 be owed the Termination
37 Payment, the Non-Defaulting Party shall be entitled, at its ~ption and in its discretion, to
38 set off against such Termination Payment any amounts due and owing by the
39 Defaulting Party to the Non-Defaulting Party under ah,y 0th.er agreemc~t.s,
40 instrument~ or undcrt?.kings between the Defaulting Party an~ the Non-Defaulting Party.
q
42 13.8 Time i~ of the E.s.scnce. Ti:ne lS of the essencC for each and every obfigat:on
43 set forth in this Agreemenl
44
45
46 14. LIABILITY
15
2 14.1 The liability provisiolls set :"orth in Articl'e l2ofthe Coordinc.tion and
3 Interconnection A.g.reemer.t shall £pply to each PartYs liab~ity under this Agreement.
4
5
6 15. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
7
S 15 .l The dispute resolutions set forth ill Article 10of tl1e Coordination and
, lutereocnection Agreement shall "PJ'.lly to the resciution of disputes under this Agreencent.
13
ll 16. ASSIGNMJ\NT
12
13 16.I The asslgnme.nt provisions ser forth in Section 15.6 of the Coordination am]
14 lnterccnncction Agreementsba11 apply to any assignments made pursuant to this l\grecrnent.
[l
16 17. FORCE MAJEURE
i:
iS 17. l The Force Majcurc provisions set forth 1n Artit:Je 11 cf the Coordination and
l~ Interconnection Agreemen! shall apply to this Agreement.
MISCELLANEOUS

18.
"
23 :;.8.] Seve:.-ability. The invalidity, in whole or in part, of any cf the a.Tticles or
24 paragraphs of (his Agree:nent will not affect the validity oftbc remainder of such articles or
25 paragraphs. ·
26
18.2 An:endm·c:11. No modification, a011::r_drncm, ;or other change t~ this
l;iy edch ufthe Parr!es.
r1. gr,..l'.1':l;'nt will be effoctiv~ 1.01)1;33 cor.i,."iCntcd tc i11 w1i1;11g
"
29
I
;o J8.3 Waiver. Pailure or forbearance by a:iy Party to exercise any of its rights or
31 remcdles under th.is Agreement shall not constirutc a waiv~r of such rights or remedies. No
32 Party shall be deemed to t::ave waived or for':>cmc ltny right or remedy resulting from suer.
failure to perform unless it has made such waive:- specifically in writing.
"
34
35 lo.4 ~ounterparts. This Agreement rnay be exec-uted in one or more
36 counterparts each of which shall he deemed an origi_rtal an~ all of which shall be Ceemed one
37 and the ~ame Agreement. This Agreement may be executed ID":d delivered by facsi.:nile or
38 electronic transmission and tbc Parties agree that such facsimile Sr e:ectronic (pelf) exooutio □ and
39 delivery shall bavc the same force and effect as delivery of an original docuoent wiU orighal
40 signatures~ aud that each ParLy may use such facsi.-nHe or c!ectro:lic signalures as evidence of the
41 executior: and delivery of fais A."llcndment by the Parties to the Jame extent 1hat an original
42 signature cou'.d be used.
43
'
18.5 Furfaer A-.§.Surance.5. The Parties shall do andjshall perform al~ such ucts and
"
45 things ar..d shalt execute all such deeC.S, docu:ncnts a:i.d writi.'lgs and shall give: all s1.1ch
46 further as:surances as may be c.ccesse.ry tc carry out t!J.e btent of this Agre~nwnt. In
16
particular, if any governmental or administrative approval, ipcrmit, order or other
2 authori.zation shall be necessary relative to this Agreemer;it and any prot-ision of this
3 Agreement or any transaction contemplated by this Agr,::em~nt, each Party shalJ use all
4 reasonable efforts to assist in the obtaining of such approval ► permit► order or other
5 authorization.
't 18.6 No Third Party BelJ.eficiaries. Except for PersPns to whom this Agreement is
8 assigned in,compliancc with Article 16, there are no third party beneficiaries to this
9 Agreement: and this Agreement shall not impa:xt any rights enforceable by any Person that is
!O ;:-.ot a Party.
:,
12 18.7 Time. Uo;ess otherwise specified in lhis Agreement, all refareaces to
specific time.sunder this Agreen-~ent sliall be references!to Pacific Standard or Pacific
" Daylight Savings TimeJ whichever is lhcn prevailing.
"
!
IS
15 18.8 Headings. The variot:s headings contained in ihis Agreement are for reference
II purposes only and shaU not affect .in a'ly \vaythe meaning or interpretation of the provisions.
18
'
19 18.9 Interpretation. Whenever the singt:lar or mas€uline or neuter is used in this
20 Agreement, lhe same shall be consl.Jued as meaning t11e piural or femin)ne or body

