The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a community association manager by examination should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Miguel A. Torres (Torres), admitted to being sentenced on August 22, 1988, to one-year probation based on his plea of nolo contendere to the charge of carrying a concealed weapon. In July 1990 Torres pled guilty to battery on a law enforcement officer and disorderly intoxication. He was sentenced to jail for three days and was given three-days credit for time served prior to the imposition of the sentence. On October 3, 1991, Torres was found guilty of escape, resisting an officer without violence to his person, and criminal mischief based on Torres' plea of nolo contendere to those charges. On October 16, 1992, Torres was adjudicated guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and battery based on his plea of nolo contendere. He was placed on probation for three years. On October 16, 1992, Torres pled nolo contendere to three counts of unemployment compensation fraud and one count of grand theft. The court adjudicated him guilty of those charges, withheld sentencing, and placed Torres on probation for three years. On February 2, 1994, Torres was adjudicated guilty of driving under the influence based on his plea of guilty to that offense. On February 11, 1994, Torres' probation was revoked, and a sentence of three years was imposed for the crimes of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and battery. The sentence was to run concurrently with the sentences for escape, resisting arrest without violence, criminal mischief, and driving under the influence. Torres was incarcerated in the state prison system from April 5, 1994, through June 30, 1995. In his application to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Community Association of Managers (Department), Torres included letters of appreciation that he received in 1976 relating to his performance in the Puerto Rico Army National Guard; a letter of appreciation received from the Board of Directors of the Sunset Villas Phase III, Assn., Inc, in 1989; a recommendation letter from the General Manager of the Collins Plaza Hotel, dated April 11, 1997; a letter of appreciation from the Chairman of COM'IN dated November 1997, relating to his duties at the Collins Plaza Hotel; and a letter of appreciation from the Department of Veteran Affairs for Torres' assistance as a volunteer at the VA Medical Center during Hurricane Andrew. Torres also furnished to the Department a letter from the Board of Directors of Mar Del Plata Condominium Assn., Inc., stating that Torres had demonstrated his professionalism to their satisfaction and requesting that Torres' date of examination be expedited so that Torres could accept the Board of Directors' offer of employment as manager of the condominium association. Torres did not indicate on his application whether his civil rights had been restored after his felony convictions, and no evidence was presented at the final hearing to show that his civil rights had been restored.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Miguel A. Torres lacks good moral character and denying his application for licensure as a community association manager. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward Broyles Executive Director SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1998. Regulatory Council of Community Association of Managers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas G. Thomas Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Miguel A. Torres, pro se 2899 Collins Avenue Apartment No. 1420 Miami Beach, Florida 33140
Findings Of Fact Timothy M. Gray applied for an instructional position with the Pinellas County School Board in May 1984 and accepted an annual contract to teach at Safety Harbor Middle School for the school year starting in the fall of 1984. He taught a course to eighth grade classes called Power and Transportation, which is predominantly a shop course. Gray was certificated to teach industrial arts in 1980. The charges involved in these two cases stem from inappropriate remarks Gray allegedly made to various students in his class or in the school. Gray denies making the improper remarks attributed to him. Specifically, Respondent is alleged to have made inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature to Paul Bartolo and Mark Fulghum while driving them home from a school detention period that caused them to miss their bus. Respondent admits that he gave these 14- and 15- year-old boys a ride home after their detention. He lived in the same direction as the two boys and giving them a ride home was not out of his way. Both of these boys were discipline problems. During the school year Paul served about 15 detentions and was suspended twice. Both were in Respondent's Power and Transportation class and both had been placed on detention by Respondent. During the ride home Paul was in the front seat of Respondent's car and Mark was in the rear seat. Both boys testified that during the ride home an extensive conversation ensued and that Respondent, after answering a question regarding his marital status in the negative, continued with he liked snatch. Respondent admits the conversation and his attempts to reach these boys to improve their attitudes toward school but denies ever using the word "snatch." During discussions with girls on the school bus and at school regarding Respondent and his comments, Paul and Mark told the girls that Respondent said he liked snatch. At this time a lot of rumors were being circulated among the eighth graders in Respondent's classes about the way he looked at them and comments he had made they deemed inappropriate. The prime mover of this group was Dana Shaver, who testified only by deposition in these proceedings. Dana urged Paul and Mark to report Respondent's remarks to the principal. In a deposition (Exhibit 1) Dana testified that Gray had seen her at the beach over the weekend and told her in class Monday that he had seen her at the beach in her bikini and that she did not have much of a tan for a beach girl. This embarrassed Dana and she hung her head and did not