California Structural Pest Control Board


	Counting on the Structural Pest Control Board to follow up on their findings, I contacted them regarding Mr. Peterson's disappearance during the trial and the current status of their case against Terminix. I received NO answers to any of my questions, only a non-responsive, ludicrous statement that this case was decided in a court of law.


	This case was not decided in a court of law -- it was dismissed on the basis of lack of evidence in large part because Charles Peterson of the Structural Pest Control Board failed to appear!! Furthermore, why didn’t the Structural Pest Control Board, who had determined Terminix violated the Structural Pest Control Act, hold a hearing as their letter to Terminix stated?

Since both Mr. Peterson and the SPCB had told me before the trial began that our complaint was "automatically" being forwarded to the California Attorney General's Office for action to be taken against Terminix's license, I contacted the California Attorney General's Office regarding the status of our complaint against Terminix. I spoke with "Mike," who stated he couldn't find any complaint against Terminix and that he would contact the Structural Pest Control Board for some answers and get back to me.

"Mike" telephoned late that afternoon and informed me the Structural Pest Control Board stated they had NO prior complaints against Terminix since 1981. I told him something wasn't right, that the SPCB told me Terminix had numerous complaints against them, that they were on probation for two prior offenses, and that my complaint was forwarded to the Attorney General's Office. I told him I would telephone the Structural Pest Control Board to find out what was going on and call him back.

I telephoned the Structural Pest Control Board and was told Terminix had "thirty settled complaints, thirty-six dismissed complaints, four violations, and our Administration has more complaint history." I asked the status of our complaint against Terminix and was told, "This case is still open. It appears to be still going... I'm not really sure what this means. But Gayle is here, and she'll be able to discuss it with you." The call was transferred. I identified myself and asked Gayle the status of our complaint. She responded, "I'll need to speak with Charlie Peterson, and he is not available. I can have him call you back. I can't tell you anything. I don't know. He had it after I did."

After speaking with the Structural Pest Control Board, I telephoned the Attorney General's Office and asked to speak with "Mike." Robert Raimer answered the call and did not forward me to "Mike." Mr. Raimer was very brusque and told me the Attorney General's Office does not represent consumers; they represent the Structural Pest Control Board.

It was obvious we were not going to be rescued by the SPCB or the California Attorney General's Office. We were forced to file bankruptcy, harming all of our creditors and everyone who borrows on credit. We were turned into pond scum.

I received a copy of a Memorandum dated October 18, 1993, to Joel Primes, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, from the Structural Pest Control Board, signed by Charles Peterson -- on the date he was supposedly out of the state and unavailable to testify. The memo stated:

The Structural Pest Control Board has requested this case be submitted to your office for administrative action. Subject’s license to practice structural pest control may be subject to disciplinary action as provided for by the following section(s) of the Business and Professions Code regarding the property located at....

The case had been turned over to the Attorney General’s Office!

I received a letter dated February 24, 1994, from Gayle Yamada of the Structural Pest Control Board that stated:

Our investigation of your complaint is completed and the file closed. This action is taken on the basis of the inspection report furnished to us by a specialist of the board which states:

The company corrected those items for which it may have been responsible.

WHAT?? To our knowledge, Charles Peterson was the only “specialist” in the geographical area. Mr. Peterson, who left the state while under a subpoena to testify, sabotaging our civil suit. Now, the board was closing our file because Mr. Peterson said, “the company corrected those items for which it MAY have been responsible?” @#$#@! THE COMPANY DID NOT CORRECT ANYTHING!!!

On March 10, 1994, I sent a seven-page response letter to Gayle Yamada, stating as emphatically as possible: "The company has NOT corrected, nor made any attempt to correct, even one of the items for which it IS responsible." I asked several questions and raised several issues in the letter. There was no response to my letter; and the questions remain unanswered.

Gayle Yamada sent another letter. This letter was dated March 17, 1994, and was the same form letter she had sent in February stating the Structural Pest Control Board's investigation of our complaint was completed and the file closed; however, this time the reason given was:

The settlement conference did not work out and now it is set for trial.


	I was furious! In the seven-page letter I had sent to Ms. Yamada, I had taken the time to describe what happened, including the trial and its outcome. I had gone to the expense of photocopying documents and mailing them to Ms. Yamada; and all I received was another form letter -- and a nonresponsive one at that!

What was going on? I was convinced the Structural Pest Control Board was negligent and/or corrupt and was protecting and/or covering up for Terminix. I gave up on the Structural Pest Control Board.

Unfortunately, I was never able to find out who was on the board at the time; however, Lee Zusman of Terminix was appointed to the Laws and Regulations Committee of the California Structural Pest Control Board. Now, that’s a comforting thought. I don’t know if anyone else from Terminix has been appointed, because the list of appointees does not contain their affiliations. I recognized the name of Lee Zusman from the facts that:

Lee Zusman of Terminix responded to the letter from our first attorney.
The letter to Terminix with the Report of Findings was sent to Lee Zusman of Terminix.
When David Tennant added and removed the name of David Honey as an expert witness, he also added and removed the name of Lee Zusman.


	The foxes are guarding the hen house! Actually, I have no reason to distrust Mr. Zusman; I only wonder with whom his loyalties are and whose best interests he is representing.


	Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, others have had similar problems with the California Structural Pest Control Board. As with the other information on this web site, it is my intent to make these issues available in the hopes of affecting changes in the public’s best interests or, at the very least, to forewarn others, so on March 5, 2000, I created the web page Complaints Against the California Structural Pest Control Board.