STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COLLEEN ANN KELLY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-2708

) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR DESIGN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this cause came on for formal

hearing before P. Michael Ruff, duly-designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: William M. Furlow, Esq.

KATZ, KUTTER, ET AL.

First Florida Bank Building Suite 400

215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301

For Respondent: Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esq.

Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner, Colleen Ann Kelly, is qualified for licensure without examination as an interior designer based upon her cumulative experience. If she possesses the required number of months experience in work which meets the definition of interior design, she will be able to be licensed as an interior designer without having to sit for the relevant examination.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This cause arose upon the Petitioner's filing of an application to be licensed as an interior designer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 481, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner applied for licensure under the so-called "grandfather" provisions of Section 21 of Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. That provision requires at least six (6) years of interior design experience in order for the grandfather provision

to take effect so that a person so situated can be licensed without sitting for the relevant examination in interior design.

The Respondent notified the Petitioner, by letter of January 30, 1991, that her application was being denied because the Respondent considered that she did not have six (6) years of interior design experience prior to January 1, 1990. The Petitioner, therefore, requested a formal hearing pursuant to

Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The Petition was ultimately forwarded to the undersigned Hearing Officer. The parties filed a Prehearing Stipulation on November 19, 1991 and the cause came on for hearing as noticed.

The formal hearing was held on November 22, 1991. The Petitioner presented the testimony of two (2) witnesses and offered six (6) exhibits, which were accepted into evidence. Two of the Petitioner's exhibits consist of Affidavits, which, by agreement of the parties, were allowed to be treated as testimony. The Respondent did not present any witnesses and offered one exhibit, which was accepted into evidence.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner submitted her application for licensure as an interior designer on November 8, 1989. The

   Petitioner predicates her experience in interior design, to the extent of at least 72 months, based upon her experience in that field in both Texas and Florida, working for various interior design and decorating firms. The Petitioner specifically applied for licensure in interior design under the provisions of Section 21, Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. (Prehearing Stipulation).

   
   

2. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with regulating,

   implementing and enforcing the licensure standards and practice standards for interior designers in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, and related statutes.

   
   

3. The Petitioner has met all conditions precedent to obtaining licensure as an interior designer pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, except that the Respondent agency considers that the Petitioner has only 59 months of experience as an interior designer, rather than the required 72 months necessary for licensure without sitting for the examination, which is the category Petitioner maintains she occupies. The Petitioner was denied licensure as an interior designer by letter from the Respondent agency dated January 30, 1991. The sole basis for denial was that her previous employment experience at Westgate Fabrics was not accepted as interior-designer experience.

   
   

4. The Petitioner graduated in May of 1981 from

   Stephen F. Austin University in Nacagdoches, Texas. She received a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in interior design and a minor in art. She has been a member of the American Society of Interior Designers since 1977. During her work experience, the

   Petitioner was identified with the title "interior designer" for at least six (6) years prior to January 1, 1990 and has had six

   (6) years of interior design experience prior to that date.

   
   

5. From November of 1981 to August of 1982, the

   Petitioner was employed full-time at the Sanger Harris Company in Arlington, Texas, a period of nine (9) months. During her employment with Sanger Harris, she did "space planning" and planned furniture arrangements. She designed draperies, valances and window treatments, as well. She performed fabrication and design of fabrics, as well as the fabrication and design of accessories, lighting, wall coverings and carpeting. The Petitioner was the person responsible for insuring that the fabrics on furniture would be appropriate as an end-use fabric.

   Additionally, the Petitioner did sketches for interior design "layouts". The Petitioner's employment with Sanger Harris was proven to qualify as interior design experience for purposes of the "grandfather" provisions of the above-referenced statutes.

   
   

6. The Petitioner was employed full-time by Westgate Fabrics from August of 1982 to June of 1983, a period of 11 months. During that employment, the Petitioner dealt with the fabric problems of the company. She took orders for fabrics and checked on back orders. The Petitioner was, again, employed full-time at Westgate Fabrics from December of 1983 to August of 1985, a period of 20 months. During this period of employment with Westgate, she held a different position from the one previously held during her employment with Westgate from August of 1982 to June of 1983. From December of 1983 to August of 1985, the Petitioner gave "consultations to customers". She

   assisted customers in finding the appropriate material needed for draperies, window coverings, or for specific fabrics. The Petitioner assisted customers with color schemes and textures for their rooms. The Petitioner "did sketches" for window treatments and also "did studies with the clients to make sure that we met the needs they had". She did custom designs and designed custom upholsteries and did "sketches as far as the style of window treatment that [the client] wanted to have".