hear Respondent say she would look better without it (bikini) on. This was later reported to Dana by an anonymous girlfriend. Respondent admits he saw Dana and another girl at the beach but denies saying anything more to her than she did not have as good a tan as he did. Dana's parents requested she be moved from Respondent's class in Power and Transportation (which she did not like) because of her being "embarrassed" by Respondent. Evidently, no embarrassment was involved discussing use of the word "snatch" with boys in her class. Kera Lampman is a bright 13-year-old who was in Respondent's Power and Transportation class. She testified that Respondent told her she had a nice butt and that she could get straight A's in his class. Respondent denies ever using the word "butt" to Kera but does not deny the remarks about her grades as Kera is a straight-A student. Respondent also testified that he was trying to get Kera moved to a more challenging class when he was suspended. Alissa Lanier, a 14-year-old student at Safety Harbor Middle School, testified that while walking from the bus drop to the entrance door immediately before classes started in the morning she heard someone say, "You've got a nice ass." When she turned around she saw Respondent some 20 feet away. She had never talked to Respondent, was not in his class, and testified Respondent was the only person on the ramp besides her. Respondent not only denies making such a remark but also testified that he frequently has bus ramp duty before school starts and he has never been in the area between the bus stop and school entrance doors shortly before school was due to start when the area was not crowded with students. The testimony that this area would be crowded immediately prior to school starting is deemed more credible. Respondent's denial that he made any comment to any girl he did not even know is more credible than is the testimony that this remark was heard from someone 20 feet distant in the bus ramp area immediately prior to school starting. Shelly Evans, a 14-year-old girl in Respondent's class heard Respondent say he had seen Kera and Dana at the beach and they looked great in their bikinis. During the period when others were reporting Respondent's actions she too reported this comment to the principal. One witness testified that Respondent looked at her in a strange way in class; that it appeared to her that he was staring. Such discussion and remarks including comments about bodies were being circulated among students at Safety Harbor Middle School and was brought to the attention of the principal who interrogated some of the students. The principal was told substantially what was testified to at these proceedings. During the investigation which followed Respondent denied using the words "snatch," "butt," or "ass," while talking to any of the students. Respondent, before coming to Safety Harbor Middle School, had worked in a Y conservation program involving young men. This age group was doubtless older than the 13-15 year olds in the eighth grade class Respondent taught at Safety Harbor Middle School and were less impressionable than eighth grade students. Hearing from one of her teachers that rumors were going around the school regarding Gray's language in the presence of students, Mrs. Raymond, Principal of Safety Harbor Middle School obtained the name of one or more students reported to be aware of such language and called them into her office. After obtaining statements from these students, who appeared as witnesses in these proceedings, Mrs. Raymond confronted Gray, who denied making inappropriate comments. Nevertheless, she recommended his immediate suspension with pay pending the next meeting of the School Board, who was authorized to suspend Gray without pay. Upon her recommendation, Gray was immediately suspended.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is of good moral character, which must be affirmatively determined by Respondent before Petitioner can be issued a license to operate as a community association manager.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("Department") has jurisdiction to regulate the practice of community association management. In June 2008, Petitioner Teddy Nadel ("Nadel") submitted to the Department an application for licensure as a community association manager. In August 2008, the Department notified Nadel that it intended to deny his application on the ground that he had failed to demonstrate good moral character. Nadel's Relevant Personal History For decades, from the mid-1960s through 2005, Nadel was a certified general contractor in the state of Florida. During most of this period, Nadel apparently engaged in the business of contracting without incident. In recent years, however, Nadel on several occasions was disciplined administratively for alleged misconduct in connection with his contracting business. The first disciplinary proceeding arose from Nadel's alleged failure timely to pay a civil judgment. In August 2001, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint accusing Nadel of having failed "to satisfy[,] within a reasonable time, the terms of a civil judgment obtained against the licensee . . . relating to the practice of the licensee's profession," which is an offense under Section 489.129(1)(q), Florida Statutes. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Nadel agreed to entry of a Final Order, in August 2002, whereby he was directed to satisfy the judgment, pay a fine of $500, and reimburse the Department $333.37 in costs. In March 2003, the Department again issued an Administrative Complaint against Nadel. The multiple charges included failure timely to satisfy a civil judgment, mismanagement,1 incompetence,2 and helping an unlicensed person engage in the business of contracting.3 In December 2003, pursuant to a stipulation under which Nadel elected not to dispute (or admit) the charges, the Construction Industry Licensing Board ("Board") entered a Final Order requiring Nadel to pay a fine and costs totaling approximately $4,000, satisfy the final judgment against him, and serve two years' probation. On March 7, 2005, the Board entered a Final Order Approving Voluntary Relinquishment of Licensure, which permanently stripped Nadel of his general contractor license. This action brought to an end certain disciplinary proceedings which were then pending against Nadel, who had been charged with helping four separate unlicensed individuals engage unlawfully in the business of contracting. Nadel neither admitted nor denied the allegations. At the final hearing, Nadel was afforded a full opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the multiple disciplinary actions that had been brought against him. To the rather limited extent Nadel testified about the facts underlying the numerous administrative charges described above, he failed persuasively and credibly to rebut the reasonable inference that naturally arises from the undisputed facts concerning his willingness repeatedly to accept punishment (including, ultimately, the loss of his license) without a contest in the respective disciplinary cases: namely that he had committed the unlawful acts as alleged. The undersigned therefore infers that, in the relatively recent past, Nadel exhibited a troubling pattern of behavior demonstrating a disregard of the laws regulating the business of contracting. On January 4, 2007, Nadel was convicted in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit on charges of engaging in the unlicensed practice of contracting during a state of emergency, which is a third degree felony4; and grand theft in the third degree, which is also a felony of the third degree.5 (Nadel had pleaded no contest to these charges, and the court had withheld adjudication.) Following this conviction, the court sentenced Nadel to 18 months' probation, imposed some small fines, and assessed costs. In his application for licensure as a community association manager, Nadel disclosed his criminal conviction and the fact that he had voluntarily relinquished his general contractor license. He denied, however, having been "involved in any civil lawsuits or administrative actions in this or any other state . . . ." This denial was false, as Nadel must have known. After all, in the previous six years at least two administrative actions had been brought against Nadel in whole or in part because of his failure to pay two separate civil judgments. Ultimate Factual Determination Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the evidence in support of which is clear and convincing, it is determined that Nadel does not possess the good moral character required for issuance of a community association manager license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Nadel's application for licensure as a community association manager. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2009.
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission, against the Respondent's Florida Educator's Teaching Certificate No. 770007, for alleged professional misconduct?
Findings Of Fact Respondent was issued Florida Educator's Teaching Certificate No. 77007 on September 4, 1997, and continued to hold that certificate in an active status until June 30, 2001. Respondent's initial certificate was valid beginning July 1, 1997. The certification covered the subject area of biology. VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINE At one time Respondent was a practicing attorney in the state of Virginia. In an action before the Virginia State Bar Tenth District Disciplinary Committee, IN RE: GEOFFREY T. WILLIAMS, SR., RESPONDENT, Docket No. 89-102-0281, dated November 6, 1989, Respondent received a public reprimand. The order setting forth the factual basis and provisions of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Rules violated is found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, admitted. Further disciplinary action was taken against Respondent before the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, In the Matter of Geoffrey T. Williams, Sr., VSB Docket Nos. 89-051-0857; 91-05l-0139; 92-051-0185 and 92-051-0558. In these cases orders were entered by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board Chair on February 26, 1993 and May 10, 1993, revoking Respondent's license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The opinion and order of revocation set forth facts forming the basis for the decision and identified the rules of the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility violated by Respondent leading to the discipline imposed. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7 admitted as evidence is constituted of those orders describing the revocation. The Virginia State Bar found reason to discipline Respondent based upon his treatment of legal clients and business practices with his partners. The grounds for discipline included the recognition that Respondent's conduct involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law, among other grounds. EXPLOITATION OF AN ELDERLY PERSON/THEFT In State of Florida vs. Geoffrey Thomas Williams, Sr., in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Volusia County, Florida, Case No. CRC00-34359CFAEF, an information was brought against Respondent. Count 1 charged exploitation of an elderly person, and/or a disabled adult in violation of Section 825.103(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. Count 2 charged grand theft in violation of Section 812.014(1) and (2) (c), Florida Statutes. Both counts pertain to Respondent's association with M.B. and her funds. The period envisioned by the counts to the information was from February 1, 2000 through March 27, 2001. Respondent pled nolo contendere to both counts. Respondent was adjudicated guilty of both counts, felony offences in Florida. Respondent was placed upon probation and made to pay court costs and jurisdiction was reserved to determine restitution upon the motion of the State. The period of probation was for five years under supervision of the Department of Corrections. M.B., Respondent's acquaintance, was at the time in question experiencing erratic thoughts, did not have good insight, and evidenced poor judgement. M.B. was being cared for by a psychiatrist. M.B. was a client of a health care company assigned to attend her