KAREN D. MAST, )
vs. ) CASE NO. 91-1884
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE ) AND INTERIOR DESIGN, )
Respondent. )
A hearing was held in this case in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida on December 10, 1991, before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings.
For the Petitioner: Karen D. Mast, pro se
600 Parkview Dr., Apt. 527
For the Respondent: Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire
Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
D. Mast, qualifies for licensure without examination as an interior designer as a result of the breadth of her experience consistent with provisions of Florida Statutes.
By letter dated October 29, 1990, Pat Ard, Executive Director of the Board of Architecture and Interior Design, advised Petitioner that her application for registration and licensure as an interior designer in Florida had been denied because it did not show sufficient evidence that she met the requirements of Florida Statutes 481, Part I. Thereafter, on November 19, 1990, Ms. Mast requested a formal hearing and on March 21, 1991, the file was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of a Hearing officer. By Notice of Hearing dated April 23, 1991, Hearing Officer Daniel Manry set the case for hearing in Fort Lauderdale on July 19, 1991, but on July 14, 1991, consistent with the parties' Motion for Continuance filed July 3, 1991, Mr.
Manry rescheduled the hearing for August 30, 1991. Thereafter, however, on September 3, 1991, based on Petitioner's unopposed request for continuance, Mr. Manry again postponed the hearing until December 10, 1991, at which time it was
held as scheduled by the undersigned to whom the case was reassigned in the interim.
At the hearing, Petitioner testified in her own behalf and presented the testimony of Paul F. McCarthy, Robert Sabin, and Donald Wright, all former clients of Petitioner; and Bernadette Mercado, an architectural designer who has worked with Petitioner in the past. Petitioner also introduced Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 4. Respondent presented no witnesses but introduced Respondent's Exhibit A, Petitioner's application file. At the request of the Respondent, with the concurrence of the Petitioner, the undersigned took official recognition of Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida.
A transcript was not provided and neither party submitted proposed Findings of Fact.
At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, (Board), was the state agency charged with the responsibility for the licensing and regulation of the interior design profession in Florida.
At some time prior to 1975, when the Petitioner moved to South Florida from Long Island, she attended Nassau Community College, working toward an associate degree in fine arts. She was going to continue with her education when, in that year, she received a call from her brother to come to work with him and another brother who had started a furniture design and construction business in south Florida. As a result of the call, she moved to south Florida and started work with them on a full time basis, designing furniture pieces and the settings for their display. She also started taking her own clients in 1976.
Petitioner's brother, Robert Sabin, with his brother, started a business called Cartel in Miami in 1970. Cartel manufactured furniture, upholstery, case goods and stainless steel furniture and distributed it throughout the United States. Though the company had hired a designer, J.S. & Associates, at the brothers' request, Petitioner came to work with the company in the early 1970's, initially starting with J.S. & Associates. By 1975, however, she was a full fledged designer both in conjunction with and independent of the company. When, at that time, the company outgrew its prior facility and purchased a new building, Petitioner designed not only the interior showroom but the facade of the building as well to increase its appearance. Primarily this involved the rearrangement of interior walls but little structural change.
In 1980, the company bought a new building which required extensive redesign, and Mr. Sabin and his brother gave Petitioner the job of redesigning it. With regard to this change, Petitioner did everything from drawing the blue prints to final design.
Her plan for the building involved gutting it, installing new walls consistent with her design, new windows, doors, display platforms, scenic displays and the like, and at the same time, she was hard at work designing new product. In addition to working for the company in the design of its product and building, she also designed outside projects for the firm, going to out of state showrooms to insure the company's product was properly displayed. This,
however, appears to be theatrical design rather than interior design since it consisted of the design of backdrops, props and the like.
In addition, she did an apartment for the owner of Carnival Cruise Lines, and a restaurant, and she assisted in the interior redesign of the Eden Roc Hotel, though she made no changes to the structure. She also worked on the Cricket Club as well, all of which involved major changes without going beyond the limits of her capabilities. Through all this time, Petitioner worked for her brothers' firm doing the design projects. Witness Sabin was in charge of production; his brother, now deceased, was in charge of sales, and Petitioner was the designer.
Ms. Mast's primary design work was more intensive from 1981 on when the major reconstruction of the new building was under way. At this point, though the job was hers, she was not just a decision maker on design done by someone else. She, in fact, did the actual design work for the various construction segments. She knew her brothers' taste and could design what they wanted and she believed they would like. She designed it from the beginning and supervised it through its fulfillment. The concepts were hers, though they were based on the general thoughts conveyed to her by them.
In 1983, Paul F. McCarthy, a resident of Vero Beach, met Petitioner and her brothers and has been friendly with her family since then. In fact, Petitioner helped him guide his daughter into the field of interior design. In 1987 Mr. McCarthy retained the Petitioner to redo a house he had bought in Vero Beach. As a part of her work, she redesigned the kitchen, the family room and the living room into a wide open great room. The result was "spectacular." She met the strict time constraints for all work done which included submitting renderings involving the removal of interior walls and board samplings and elevations, all before the work started, and when the work was completed, Mr. McCarthy classified it as no less than "outstanding." When he sold the property at a large profit, he believed his ability to sell at such a profit was due primarily to the work done by Petitioner.