   
   

7. During her employment with Westgate from December of 1983 to August of 1985, the Petitioner performed one

   particular job involving a restaurant chain which illustrates interior design duties. The restaurant chain needed a fabric for indoor seating, outdoor seating, and for wall covering. The Petitioner gave consultation to the client regarding the fabric design and the color. The Petitioner prepared the specifications to prepare the fabric to suit the client's needs regarding resistance to mildew and suitability for commercial use. The Petitioner also provided specifications with regard to wall coverings which had the flammability code necessary for a commercial building and provided the proper installation procedures for the wall coverings. For this project, the Petitioner prepared sketches for planning the design of the fabric. In addition, the Petitioner gave consultation regarding the goods that were to be used in the project to make sure that the end use of the materials was appropriate (for instance, weather resistance and mildew resistance).

8. Another project performed by the Petitioner during that employment period with Westgate involved assisting a homeowner with a window problem. The Petitioner consulted with that client as to the proper fabrics to solve the client's

   problem involving excess cold air entering through the window and involving direct sunlight during the day. The Petitioner prepared sketches on the design of the window treatment and depicting what the window treatment would look like after installation.

   
   

9. John Stenger is the Vice President of Westgate

   Fabrics and was one of the Petitioner's supervisors during that second employment with that company. According to Mr. Stenger's Affidavit, in evidence, from December of 1983 to August of 1985, the Petitioner provided consultations and specifications to customers of Westgate Fabrics in connection with draperies, floor coverings, wall coverings, space utilization, furnishings and the fabrication of nonstructural elements within and surrounding interior spaces of buildings. Another one of the Petitioner's supervisors at Westgate, Midge Staller, supports those conclusions. This testimony, by Affidavit, stipulated into evidence, is consistent with the Petitioner's testimony as to her work experience during this period of time and is accepted.

   
   

10. The Petitioner's employment with Westgate from December of 1983 to August of 1985 qualifies as interior design experience for purposes of the "grandfather" provisions of the interior design laws of the State of Florida.

    
    

11. From August of 1985 to February of 1986, the

    Petitioner was employed full-time at Diane Flack Interiors in San Antonio, Texas, a period of six (6) months. During her employment with that firm, the Petitioner "did consultations regarding fabrics, regarding window treatment, regarding wallpaper". The Petitioner "did carpeting" and "did sketches for window treatments". The Petitioner "made sure the specifications on the fabrics were appropriate for the end use".

    
    

12. The employment period with Diane Flack Interiors

    was from August of 1985 to February of 1986, and it was shown to qualify as interior design experience for purposes of the above- statutory authority.

    
    

13. From February 1986 to August of 1986, the

    Petitioner was employed full-time at Inside Story in San Antonio, Texas, a period of six (6) months. During that employment, the Petitioner "did space planning.. .did, selecting fabrics, wall coverings, wallpaper". She "worked with window treatments and had them fabricated". The Petitioner "did sketches of the window treatments to make sure that they were what the client needed".

    The Petitioner "handled installation, all purchasing". The Petitioner, during this employment period, also assisted customers regarding reflected ceiling plans. She provided specifications as to floor coverings, as well.

14. The Petitioner's employment with Inside Story qualifies as interior design experience for purposes of the above-mentioned grandfather provisions.

    
    

15. From October of 1986 to the present, the

    Petitioner has been employed full-time at Oldfield Interiors in Tallahassee, Florida. She has worked a total of 38 months at Oldfield Interiors prior to January 1, 1990, as an interior designer.

    
    

16. During her employment at Oldfield Interiors, the Petitioner has done consultations, sketches, floor plans, and space planning. The Petitioner worked with the customer "from their floor plan to the finished product, furnishing as far as furniture, wallpaper, carpet, tile, lighting, lighting plans, reflective ceiling plans, window treatment, sketches". The Petitioner's employment with Oldfield Interiors from October of 1986 to January 1, 1990 qualifies as interior design experience for purposes of the above-mentioned grandfather provisions of the Florida interior design laws.

    
    

17. The Petitioner's activities at each of the

    interior design employments mentioned above were not identical to one another and did vary somewhat. During her employment with Sanger Harris, Westgate Fabrics, Diane Flack Interiors, Inside Story and Oldfield Interiors, the Petitioner's employers considered her work to be interior design work.

    
    

18. Jill Dzurik Smith is licensed as an interior

    designer in the State of Florida and qualified to testify as an expert in interior design. Ms. Smith was present at the hearing during all of the testimony, including the testimony of the Petitioner. Ms. Smith's expert opinion is that the Petitioner's work experience at Westgate Fabrics, from December of 1983 to August of 1985, qualifies as interior design experience. The basis for Ms. Smith's opinion is that the Petitioner gave consultations, performed studies, and prepared sketches. "Basically from everything she said, she carried out almost all of the duties that are listed in the statutes. Well, she did carry out all the duties that were listed." That opinion is accepted as fact.