interest. M.B. was not able to manage her daily affairs. Respondent had expressed an interest in discussing relieving M.B. of her legal obligations. This expression was made to Kimberly Zbin, a case manager with ACT Corporation, the mental health company assisting M.B. as its client. Respondent acknowledged to Linda Basbagill, an investigator who was at that time an investigator with the Department of Children and Family Services, that Respondent received checks from M.B. or M.B. issued checks on his behalf. Examples of those checks are found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 admitted. The dates on those checks correspond to the dates within the criminal information that has been described. EXPERT OPINION Duane Busse is the Director of Professional Standards for the School District of Volusia County, Florida. He holds bachelor's and master's degrees from Florida State University in education. He is an expert in education. He has been a teacher, a principal, has worked at the state level in education, and is a school district level administrator. His present position with Volusia County School District involves the investigation of alleged employee misconduct and the imposition of discipline for that misconduct. Mr. Busse is familiar with the documents that have been described concerning the action taken by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board and the Circuit Court in Florida, Criminal Division. Mr. Busse expressed the opinion that the outcomes in the bar discipline and the criminal court case reduce Respondent's effectiveness as an educator. Mr. Busse expresses the belief that Respondent would not be eligible for any type of employment with the school system where the witness is employed. Mr. Busse expressed the opinion that the Respondent has precluded himself from any level of a trust from parents and students based upon the circumstances in the bar discipline and criminal court case. He premises his opinion on loss of effectiveness on the fact of having been in Volusia County for about 15 years and his familiarity with people in Volusia County as to their expectations for moral standards of teachers.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Sections 231.2615(1)(c), and 231.2615(1)(e), Florida Statutes, set forth in Counts 1 and 3 respectively and dismissing the allegations of a violation of Section 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count 3, and imposing permanent revocation of his teaching certificate pursuant to Section 231.2615(1), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-013 Geoffrey T. Williams 8161 West Eastman Place Building 16, Apartment 103 Lakewood, Colorado 80227 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Business of Respondent The complaint alleges the Respondent admits and I find that the Respondent is a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203, Florida Statutes. The Labor Organization Involved The Respondent disputes the complaint allegation that the Charging Party is an employee organization with the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act. Evidence adduced during the course of the hearing establishes that the Charging Party is an organizational faculty at Brevard Community College which desires the betterment of teaching conditions at the college. It seeks to represent public employees for purposes of collective bargaining and in other matters relating to their employment relationship with the college. The Charging Party is registered with PERC and has petitioned PERC to determine its status as a bargaining representative. Testimony also indicates that employees are permitted to participate in the organizational affairs and a representation election was held on March 3, 1976, which Involved the Charging Party. Based on this undisputed testimony, I find that the Charging Party is an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices Background Patrick D. Smith, is employed by Respondent as Director of College Relations and he also serves as the editor of a college communications organ called the Intercom. Smith's immediate superior is Dr. King, the College's President who has the final authority for determining the Intercom's content. The Intercom is distributed to faculty and staff members in their college mailboxes and is published weekly during the school year. The Intercom is printed in and distributed from Smith's office on campus. On January 21, 1976, Lewis Cresse (then the Charging Party's President and a BCC faculty member) called Smith at his office and advised that he (Cresse) would like to announce a meeting that the Charging Party would be having in the Intercom. Approximately one week later, Cresse met President King in the college's parking lot and specifically asked that the BCCFT (the Charging Party) be allowed to use the Intercom. King indicated that he had no intention of allowing the Charging Party to use the Intercom and it suffices to say that Smith denied Cresse the use of it for announcing a meeting that the Charging Party would soon be holding in the Intercom. It is by these acts, that the General Counsel issued his complaint alleging that the Respondent discriminatorily denied the Charging Party the use of the Intercom and the college bulletin boards as a means of communicating the Charging Party's announcements and meetings. In attempting to establish that the above acts constitute violations of Sections 447.501 and 447.301 of the Act, the General Counsel introduced testimony to the effect that the Brevard Vocational Association, an organization whose purpose is to maintain communications for the benefit of all vocational, industrial education instructors in Brevard County had been permitted useage of the Intercom. Evidence also established that individuals were allowed to advertise personal items which they desired to sell in the Intercom and that such useage included advertisements regarding rummage and garage sales and that the Brevard Chapter of Common Cause, an organization which seeks to improve the workings of government by making it more accountable to the citizenry had frequently utilized the college's bulletin system. The Respondent bases