STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MAUREEN TIMM, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-0948

)

BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE AND )

INTERIOR DESIGN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William F. Quattlebaum, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on August 10, 1992, in Fort Myers, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Maureen Timm, pro se

12950 Iona Road

Fort Myers, Florida 33908

For Respondent: Arthur R. Wiedinger, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Suite 1603

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the Petitioner is qualified for licensure as an interior designer under the provisions of Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By Respondent's letter dated December 18, 1991, the Petitioner was informed that her application for licensure as an interior designer was being denied on the grounds that the application failed to "show sufficient evidence that you met the requirements of Florida Statute 481.203(8) and Chapter Law 89-19, Section 21." The letter further stated:

[a] review of your application by the Interior Design Committee shows that you do not meet the definition of Interior Design for the required six year period prior to 1989. The Board did not find sufficient evidence that the full six year period was as an interior designer. The Board is especially concerned with the years prior to 1988.

The Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing to challenge the license denial.

At the hearing, the Petitioner testified on her own behalf. The Respondent introduced one exhibit which was admitted into evidence. A transcript of the hearing was filed on August 24, 1992. The parties filed proposed recommended orders. The proposed findings of fact are ruled upon in the Appendix which is attached and hereby made a part of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On October 3, 1989, Maureen Timm filed with the Department of Professional Regulation ("DPR"), her application for licensure without examination as an interior designer.

   
   

2. By letter dated December 18, 1991, Ms. Timm was informed that her application was being denied and that she was entitled to request a formal hearing to challenge the decision. Ms. Timm thereafter filed a request for formal hearing.

   
   

3. During the period between October 3, 1989 and December 18, 1989, Ms. Timm filed supplemental information in support of her application. For the purposes of this Recommended Order, all information submitted by Ms. Timm has been considered without regard to the date of submission.

   
   

4. Although there is evidence that Ms. Timm is currently capable of providing interior design services, the greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that, for the six year period prior to December 31, 1989, Ms. Timm's services met the statutory definition of "interior design". To the contrary, the evidence establishes that services provided by Ms. Timm during the referenced six year period, especially prior to the November of 1987, consisted primarily of interior decorating services provided first through a paint and decorating store and then through department store furniture sales.

   
   

5. Ms. Timm's application states that she worked for Havco Paint and Decorating from July, 1979 to July 1980 as a "designer in wallcovering and window treatment department." During this time, Ms. Timm primarily assisted customers in selection of wallcoverings, window treatments and floor coverings. The evidence fails to establish that such services meet the statutory definition of "interior design".

   
   

6. The application indicates that from July 1981 to December 1984, Ms. Timm was employed as a "designer in the furniture department" of an Ivey's department store unit. During this period, Ms. Timm assisted customers in selection and placement of furniture, window treatments and wall coverings. The evidence fails to establish that such services as were related to the sale of furniture and related decorating services meet the statutory definition of "interior design".

   
   

7. The application indicates that from January 1985 to January 1986, Ms. Timm was employed as a "designer in the furniture department" of a Robinson's department store unit. During this period, Ms. Timm assisted customers in selection and placement of furniture, window treatments and wall coverings. The evidence fails to establish that such services as were related to the sale of furniture and related decorating services meet the statutory definition of "interior design".

8. The application indicates that from September 1986 to April 1987, Ms. Timm was employed as a "floral designer" for World Bazaar, during which time she designed flower arrangements for the store and individual customers. The services provided by Ms. Timm to World Bazaar customers clearly fail to meet the statutory definition of "interior design".

   
   

9. The application indicates that from November 1987 to September 1988, Ms. Timm was employed as an "interior designer for "Midge Wright, The Wright Place." As set forth in the application, Ms. Timm "designed customer's homes, estimated cost of jobs, placed orders, followed through on completion of jobs." The evidence fails to establish that Ms. Timm's services to Ms. Wright's customers meet the definition of "interior design".

   
   

10. The application indicates that from September 1988 to the present, Ms. Timm has worked as a "self-employed interior designer" during which time she has "designed U. S. Home models and customers homes and condos". Ms. Timm's file includes references from a number of customers who have utilized her services during this period. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the services provided by Ms. Timm during this period meet the statutory definition of "interior design".

    
    

11. Services such as color coordination, flooring, wallpaper, window treatments and furniture selection are interior decorating services.

    
    

12. During the hearing, Ms. Timm asserted that her work during the six year period prior to December 31, 1989 met the definition of "interior design". Beyond the evidence addressed herein, there is no documentary support for Ms. Timm's testimony.

    
    

13. Although Ms. Timm appears to be capable of providing some interior design services, the evidence is insufficient to establish that she has done so for the six year period ending December 31, 1989. Accordingly, she does not qualify for licensure without examination as an interior designer.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

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

    
    

15. Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, provides for licensure of a person as an interior designer without examination (the "grandfather" provision). In order to qualify for licensure as an interior designer without successful completion of examination requirements, the Petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she had completed six years of interior design experience prior to December 31, 1989. Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (1st DCA 1977). Florida Department of Transportation v. JWC Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In this case, the burden has not been met.

    
    

16. "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. Section 481.203(8), Florida Statutes.

    
    

17. "Interior design" is distinguished from "interior decorating" at section 481.229(6), Florida Statutes, which identifies interior decorating services as selection of or assistance in selection of surface materials, window treatments, wallcoverings, paint, floor coverings, surface mounted lighting, or loose furnishings not subject to regulation under applicable building codes. By definition, design services consist of 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.

    
    

18. Although an interior designer may offer decorating services, the provision of such decorating services does not constitute the practice of interior design. In order to conclude that an applicant had provided design services during a specified time period requires credible evidence that, on a continuing basis, the applicant provided 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, during the six year period prior to December 31, 1989.

    
    

19. In this case, the evidence fails to establish that, during the six year period prior to December 31, 1989, the Petitioner provided 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.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a Final Order denying the application of Maureen Timm for licensure as an interior designer under the "grandfather" provisions cited herein.

DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1992 in Tallahassee, Florida.

WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM

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 25th day of September, 1992.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0948

The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties.

Petitioner

The Petitioner's proposed recommended order consisted of five unnumbered paragraphs which are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows:

Paragraph #1, Rejected, cumulative.

Paragraph #2, Accepted, however, preparation of window treatments and wallcovering does not meet the statutory definition of interior design.

Paragraph #3, Rejected, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence.

Paragraph #4, Accepted as to submission of additional material. Rejected as to discussions with DPR representative, irrelevant.

Paragraph #5, Rejected, conclusion not supported by evidence. Respondent

The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows:

2-5. Rejected, unnecessary, subordinate.

13. Rejected, irrelevant.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Architecture

and Interior Design Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

Jack McRay General Counsel Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

Maureen Timm 12950 Iona Road

Fort Myers, FL 33908

Arthur R. Wiedinger, Esq. Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

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 TEN 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: 92-000948

Orders for Case No: 92-000948