Because he was so satisfied with her work, Mr. McCarthy introduced Petitioner to two top interior designers practicing in Vero Beach, and has also recommended her to developers and builders. He feels she is extremely talented, straightforward and honest. She gives excellent service in a prompt manner and she recognizes and satisfies her client's needs in a warm, caring and friendly manner. He would recommend her to others and would use her on future projects.
Donald Wright, a winter resident of Fort Lauderdale and a summer resident of Toronto, has known Petitioner since 1983 when he was referred to her by a realtor. Mr. Wright is in the business of purchasing and remodeling homes and condominium apartments and at that time, when he was considering a redoing a condo for resale in Toronto, he contacted Petitioner and requested she come there and work with him on the project. At that time, he did not know any suppliers and was very impressed with the work she had done in the past. The facility in question needed complete rehabilitation since it was an older building which he wanted to update and modernize. It required a redoing of the flooring, changing the floors, walls and counters in the kitchen, changing the laundry room, and adding a bathroom.
Initially, Mr. Wright took Petitioner to the material suppliers with whom he had worked in the past, but once she agreed to do the job, she took over and ran with the ball. She got samples, made suggestions and completely
redesigned the interior of the apartment. He was satisfied with her work which took approximately a month and a half.
In 1988, Mr. Wright, who had been contacted by a foreign investor to convert three apartments in Toronto into one large apartment, retained Petitioner to work with him in the redesign of this project. He gave Petitioner the original plan for the three apartment, and in general described to her how he wanted them converted into one large apartment. This involved the movement of bathrooms, two kitchens, four bedrooms, a maid's quarters and a pantry. Having evaluated the project, Petitioner suggested changes to be done and gave Mr. Wright rough drawings of how the project would look when completed. Mr. Wright took these to the owner who approved them, after which Petitioner did the final drawings which were also approved by the owner.
Petitioner and Mr. Wright worked together on this project. He gave her the sources of supply and got samples, and they worked together until the job was finished. She redesigned the complete interior of the new apartment, changing the layout of the bathrooms and the kitchen, not only with cabinets but counters as well, provided for tiling in both areas, obtained furniture samples and wall covering, and the like and the job was completed before the time allotted had expired. The owner of the apartment was very satisfied with the work done by Wright and the Petitioner.
Sometime in 1986, Mr. Wright again retained Petitioner to work on the redesign of the interior of a 70 foot yacht, the owner of which wanted the interior gutted and replaced. This involved the redesign of the staterooms, bath and galley, and included new paneling, new furniture, new colors, new dimensions, and the like. The owner picked out the appliances he wanted, but Mr. Wright and Petitioner worked together in designing their placement and the placement of the lighting. She designed the cabinetry work and the layout of the kitchen and a sound system so as to get the most usable space out of the limited area available. The owner was extremely pleased with the result.
Mr. Wright has been in the modification business for approximately 15 years and is not, himself, a designer. However, he has a very high opinion of the quality of the work performed by Petitioner. She has impeccable taste and knows how to lay out and utilize space. She knows the limitations that are placed on structural changes and is capable of redesigning space to conform to and comply with limitations on structural change.
Ms. Mast is extremely proud of the work she has done and believes she has dedicated her life to her work. She limits her practice to high end clients and the majority come to her as the result of referrals from other clients. She is proud of the name she has developed in the interior design field over the years she has practiced.
Petitioner presented a brochure of her brothers' furniture line and was able to point out some 15 or so individual pieces she had designed in addition to the showroom layout. As to her design of the building in which the company operates, she designed the tile work, the placement of interior walls, the use of glass block and the structure within the supporting walls of the building. In addition, she designed the interior of a restaurant in Bogota, Colombia, and the departure bar in the Aruba International Airport in the West Indies. With regard to those last two projects, the plans submitted by Petitioner as having been drawn by her reflect that the departure bar was designed in 1985 and the restaurant in 1989. Review of the plans indicates that the date on the drawing purportedly done by Petitioner appears to have been
altered, since the figures, "85" do not seem to have been drawn by the same individual who inserted the "19". They appear different. Much the same appears on the chicken restaurant drawings where the Petitioner's initials appear to have been inserted over some other name, and not placed there at the time the plans were drawn. However, no evidence was submitted by the Department to contest the identity of the plans or that Petitioner drafted them, and as a result, they are accepted as offered.
With regard to these facilities, Petitioner claims she did the floor plans, the tile detail and the interior design detail on both. She has been a member of the International Furniture and Design Association for several years.
Petitioner's application for registration as an interior designer in Florida was received by the Department on January 5, 1990. Petitioner was requesting registration by exemption rather than by examination, and properly submitted the $50.00 fee at the time of her application. The application as initially submitted, reflected her experience from 1975 to 1982 with Cartel, Inc., her brothers' furniture firm, and from 1982 to the present as an interior designer with Rudolph Collections, also a design firm owned by her deceased brother, Paul. From November, 1989 to the present, she was an interior designer with Thomasville Showcase Interiors in Pompano Beach. It would appear from the application and the supporting documents that the Board did not consider the listed description of the nature of her work performed to fall within the criteria qualifying her for an exemption.
Along with the application, Petitioner also submitted a statement from Mr. McCarthy, and one from the personnel administrator of Thomasville Showcase Interiors with whom she has worked since 1989, which indicated she was involved not only in layout, color coordination, furniture selection and the like, but performed the additional task of space planning as well.
Petitioner also submitted several client reference forms which reflect that she performed the services of an interior designer for those clients in 1987 and two more from as early as 1983 and 1984. The one from Jean Craft, which relates to a 1984 employment, concerns Petitioner's activities in selecting fabrics, window treatments and the use of mirrors and wall covering. This is more the work of an interior decorator, however, than that of an interior designer. In 1983 and 1984, however, Petitioner worked for a Mrs. Nettie Effron in New York. In that operation, Petitioner prepared drawings showing elevations and concept details which involved structural changes and the introduction of skylights, glass panels and other interior changes. The Board, however, in reviewing Petitioner's application, concluded that the references submitted by Petitioner with her application did not sufficiently describe experience in interior design for the six years prior to January 1, 1990, which is required by the statute. The additional testimony presented at hearing, which includes a statement of Mr. Don Blumenthal, of Miller Construction, adds considerable to the history of interior design experience, however.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida in 1989 provides, in part:
Any person who applies for licensure as a registered interior designer and remits the application and initial licensure fees by January 1, 1990, shall be licensed by the department without taking the written examination or otherwise meeting the qualifications of s. 481.209(2), Florida Statutes, provided the applicant:
* * *
(b) Has used or been identified by the title "interior designer" and has at least 6 years of interior design experience.
* * *
(3) A person shall be deemed to have used or been identified by the title "interior designer" within the meaning of this section if such person demonstrates to the satisfaction of the board that such person was, either on his own account, which means self-employed, or in the course of regular employment, rendering or offering to render to another person interior design services as defined in s. 481.203(8), Florida Statutes,
....
Section 481.203(8), Florida Statutes, defines "interior design" as:
...design services which do not necessarily require performance by an architect, including consultations, studies, drawings, and specifications in connection with reflected ceiling plans, space utilization, furnishings, or the fabrication of
non-structural elements within and surrounding interior spaces of buildings; but specifically excluding mechanical and electrical systems, except for specification of fixtures and their location within interior spaces. Except as provided herein, interior design shall not include services which require performances by an architect.
The Board has denied Petitioner's application to be registered as an interior designer with the state because it did not show sufficient evidence that she met the requirements of Florida Statute 481 Part I, and Chapter 88-383, Section 21. At the hearing, however, Respondent's counsel relied upon and requested the undersigned officially recognize Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, cited supra. In more common terms, the Board claims that Petitioner does not have the proper experience as an 'interior designer" during the six years immediately preceding her application for registration.
Chapter 88-19 specifically refers to the need for the application and required fees to be remitted by January 1, 1990. Review of the Petitioner's
application shows it was notarized on December 29, 1989 and the date stamp of the Board indicates it was received by that body on January 5, 1990. No evidence was presented as to whether the term "remitted " means dispatched or received, but the Department did not raise timeliness as an issue and it is concluded, therefore, that it has waived any objection based on the timeliness of the application. The only question remaining, therefore, is whether the Petitioner's experience within the 6 years immediately preceding the remittance of her application constitutes the appropriate interior design services contemplated by the statute.
The burden of proof rests with the Petitioner to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that her prior interior design experience meets the requirements of the statute. A careful review of the materials submitted by Petitioner with her application clearly indicates that that cited experience does not.Ordinarily, a board regulating the licensing and practice of a regulated profession possesses a specific brand of expertise in that area which is not easily overcome by an applicant or licensee trying to show the board's determination of some matter within that area of expertise is in error. However, there are times when no specific expertise is required and the opinion of another is as valid as that of the board. Here, this seems to be the case.
At the hearing, a de novo evaluation of the application credentials, Petitioner submitted additional evidence of interior design experience that was not presented to the board previously. This includes the evidence of the work done for Mr Wright's clients and for him personally, the work done in Colombia, and that done in Aruba as well as the work done over the years in conjunction with her brothers' firm. Taken together, this work, as described by Petitioner and her witnesses, and not rebutted in any way by the Department, clearly falls within the statutory definition of interior design as found in Section 481.203(8), Florida Statutes. Since the majority of that qualifying work was done over more than a six year period immediately prior to the filing of her application, it would appear to qualify her for registration without examination.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore:
RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the Petitioner, Karen D. Mast, registration as an interior designer in Florida without examination.
RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of January, 1992.
ARNOLD H. POLLOCK
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1992.
Karen D. Mast
600 Parkview Drive, Apt. 527
Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire Department of Legal Affairs
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should consult with the agency which will issue the Final Order in this case concerning its rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency which will issue the Final Order in this case.
