In its motion for reconsideration, Bross asserts that, indenying the motion to dismiss, the Board did not consider thequestioning between the hearing officer and complainantconcerning the scope of relief sought.
(Tr.
11.) Complainant
again stated that they would want a cease and desist order and toachieve compliance.
(Tr. 1/9/92
at 190.)Based upon a review of the transcripts, the Board findsBross’ statement that they were “allowed” to leave the hearing agross misrepresentation of what actually occurred at hearing. Stat. 1989,’ch. 111 1/2, par.
Allowed
scantmp2
Adobe Portable Document Format (.pdf) - application/pdf
... 