21 politic or corporate and vice versa, as the context so requires. \Vhencver the words
22 include(s) or including are u..<:ed in this Agreement, they should be inteipreted to mean
23 include(s) or lncluding, but not limited to. Because both Parties have participated in the
24 dratting of th.is Agreement, the usual n:.le of contract constiuction that resolves ambiguities
25 against tbe drafter shall not app!y.
26
27 18.I0 Q_t_hcr Agre~n:1ept<,. Unless otherwise specifiei'.l herein, the provisions of
28 Attachment HI of the Coordination and Interconnection Agfeement Administrative
29 Oper2.ti11~ Procedures Revision 3 wrn not appJy to this Agl'eement
10
31
32
33
. 34
35
36
37
)S
39
40
41
·12
43
44
45
17
;
18.ll Entire Agreement. This Agreement (inclUding the attached Exhibits,
2 which are ir:corporated by this reference) and all amendments to this Agreement contain
3 the complete agreement between the eniversity and the S'MUD with respect to the
4 matters contained in this Agreement and supersede aII otl;ier agreements, whether written
5 or oral, "vith respect to the matters contained in this Agreefllent.
11IE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SACRAMENIO MUNICIPAL

OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY DISTRICT
_'.::j ,:, i' _, / , ,·_-,,

BY: ,,· 1:~- ,,, ·-. ~p/i't.. 1~ ,,
I
NAME: DEBORAH FRA NAME: STEVEN K. SOREY
TITLE: ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 11TLE: :\,JANAGER, ENERGY TRADING

CONTRACTING SERVICES &CONTRACTS
18
EXHIBIT A
J3xample ofR~duction of Option Pren:i._iurn Payment fdr _excused Failure tc D~F~-~
Example, July 2012
On-PeakhoursinJuly2012 ""~496
MWHs in July 2012 unavaila!,le due to a Porco Majeure L\'ent- IO

lvfWHs in July 2012 unavailable due ta Forced Outages= 20
MWHs in Juiy 2012 unavailable due to Unscheduled Maintenance~ 30
'MWHs in July 2012 unavailable due to an 0Yedtaul Oi.ltage = 40
Tn :he t:vent of an excused failure to dclive:- as specified in Article 9.1.1, the Option
Premium shall be reduced pursuan~ to the following formula:
Reduced Option Premium= [lvfonthly Availability FactorJ x Current Monthly Option

Premium

Reduced Option Precnium ~ ((496 · IO • 20 •·JO• 40) 1496] x $6,000
Reduced Option Premium:..--. [396 / 496] x $6,000
Rcdu:::ed Option ?remium = .798 x $S,OOO
Reduced Option P~emium = $4,788
1
F.XllIBITB
Example.of Reciuction of Opt~on Premium Pavment for:lJnexcused Fajji:re tQ._.Qeliv_~r
In the event', of an unexcused failure to deliver, as specified ii;t Article 9. 1 .2~ the Option
Pn..-c1iwn for the month in which the unexcused failure(s) to deliver occurred ,vm be
reduced according to the following fonnula:
Rro=d Option Premiwn for Day I of month A= $6,000 • 56,000 [1'51
Reduced Option Premium fur Day 2 ofmonth A -$6,000 • S6,000 [2'5]
Roouoo:l Optioo Premium for Day 3 ofmonth A= $6,000 J $6,000 [3/5]
Reduced Option Premium for Day 4 of month A= $6,i)00 - $6,000 [4/5]

'
Reduced Option Premium for Day 5 of month A =$6,QOO • $6,:JOO [5/5]

Example, May 2013
On May 3, 2013, SM(JD issues a Dispatch Notice to the University. The University fails to
dehver any power to SrvfUD. The Option Premium would h~ reduced to $'1,800 for that
ruonlh. If SML"D issues a Dispatch '.\fotice to the uruversity bn May 28, 2013, and the
University delivers 5 :MW to S:Ml.JD, the Option Premium wbuid be reduced to $3,600 for that
month.
2
EXHIBIT D
Examples of.:Jum:, Energy Prticing
A Example ofCalculatiQn of~~1t for Delivery ofdwnp Energy Whc:n SMUD Doe.-.
Not Exercise the OptioIL University's Central Plant Operatd,c provides S:VJUIYs Da.y J'.iliead
Trader with a schedule of6 MV.lH ofDump Energy for he 8 and he 9 fur the lbllo\.\'i.ng&y. Pnor to
commencement of the delivery of Dump Energy, the Uni\'ersity's Central Plant Operator calls
Sl\.fTm'"' R,-nJ Tune trad= to oonf1nn the commcm:::cllleilt vfputujJ Ern:1g,y, a.nU IH)lillt:S
him/her that the University wil1 only deliver 3 r.1WH for he 9': (as opposed to the 6 M\VH
coutained in tbc preschedule). The University-delivers 6 ~1WH for he 8 and 6 MWH for he 9.
SMUD doe.snot exercise its rights under the Option. sMUD: would be required 'to pay the
UniveJ.Sity the Dump J:::nergy Price as described in Article 6.3.1 for 6 lVf\VH of energy delivered
during he 8 and3M\V1-Iof energy he 9.
B. E_~ple of_~alculation of Pay1:9CJ!tfo= Dclivezy ofD.wnp Energy V...'heri Sl\1L1U

