Findings Of Fact On October 3, 1989, Maureen Timm filed with the Department of Professional Regulation ("DPR"), her application for licensure without examination as an interior designer. 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. 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. 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. 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". 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". 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". 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". 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". 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". Services such as color coordination, flooring, wallpaper, window treatments and furniture selection are interior decorating services. 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. 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.
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
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as an interior designer under the criteria which allow licensure without examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner, Ruth J. Stieren, is an applicant for licensure without examination seeking to be registered as an interior designer in the State of Florida. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing applications to verify that applicants meet the statutory criteria for licensure without examination. To date, the Petitioner has not passed the examination administered by the National Council for Interior Design Qualifications or its predecessor, the American Institute of Interior Design. Petitioner is married to Charles F. Stieren, Jr., a licensed general contractor in the State of Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Stieren own and operate Stieren Construction, Inc. Mr. Stieren has been licensed, continuously performing contracting services, for the last eighteen years. For the last fourteen years Petitioner has identified herself out as an interior designer and has performed services for Stieren Construction, Inc. and others. Individually, Petitioner has held occupational licenses and has been registered for sales tax purposes with the Department of Revenue since 1981. Petitioner's Seminole County occupational license for 1987 indicates she was licensed during that year as a designer. Over the course of her work, Petitioner has successfully consulted with clients regarding their project needs. She has offered options or solutions to project requirements such as floor plans (including elevation information), furniture suggestions together with proposed placements shown, fabric and finish recommendations, and lighting. With regard to lighting, Petitioner has recommended wiring configurations e.g. the placement and type of switches, as well as recommending the fixture choices for the proposed use. In connection with her work, Petitioner has made drawings and sketches depicting her proposals as well as color boards. Petitioner's residential and commercial designs have considered space utilization, client preferences, and budget constraints. Petitioner has not submitted samples of work showing reflected ceiling plans. Michael Cavanaugh, an architect licensed in Indiana who has worked with Petitioner on projects in Florida, described Petitioner's work as that of an "interior designer" and not the more limited "interior decorator".
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure without examination. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-6691 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraph 1 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 2 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as comment, recitation of testimony or argument. The first sentence of paragraph 3 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as comment, recitation of testimony or argument. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Petitioner has shown that she had held herself out as an interior designer for at least six years. Petitioner has not established that her work experience covers all aspects within the definition of interior design. Paragraph 5 is rejected as argument or comment. Moreover, Petitioner bears the burden in this proceeding to establish she meets the criteria for licensure without examination. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. To the extent that paragraphs 2 and 3 indicate Mr. Cavanaugh is a licensed architect and has reviewed some of Petitioner's work they are accepted; otherwise, rejected as argument, recitation of testimony, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. To the extent that Petitioner documented at least six years of business experience the exhibits have been accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as comment. Paragraph 7 is accepted to the extent that it states that Petitioner consulted with and prepared a floor plan for Mrs. Norman. Otherwise rejected as argument. Paragraph 8 is rejected as recitation of testimony and argument. Paragraph 9 is rejected as comment. Paragraph 10 is rejected as comment. Paragraph 11 is rejected a recitation of testimony and argument. Paragraphs 12 through 22 are rejected as recitation of testimony, comment, argument, conclusions of law, or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603--The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Patricia Ard, Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William H. Morrison BALDWIN & MORRISON, P.A. 7100 S. Highway 17-92 Fern Park, Florida 32730
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Russell G. Brabec, filed an application for licensure as an interior designer on December 14, 1989, together with the applicable fees, with the Board on December 14, 1989. Within 30 days, the Board advised the Petitioner that it had not received the client forms and reference forms required to assess his application. After being placed upon notice that his application was incomplete, Mr. Brabec continued to have contact with the Board and its staff. Client forms and additional references continued to be filed on his behalf until March 1991. These materials are outlined in detail in the preliminary statement above, and incorporated by reference at this point in the Findings of Fact and amplified below. The record shows a continuing effort on the part of the Petitioner to perfect his application, and the Petitioner did not abandon his application. The Board received a client form from Ben H. Engbrecht indicating the Petitioner had consulted on the renovation of several areas of an educational building, developing a master plan for the entire building. The Petitioner was able to direct the completion of phases 1 and 2 of the renovation. Although the form does not indicate the institution at which the work was performed, the Petitioner's testimony clarified that Mr. Engbrecht's references were to Sioux Falls Teacher College where the Petitioner had been a member of the faculty. The information provided by Engbrecht establishes that the Petitioner consulted on design work between February of 1984 and July of 1985. The Board received a client form completed by Kate Christopulos on March 26, 1990, which indicated that the Petitioner had done three projects for the client. In 1983, the Petitioner was in charge of design and renovation of a restaurant and coordinated all contractors in interior design for the client who stated that the did a "great job." In 1985, the Petitioner assisted in the design of another restaurant. The client stated that he was easy to work with and "came up with great ideas." In 1986, the Petitioner designed the interior of the client's home. At the hearing, the Petitioner had photographs of the restaurants he had planned for the Christopulos' upon which he pointed out the walls, the ceilings and the serving fixtures which he had designed. The Petitioner's testimony is consistent with, and substantiated by, a letter dated June 27, 1990, from Kate Christopulos which is contained in the Board's file. Said letter reflects that the Petitioner's firm, Brabec Interiors, was first retained by the client in 1983 to complete their new home and their first restaurant, Chris' Grill. The Petitioner not only designed the interior, including the carpets, tables, chairs and draperies, but selected the tableware. The letter continues to point out that in 1986, the Petitioner designed the Time Out Restaurant, integrating a athletic theme which the client described as "looking great and being timeless." Kate Christopulos closes her letter by pointing out that the Petitioner had done six other projects for her, and that if the Board desires more detail, they can call her. The Board received an employment verification form completed by Valerie J. Putnam on January 19, 1990. The form indicates the Petitioner was employed as an interior decorator from 1975 until 1982. The Petitioner testified regarding work done for the Putnams, and clarified that they were clients as opposed to his having been employed within a business operated by the Putnams. The Putnams' response, albeit on the wrong form, substantiated that the Petitioner was holding himself out as an interior decorator between 1975 and 1982. Ms. Putnam indicated in her answers to the form's detail questions that the Petitioner had substantial experience in programming (consultation and analysis), design concept analysis, and specifying furnishings and materials, and adequate experience in preparing drawings, drafting, consulting with other contractors, and project management. Notwithstanding Putnam's terming the Petitioner an "interior decorator," the work she described is consistent with the activities of an interior designer. The Board received a client form from Dr. Jaako J. Hintikka on November 5, 1990. The form and its attachments indicate that between June and August of 1988, the Petitioner planned and supervised the complete redecoration of a 4500 square foot home on Tipperary Drive in Tallahassee, Florida. This project involved the creation of two libraries, extensive new flooring, extensive wallpapering and painting, the placement of furniture and the acquisition of new furnishing, and placement of works of art, et cetera. The Petitioner, referring to photographs of this project, pointed out details of the design work he performed to include lighting design and planning an environment with constant humidity. The form also addresses the period January to May 1990 when the Petitioner designed and supervised the interior construction and decoration of a new residence which the client had built for him by Gritsmill Construction Company in Marlborough, Massachusetts. Hintikka states that this project literally involved all aspects of the interior of the house from finalization of the floor plans through placement of works of art. The Board's file contains a xerox copy of pictures of the exterior of a home and interior of one room, together with notes by the Petitioner to the client discussing a range of issues from dehumidifiers to dutch tiles and the fireplace. It closes with an indication that the Petitioner had been in contact with a landscape designer, and was in the process of developing a long-range landscape plan for the new house. See transcript, pages 95 and 100, where the Petitioner details the work which he did for Dr. Hintikka on the two houses in which he designed the interiors. The Board received an employment verification form on July 31, 1990, from Collier Interiors in Tallahassee, Florida. This form indicated that Collier had employed the Petitioner from November of 1987 until July 30, 1990. The Board appeared to be satisfied with the nature of his practice while with Collier as no questions were raised concerning this period of time. The Board's file contains two submissions from Rayburn Blair, Pastor of the Temple Baptist Church in Tallahassee, Florida. Pastor Blair wrote the Board a letter dated January 3, 1990, in which he states that he has been acquainted with the Petitioner as a full-time practicing interior designer since 1989. Blair states that he met regularly with Brabec who was the church's chief consultant on matters of design and decoration at the church, at North Florida Christian School, and at W65BG Television Station. On March 25, 1991, Pastor Blair submitted the client form which stated that the Petitioner provided Temple Baptist Church with consultations and studies leading to drawings for the new platform. In the Petitioner's testimony he identified on a picture, which was introduced, the stage, wall units, lights, podium, microphones in the podium, and wiring for the podium lights and microphone which Petitioner designed, together with the stairs servicing the balcony. The Petitioner also completed plans for the baptistry and stair wells. The Petitioner's testimony is consistent with Pastor Blair's letter. In addition to his testimony about the clients above who responded to the Board, the Petitioner also produced photographs at the hearing of additional work in had done during the period 1980 through 1985. This included work for Bob Larson for whom the Petitioner developed an overall design and laid out of a restaurant, and supervised the installation of the electrical lights and plumbing, to include steam tables. Petitioner's work included graphics, design of menus, interior wall covers, et cetera. Petitioner also designed a second set of restaurants called "Rembrandt's" for the same client. See Transcript, pages 82 and 91. The Petitioner stated that he spent a year in graduate school at Florida State during which time he did a number of projects for churches, offices and homes in the area. Thereafter, he was employed as a designer with Collier Interiors. See Transcript, Page 91. In summary, the Putnam response covers the period between 1975 and 1982. The Christopulos letter and form cover the period 1983 through 1986. The Engbrecht form covers the period February 1984 through July 1985. The Collier form covers the period 1987 through December of 1989. The Blair letter and form covers the period from 1989 until 1991. The Hintikka form and letter covers the period June to August 1988 and January to May 1990. During the period from 1982 until present, the Petitioner has held himself out regularly as an interior designer based upon the responses received by the Board and Petitioner's testimony about the work done for the clients. His testimony is substantiated by the responses received by the Board, and is uncontroverted. Not a scintilla of evidence was introduced by the Board that the Petitioner did not perform the work about which he testified. On January 30, 1991, the Board sent the Petitioner a letter which the Petitioner received. This letter stated that the Petitioner's application was denied because the application did not show sufficient evidence that the Petitioner met the requirements of "Florida Statutes 481, Part I and Chapter Law 89-19, Section 21." The letter continues, A review of your application by the Interior Design Committee shows that you did not sufficiently document six years of Interior Design experience. In order to receive reconsideration you must submit three additional detailed client reference forms that span six years of experience. These letters must contain both the time and time frame and a detailed description of services provided. You must prove that you meet the definition of interior designer for a full six year period. The Committee has also requested that you send in samples of your interior design plans and drawings. On August 21, 1991, the Board sent the Petitioner a letter which the Petitioner received indicating that the Board deemed the Petitioner's application abandoned and advising the Petitioner of his right to a hearing on the denial of his application. The information provided by the responding clients and the Petitioner reveal that the Petitioner has been asked by several clients to perform additional projects for them. Clients for whom he did commercial work, engaged him to do work in their homes, and vise versa. One of his clients has transported the Petitioner from Tallahassee to Massachusetts in order that the Petitioner could continue to supervise completion of the interior of the client's home. These facts speak positively to the quality of the Petitioner's work. The record above shows that Mr. Brabec did not abandon his application, but sought to have clients provide the Board with the information sought until such time as this appeared to be a futile effort. Sufficient information had been provided to the Board by January 30, 1991 for it to make a determination of whether the Petitioner has the requisite experience. The information provided, as summarized above, reflects that the Petitioner has engaged in consulting, performing studies, drawing plans and providing specifications for space utilization of restaurants, churches, offices and homes in Florida, South Dakota and Massachusetts since 1982.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design license the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of April 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Russell G. Brabec, pro se 2079 Cynthia Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Suite 1603 STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 10th day of April 1992. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture & Interior Design Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Janet Friedman, is qualified for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer pursuant to Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of-Florida, based upon her experience and employment history.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. By application dated August 31, 1989, Petitioner applied to the Board for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer pursuant to Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida. Her application was received by the Board on September 7, 1989. Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner's application was timely filed. The Board, by letter dated October 19, 1990, advised Petitioner of its intention to deny her application. The following explanation was given in the letter: A review of your application by the Interior Design Committee shows that you did not sufficiently document that you have met the definition of Interior Design for a six year period. The Committee is concerned with whether you were working full-time in the Interior Design field during the time you were in school. Also client reference forms previously provided do not give us sufficient interior design descriptions [ sic] . Petitioner graduated with honors from Broward Community College with an AS degree in Interior Design in 1985. Petitioner attended Broward Community College from 1982 through June, 1985. Petitioner took three years to complete a program that would usually take a full-time student two years to complete. Petitioner attended school on a part-time basis and generally did not take more than 9 credit hours at a time. Thus, she was usually not in class more than 9 hours per week. Some of her classes were at night and on weekends. She took classes straight through the summers. Beginning in June of 1983, Petitioner started working with Executive Caterers. That position was a full-time job and she was paid on a weekly basis. Executive Caterers handled functions such as weddings, etc. for a synagogue. The company was responsible for managing and coordinating the renovations of the facilities at the synagogue. Her employer, Sabino Demieri, testified at the hearing and confirmed that he allowed Petitioner to arrange her work schedule around her classes. Petitioner