    
    

19. The term "interior design" covers a broad range of activities. Every interior designer does not perform

    identically the same activities as every other interior designer. Some interior designers specialize in one particular area. Some interior designers do nothing but space planning. Some do nothing but arrive at specifications, while others do nothing but lighting and lighting plans. Some interior designers only design and produce furniture. Just because an interior designer specializes in any one field does not mean that person is not actually performing interior design work and services. An interior designer performs the duties of arriving at specifications, doing consultations, the fabrication of nonstructural elements, sketches, drawings, and space planning.

    Nonstructural elements are the finishing processes, including window treatments, non-load bearing walls, floor coverings,

    draperies, furniture, and lighting. The selection of furniture itself is part of interior designing.

    
    

20. An interior decorator can perform some interior design duties, and there is some overlap between interior decorating and interior designing. Interior decorators mostly handle the selection of fabrics, wallpaper, and floor covering

    and do not prepare drawings or perform space planning nor do they plan and design lighting. Jobs that interior designers perform that interior decorators do not perform involve use of floor plans, drawings, reflective ceiling plans, and space planning.

    
    

21. In Ms. Smith's expert opinion, the Petitioner's experience at Westgate Fabrics from December of 1983 to August of 1985 was interior design work because the Petitioner performed the following duties: consultations, sketches, drawings and specifications. The term "specification" covers the actual items being used and all of the information about that particular item. Specification includes how an item is to be installed, the manner in which it should be installed, the materials which should be used in installation, and the preparation required beforehand. While the Petitioner's previous work experiences are not identical and do vary somewhat, her employment with Westgate Fabrics from December of 1983 to August of 1985 is similar in nature to her work experience at Sanger Harris, Diane Flack Interiors, Inside Story, and Oldfield Interiors. At each of these employments, the Petitioner performed interior designer services with variations in the types of services provided.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

22. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

23. Section 21(1) (b) of Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, provides that 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 of Professional Regulation without taking the written examination or otherwise meeting the qualifications of Section 481.209(2), Florida Statutes, provided the applicant has used or been identified by the title "Interior Designer" and has at least six (6) years of interior designer experience.

    
    

24. Section 481.203(8), Florida Statutes, provides:

    
    

    `interior design' means 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 nonstructural 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 performance by an architect.

    
    

25. The evidence adduced in this proceeding culminating in the above Findings of Fact, being preponderant evidence, established that a person such as the Petitioner, does not have to perform each and all activities described in Section 481.203(8), Florida Statutes, in order for a given employment experience to qualify as interior design experience.

    
    

26. The Findings of Fact herein, based upon preponderant evidence of record, demonstrate that the Petitioner's work experience at the various employers named above qualifies as interior designer experience, for purposes of the grandfather provisions of Section 21 of Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. Thus, it has been shown that the Petitioner has a total of 79 hours working in the capacity of an interior designer, including nine (9) months at the Sanger Harris Company; 20 months at Westgate Fabrics (for the employment running from December of

    1983 to August of 1985); six (6) months at Diane Flack Interiors; six (6) months at Inside Story; and 38 months at Oldfield Interiors. It can thus be seen that the Petitioner has met all conditions precedent to obtaining licensure as an interior designer pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of Chapter 89- 19, Laws of Florida. The Petitioner has met the requirement for six (6) years of interior design experience in order to be qualified for licensure without the necessity of taking the interior designer's examination.

    
    

27. Accordingly, it is concluded that the Petition should be granted.

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the competent evidence of record, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore,

RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent agency finding the Petitioner to be entitled to licensure as an interior designer pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, without the Petitioner being required to take the written examination and that the Petitioner be licensed as an interior designer.

DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1992.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-2708

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-37. Accepted.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact

1-6. Accepted.

7-9. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.

10-11. Accepted.

1. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.

2. Accepted.

3. Accepted, but it does not necessarily include all of her duties.

15-16. Accepted.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture & Interior Design Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

Jack McRay, Esq.

General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

William M. Furlow, Esq. KATZ, KUTTER, ET AL.

First Florida Bank Building Suite 400

215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301

Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esq. Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

ALL PARTIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT WRITTEN 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 CONTACT THE AGENCY THAT WILL ISSUE THE FINAL ORDER IN THIS CASE CONCERNING AGENCY RULES ON THE DEADLINE FOR FILING EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER. ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE AGENCY THAT WILL ISSUE THE FINAL ORDER IN THIS CASE.

Docket for Case No: 91-002708

Orders for Case No: 91-002708