Exercises the Option. Vn.iversity's Central Plant Operator Provides SMUD's Day Ahead
Trader·with a schedule.of"6 !v1WH of Dump Energy for HE 1:5 and HE 16 for the following
day. Pursuant to Article 3.2, SMUD issues a Dispatch Notic~ for HE : 1 through HE 15.
Prior to cornwena:ment of the delivery of Dump Energy, the Uni}1ersity's Central Plant Operator
calls SMUD's Real Time trader to confirm the commencement ofDun:p Energy, and notifies

him/her that the Unive.r.,ity wiJJ only delh'er 11-f\VH for 00 1~ (as opposed to the 6 Ivf\\-1-;
contained in the preschcdule). The University delivers 11 M)V for he 11 lhrough be !5, and 5
lVI\1/I-f for HE 16. SMLJD would be required to pay the T.:niv.ersity the price specified in
Article 6.2 for the 11 MWH of energy delivered durir:g he 11 through he 15, and the price
specified in Article 6.3 .1 for 1 YlV/11 delivered dw"ing HE 16.

0008-08!14!2023-Appellant's Request For Judicial Notice - JW

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0008-08!14!2023-Appellant's Request For Judicial Notice - JW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jaroslaw Waszczuk

2216 Katzakian Way

Appellant, In Pro. Per.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Jaroslaw Waszczuk Court of Appeal No. C095488

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

The Regents of the University of Notice of Appeal Filed on December 23,

Cal. Rule of Court Rule 8.252

II. POINTS OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………..…………...5

EXHIBIT # 1 – JANUARY 30, 2009 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THE REGENTS

EXHIBIT #2 – UC DAVIS PERSONNEL POLICY FOR STAFF MEMBERS (PPSM 23)

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

EXHIBIT #4 - 1999–2000: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT

EXHIBIT #5- 2000–2001: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT

EXHIBIT #6 - 2001–2002: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT

EXHIBIT #7- 2002–2003: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT

EXHIBIT #8- 2003–2004:EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT

EXHIBIT #10- 2005–2006: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT

EXHIBIT # 11 - 2006–2007: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT

EXHIBIT #12 - 2007–2008: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT

EXHIBIT #13 - 2008–2009: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT, (11CT Vol.

EXHIBIT #14- 2009–2010: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

EXHIBIT # 16 – JANUARY 6, 2015, WASZCZUK’S CORESPNDENCE ADDRESSED

EXHIBIT # 17-FAX LETTER DATED JANUARY 5, 2015, ADDRESSED TO DONALD

EXHIBIT # 18 -THE DECEMBER 31, 2014, INQUIRY SENT TO WELLS FARGO

EXHIBIT # 19- JAUARY 4, 2015 LETTER TO THE UNIVESRITY OF CALIFORNIA

EXHIBIT # 20-MAY 14, 2014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT

PROOF OF SERVICE BY US MAIL……………………………..….……………19

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Brosterhous v. State Bar of Gal. ([1995) 12 Cal.4th 315, 325)……………………….6

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

UC Davis Evaluation Policy PPSM 23…………………………………………… ……. ..8,9,11

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(a)(2)……………………………………………………………17

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

EXHIBIT #1 – JANUARY 30, 2009, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT: THE REGENTS

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

EXHIBIT #3 - 06/28/1999–12/27/1999: PROBATION PERIOD REPORT,

EXHIBIT #4 - 1999–2000: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

EXHIBIT #15 – SIX TIPS FOR PREPARING EMPLOYEE EVALUATION,

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

EXHIBIT # 17-FAX LETTER DATED JANUARY 5, 2015, ADDRESSED TO

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Under California law, if you should subsequently lose your

The denied benefits UNDER CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CODE

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

I, JAROSLAW WASZCZUK declare as follows:

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Re: Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California

Hon. Christopher E. Krueger, Judge - US Mail

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Supreme Court Clerk/Administrator California Supreme Court- US Mail

Lindsay A. Goulding -Via TrueFiling - E-mail - lgoulding@porterscott.com

H. Thomas Watson- Via TrueFiling - E-mail- htwatson@horvitzlevy.com

Document received by the CA 3rd District Court of Appeal.

HUMAN RESOURCES & RISK MANAGEMENT UC DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM