STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LISA FORD IRION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE No. 91-4857

)

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

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Veronica E. Donnelly, held a formal hearing in the above styled case on October 21, 1991, in Tampa, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Lisa Ford Irion, pro se

2346 Lakeshore Drive

Clearwater, Florida 34619

For Respondent: John J. Rimes III, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1050 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner is qualified for licensure without examination as an interior designer in Florida.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In a letter filed with the Board of Architecture and Interior Design (the Board) on July 18, 1991, Lisa Ford Irion (Irion) requested a formal hearing to contest the Board's decision that her pending application for licensure should be denied. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 6, 1991, where it was scheduled for hearing on October 21, 1991.

At the beginning of the hearing, two joint exhibits were filed by the parties. Petitioner Irion submitted one additional exhibit during her case-in- chief, and testified in her own behalf. The Board moved two additional exhibits into evidence and presented one witness.

The parties agreed Petitioner Irion would be allowed to have a posthearing review of additional design work by a Board member. On November 5, 1991, a

posthearing order was issued that reiterated these additional documents had to be filed by November 15, 1991, and proposed orders were due December 6, 1991.

A transcript of the proceeding was filed on November 8, 1991. Additional design work completed by the Petitioner was never submitted to the Hearing Officer and Proposed Recommended Orders were not filed by the parties. A second posthearing order requiring a status report was issued on December 12, 1991.

The parties did not respond to the order. As a result, this Recommended Order issued without Proposed Recommended Orders and without information regarding the outcome of the Board's review of additional portfolio work from Petitioner.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On December 27, 1989, Petitioner applied for registration as an interior designer under the exemption provisions of the licensure law.

   
   

2. Upon review, the application was deemed incomplete because references were missing and documentation of 6 years experience in the field was not included. Petitioner was notified of these deficiencies on January 25, 1990. Her application was placed in abeyance until the necessary documents were received by the Board

   
   

3. Although Petitioner did submit some additional information, a second notice regarding an incomplete application was sent to her on June 12, 1990. This notice explained additional design detail was required for the 1985 client

   K. Gillman. More client verification forms were needed because the forms sent did not span the 6 year period. Employment verification forms from Joanne James Interiors and Burdines were still missing. Petitioner was asked to submit this additional information to the Board by a July 31, 1990 deadline.

   
   

4. By September 10, 1990, the employment verification form from Joanne James Interiors was still missing. In addition, the employment verification form from Alan Greene, Inc., Interior Space Design, stated her job title was Interior Designer/Bookkeeper/Secretary. Based upon these notations, the Interior Design Committee responsible for application reviews felt that this job was not full-scale, full-time interior design. Further, the committee was not pleased with the level of interior design work submitted with the application. As a result, the pending application was denied on September 19, 1990.

   
   

5. The denial letter advised Petitioner she could seek reconsideration by making such a request in writing. By doing do, she would be able to submit supplemental information for review along with her current application.

   
   

6. Petitioner took advantage of the opportunity to seek reconsideration. She wrote the Board a letter explaining the work she did in Alan Greene's firm. In spite of this additional submission, the committee remained unconvinced that Petitioner did design work while in Alan Greene's firm or that she had any design experience in the early years of her career. Additional information from someone other than Petitioner was requested to show full-scale design work occurred between September 1982 and November 1983.

   
   

7. Prior to the written issuance of the Board's denial of the Petitioner's application as an incomplete file, Petitioner was verbally notified of the decision. In response, she requested a formal hearing before the Board formally issued its letter stating the application was considered to be abandoned by the Board on July 23, 1991.

8. During hearing, the parties jointly submitted a letter from Darcy White, a client who corroborated Petitioner's testimony that she did full-scale design work on Sun Bay Realty in Tampa, Florida, while working for Alan Greene's firm. Petitioner's testimony and the corroborative information were given greater weight by the Hearing Officer than Alan Greene's Employment Verification Form which minimized Petitioner's design responsibilities.

   
   

9. A client reference form for the time period between November 1982 to February 1983 which described Petitioner's direct involvement in lighting and space planning on a project was given greater weight than the written job description from Bass & Bass where Petitioner interned during college. The Employment Verification Form represented Petitioner was never given such opportunities. Petitioner's testimony corroborated the client reference document and reasonably explained that the firm member who completed the verification form did not supervise her work with clients during this part-time job.

   
   

10. At hearing, Petitioner presented a letter from Joanne James Interiors, where she worked from March 1987 through June 1988. Although the letter verified employment, it did not reveal whether Petitioner's work was in the nature of "interior decorating services" as defined by Section 481.229(6), Florida Statutes, as opposed to "interior design" as defined by Section 481.203(8), Florida Statutes. The letter, which is dated May 24, 1988, appears to reflect on skills of an interior decorator. Examples of design work completed during this period of employment or client reference forms would resolve the ambiguity.

    
    

11. Petitioner's work at Below Decks, Inc. may have been in the nature of "interior design" in that the ceiling and lighting of the main salon within the Murphy yacht was designed by Petitioner, according to her testimony. Contrary to the opinion of the expert witness presented by the Department at hearing, a marine architect is employed to certify the hull of a boat. It is not his or her responsibility to deal with lighting and ceiling design below deck beyond a determination as to how such redesign would affect the vessel's seaworthiness. Client verification or employer verification of the interior design decisions made by Petitioner on the Murphy yacht could resolve the pending controversy regarding whether work at Below Decks, Inc. between August 1984 and July 1985 involved interior design as opposed to interior decorating services.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

12. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties, and the subject matter in this cause. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

13. A specific procedure for licensure as an interior designer without examination is provided by Section 21 of Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. This provision has not been codified in the Florida Statutes due to the fact that it is time-limited, and applied only to a particular group of potential applicants. In pertinent part, Section 21(1)(b) as amended provides that any person who applies for licensure as an interior designer prior to January 1, 1990 shall be licensed without examination if that applicant has used or been identified by the title "interior designer" and has at least 6 years of interior design experience. This "grandfather" provision is the basis of Petitioner's claim of entitlement to licensure without examination.

14. Since this is a case in which Petitioner is seeking to establish her qualification for licensure without examination, the Petitioner has the burden of establishing her qualifications under Section 21(1)(b) by a preponderance of the evidence. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Specifically, an applicant who seeks to establish that the initial review of her application was incorrect, must show that the agency's initial decision was arbitrary or capricious. Harac v. Department of Professional Regulation, 484 So.2d 1333, 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State ex rel. Glaser v. J.M. Pepper, 155 So.2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). In Agrico Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), relevant terms were defined as follows:

    
    

    A capricious action is one which is taken without thought or reason or irrationally.

    An arbitrary decision is one not supported by facts or logic, or despotic. Administrative discretion must be reasoned and based on competent substantial evidence. Competent substantial evidence has been described as such evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

    
    

15. Petitioner challenges the Respondent's determination that she does not have 6 years of experience in interior design, but she has not sustained her burden of proof in this regard. Competent substantial evidence was not presented that would establish that the Petitioner has 72 months, or 6 years, of interior design experience before January 1, 1990. The Board placed Petitioner on notice that a controversy existed regarding her claim that she received interior design experience during her employment between September 1982 and June 1988. In spite of the specific notice of the Board's concerns in the letter denying the exemption from the examination process for licensure, Petitioner did not present copies of her design work either at hearing or posthearing, pursuant to leave granted by the Hearing Officer. Without the presentation of competent substantial evidence to support Petitioner's claim of interior design experience in the early stages of her career through June 1988, Petitioner does not have sufficient experience in the interior design field to be entitled to licensure without examination.

    
    

16. It is, therefore, concluded that the Petitioner has failed to establish her entitlement to licensure without examination under the "grandfather" provision of Section 21(1)(b), Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended, in the case presented to the Hearing Officer.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:

That Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the determination that she is not qualified for licensure as an interior designer without examination.

DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

COPIES FURNISHED:

LISA FORD IRION 2346 LAKESHORE DR

CLEARWATER FL 34619

JOHN J RIMES III ESQ ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS THE CAPITOL

TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1050

VERONICA E. DONNELLY

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904)488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1992.

ANGEL GONZALEZ/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE & INTERIOR DESIGN NORTHWOOD CENTRE, SUITE 60

1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399

JACK MCRAY ESQ/GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 1940 N MONROE ST

TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

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 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: 91-004857

Orders for Case No: 91-004857