The unprecedented rejection of Rachelle Chong's reappointment is largely attributable to two reasons.   First, her policies and actions as Commissioner were decidedly dismissive of most of California's telecommunications consumers.   Second, she misrepresented material facts to the PUC. 

In August 2009,  UCAN sent a detailed letter to the Senate recounting Chong's failure to effectively supervise the consumer complaint bureau (CAB) at the Public Utilities Commission.   It is found below in the "Chonglet" attachment.  UCAN wrote, in part:  

"We determined that since Ms. Chong’s appointment to the California Public Utilities Commission initiated only four formal telecommunications actions. None were related to “consumer protection”. In contrast, during the same time period (2005-present), UCAN litigated eight and initiated five formal consumer protection actions against California telecommunications carriers.During this period, UCAN also received a large number of informal complaints. Amongst these complaints, UCAN uncovered at least 11 systematic types of abuse costing individual consumers from as little as $0.01 to as much as $48,000. These practices are explained in detail and quantified below. We examined the responsiveness of the Public Utilities Commission’s own Consumer Affairs Bureau by reviewing forty-seven (47) UCAN complaints that were filed with the CPUC’s consumer protection bureau since 2005. We found that most complainants received inadequate or no CPUC assistance in resolving their disputes. Based upon the data that we describe below, we observe that the Commission staff appears to be either inundated or disinterested in aggressively protecting the state’s consumers from telecommunication company abuses. The change in PUC enforcement appears to have begun about the time that Ms. Chong was appointed in early 2006. At that time, she was put in charge of telecommunications and consumer complaint handling at the Commission."

Chong wrote a subsequent rebuttal to the UCAN letter.   Her rebuttal may have sealed her fate in that she made arguments to the Senate that were misleading and material misrepresentations.  

UCAN responded, as detailed in the attached "Chongrejectionlet".   That letter explained why Chong was not discharging her statutory-obligated duties to protect the state's consumers.  

Governor Schwarzenegger's statements suggesting that the Senate's decision is tainted by racism demeans the entire process.   Chong's nomination was opposed by consumer and non-profit groups representing all ethnicities and economic classes.   Her deficiencies had nothing to do with her culture or ethnicity and the Governor's office knows this.   It is disappointing that he has attempted to inject crass politics of division in a decision that was as thoughtful and well researched as anyone could expect or hope from our government.

The misrepresentations to the Senate about her accomplishments and years of ignoring consumer complaints caused Chong's house of cards to tumble down.   Her refusal to listen to talk or listen to the consumers that she legally represented doomed the state's self-acclaimed communications czar.   UCAN's reaction to the Senate's reported decision can be found in the "Chongrejection1209" letter attached below.