its defense on its position that including in the Intercom, a meeting notice for the Charging Party which not only gave the time and place of the meeting but also urged faculty members to attend would have possibly violated the Act, by giving illegal assistance to the union; and that in any event, the college was not required to run the employee organization's notice in a publication such as the Intercom. Smith informed Cresse of Respondent's decision not to permit the employee organization to use the Intercom as a communications organ and thereafter, no other requests to use Intercom was made by the employee organization. Based on Smith's undisputed testimony that he raised the issue with Dr. King, college President, whether the employee organization's request would be granted, and that he (King) raised the question with the college's attorney, I find that the Respondent's denial is an act which is properly chargeable to Respondent. In support of its position that the Respondent discriminatorily denied the Charging Party to utilize the Intercom, the General Counsel introduced the February 19, 1976 issue of Intercom which contained a statement to the effect that Lewis Cresse, a professor at the college, would be speaker at a monthly meeting of the Brevard Vocational Association. Another item included in the Intercom was a meeting notice for the American Welding Society wherein it was announced that Sam Reed was Granted permission to announce a meeting for the society. In both examples, it was noted that the Brevard Vocational Association and the American Welding Society are organizations which the Respondent's administration encouraged faculty and staff members to participate in and for which the college reimbursed employees for expenses resulting from out-of-town meetings. Respondent's position is that it works closely with the society in that it fulfills its educational mission by preparing instructors which ultimately fulfills the college's mission. The remaining complaint allegations concerns the issue of a discriminatory denial to the employee organization of access to the college's bulletin Boards. Evidence reveals that the college has a well established procedure for the approval of documents to be posted on the college's bulletin boards and that such procedures are enforced. Prior to posting, they must be approved by Mike Merchant, Manager of the Student's Center and that approval takes the form of either a rubber stamp which indicates approval which is thereafter initialed by Mr. Merchant, or he writes the work "approved" on the document with his initials and the date. The facts relative to this allegation stems from a request by the Charging Party to post campaign materials on bulletin boards throughout the campus. Dr. Kosiba, provost of the Cocoa Campus informed Mr. Merchant that this request should be denied and it was. This request was also denied based on Respondent's position that it was not obliged to honor union requests to post union meeting notices on its bulletin boards and further that the items requested were "promotional materials" which were in truth "highly controversial campaign literature intended to gain support for the union in the then upcoming election." The items introduced were (1) a bumper sticker which encouraged employees to vote for the union and (2) a red, white and blue document covered with banner, stars and an eagle entitled "working draft of proposed agreement." To sustain the complaint allegations, it must be shown that (1) the Charging Party made a request to use the Respondent's communication facilities which in this case involved the Intercom and its bulletin boards and a denial of such request, (2) that similar requests had been approved of a similar nature and (3) that other alternative means of access were not available to the Charging Party. As to the first point, there is no question but that the Charging Party requested and was denied permission to use the Respondent's bulletin boards and its communications organ, the Intercom. However, the record evidence fails to establish that the Respondent had honored similar requests by other organizations in the past. In fact, all of the evidence tends to establish that with respect to the items here in dispute, Respondent vigorously opposed unionization, as was its right, and to have permitted the Charging Party to use the bulletin boards and its communications organ here would have been tantamount to a passive approval of the very ideas to which it had vigorously objected to. Furthermore, records evidence established that the union had abundant opportunity and did in fact communicate extensively with the employees. Among these other alternative means were: The college permitted the Charging Party to hold campus wide meetings for the faculty and staff on campus during daylight hours. The college provided a bulk distribution table conveniently located near the post office which was regularly visited by faculty and staff members. The college had an established policy which would have permitted the Charging Party to designate a single bulletin board for the posting of announcements. The employee organization was able to communicate extensively with faculty and staff by the circulation of numerous documents that were delivered to staff offices. (See Public Employer's Exhibits #3 - #24). Via the "faculty and staff directory", the employee organization had access to all names, home addresses and phone numbers of all members of the bargaining unit. (See Public Employer's Exhibit #26). The employee organization had available the campus newspaper THE CAPSULE, for meeting notices, announcements, etc. Local newspapers disseminated in the Brevard County area reported extensively on the union's campaign and activities. (See Public Employer's Exhibit #24(a) through (t)). Based thereon, I find that the Charging Party had numerous alternative means to communicate with the employees and the record is void of any circumstantial evidence that the rights of employees were interfered with, restrained or otherwise coerced by the Respondent's conduct as set forth above. I shall therefore recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety.