was expected to and did work between 35 to 40 hours per week and sometimes more. Mr. Demieri also confirmed that Petitioner's employment with Executive Caterers was exclusively limited to coordinating renovations to the existing facilities and her duties consisted of interior design work. Throughout the time that Petitioner worked with Executive Caterers, the company was involved in renovations of the facilities. Renovations were undertaken with respect to the ballroom, the reception area, the lobbies, two bathrooms and the bridal room. Petitioner no longer has any of the drawings related to these projects. As part of her work, Petitioner prepared electrical ceiling plans, lighting plans and a space plan. As part of her space planning, she created closets and moved non-load bearing walls. She picked wall coverings, colors and furnishings. Petitioner worked for Executive Caterers from 1983 to sometime in l985. During that time, she also did interior design work for other groups and individuals on the side. In October of 1983, Petitioner prepared a floor plan showing the placement of tables and lighting for a proposed restaurant called the Grill. The restaurant was being developed by some of the people involved with Executive Caterers, however, Petitioner was paid separately for her work on the Grill. The plans prepared by Petitioner included a reflective electrical ceiling plan. For reasons not pertinent to this case, the developers of this restaurant decided not to go forward with the project and the facility was never constructed. In December of 1983, Petitioner prepared plans for a proposed office renovation for Outpatient Services, a medical clinic. The plans included a floor plan and lighting plan for the lobby, clerical and reception areas. The plans included a space utilization plan and a reflective lighting plan. The plans were submitted for bid, but work was never commenced. In December of 1984, Petitioner prepared a site plan for a home owned by Ken Williams. These plans (which were identified at the hearing, but were not transmitted with the rest of the blueprints in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 7) included a floor plan with the electrical schedules shown on the plans, and house elevations. l0. In 1984, while Petitioner was still employed by Executive Caterers, she was retained by Scott Heiken to design renovations for his house. The discussions regarding this work began sometime in 1983. Petitioner actually prepared the plans during 1984. While the plans relating to this work are no longer available, Mr. Heiken testified regarding Petitioner's preparation of those plans. As part of the plans, Petitioner designed the kitchen, living room and dining room areas. These plans involved moving certain non-load bearing walls and the design of a pass through area in the kitchen. Petitioner also prepared plans showing electrical fixtures and lighting fixtures prior to the commencement of the work. These plans were reviewed with the client and the work was successfully completed in 1984. Petitioner began her own business, Interiors By Janet, sometime in 1984 or 1985. Petitioner has held occupational licenses for this business beginning with the year ending September, 1985 through the present. Sandy Samole, a licensed interior designer, has known Petitioner since approximately 1985 and she has been aware of Petitioner functioning as an interior designer throughout the whole time that she has known her. Petitioner is a member of the Interior Design Guild ("IDG") an organization made up of interior designers in South Florida. IDG has two levels of membership. Those individuals who do not meet the qualifications to be called designers are affiliate members as opposed to professional members. This distinction has been in place for several years. Petitioner is First Vice President and has a professional membership in IDG. In 1988, Petitioner passed an exam given to prospective design members of IDG. While passage of the IDG exam is not a basis for licensure under the statute, it does confirm Petitioner's focus on the design aspects of the business during the pertinent time period. There is apparently a rivalry between IDG and ASID. It has been suggested that there is a reluctance to accept and/or recognize design members of IDG for purposes of licensure. Those issues are beyond the scope of this hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMNENDED that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner is qualified for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer pursuant to Section 21(1)(b) of Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 27 day of February, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27 day of February, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/ Board of Architecture & Interior Design Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Pau1 M. Zisholtz, Esquire Crocker Center, Tower I 52430 Town Center Circle Suite 105 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Esquire Off-ice of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Board of Architecture Interior Design Suite 1603, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 APPENDIX Only Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact. The following constitutes my rulings on those proposals. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in the Preliminary Statement and in Findings of Fact 1, Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Addressed in Conclusions of Law 5 and 6. Addressed in Conclusions of Law 5 and 6. 5, Addressed in Conclusions of Law 5 and 6. Addressed in Conclusions of Law 5 and 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings-of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5.
The Issue 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.
Findings Of Fact 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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". 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). 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. 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. 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. 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". 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. 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. The Petitioner's employment with Inside Story qualifies as interior design experience for purposes of the above-mentioned grandfather provisions. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. 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
