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
Findings Of Fact On December 27, 1989, Petitioner applied for registration as an interior designer under the exemption provisions of the licensure law. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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
The Issue Whether petitioner has abandoned her application for licensure as an interior designer?
Findings Of Fact At the time and place scheduled for hearing petitioner failed to appear and put on proof.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application, without prejudice to the filing of a subsequent application. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 14th day of May, 1992. Arthur R. Weidinger, Jr., Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603-The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Alice Maye Atkins 155 Marilyn Drive #47-A Baton Rouge, LA 70815-5609 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: 3/ By application dated September 19, 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 25, 1991. The Board, by letter dated July 25, 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 do not have 6 years of experience and you do not meet the definition of Interior Design. The Committee felt that it was impossible for you to have 6 years of full-time, full-scale Interior design experience since you were in school full time in 1983 and 1984. They also felt that being a librarian in a design firm, a show room manager, and assistant designer would not qualify as full-scale interior design. Prior to January 1, 1990, Petitioner used, and was identified by, the title "interior designer." Prior to January 1, 1990, Petitioner was employed by: Carriage House Interiors, d/b/a Eclectic International (Eclectic) for 13 months; Curzon Designs (Curzon) for five months; J.J. Chalk (Chalk) for 25 months; and Stevenson Design and Builders (Stevenson) for 5 months. These were all full- time positions which regularly involved the rendering of interior design services, including consulting with clients concerning the utilization of interior spaces and preparing for them blueprints and drawings containing Petitioner's recommendations regarding how these spaces should be utilized. For 14 months during 1984 and 1985, Petitioner was employed on a full- time basis by Petit Contract Interiors, Inc. (Petit), a design firm which also manufactured and sold furniture. During a typical workday, she performed the duties of an assistant designer, showroom manager and librarian. Approximately 60-70 percent of her workday generally was spent as an assistant designer, during which time she did interior design work similar in nature to the work she did at Eclectic, Curzon, Chalk and Stevenson. As a showroom manager and librarian, she also rendered interior design services on a regular basis. When she was acting in her capacity as the showroom manager, Petitioner met with walk-in clients and discussed their needs. Following such consultations and based upon the information provided by the clients, she prepared drawings depicting her plans as to how the clients could best utilize the interior spaces under discussion. She then assisted the clients in making their purchases. Petit had one of the largest design libraries in the southeastern United States. It was stocked with source materials utilized by the interior design community. As the librarian, Petitioner was responsible for organizing the library and updating its materials, tasks that she often had to perform during her overtime hours. In addition, Petitioner assisted those interior designers who used the library. The assistance that she provided at times involved consulting with clients and preparing drawings. It was essential for Petitioner to have a working knowledge of interior design to fulfill her librarian duties. Petitioner attended the Florida Art Institute (Institute) from March, 1982, until June, 1984, when she graduated with an Associate Arts degree in interior design. During her first two or three semesters at the Institute, she had classes from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Thereafter, her classes were scheduled only in the morning, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon each weekday. While a student at the Institute, she was "head manager" of three student interior design projects. 4/ Petitioner was employed at least a portion of the time that she was enrolled as a student at the Institute. During this period of time, she worked for Roy F. Sklarin Interiors (Sklarin), Mark B. Meyer and Associates (Meyer), and the Good Wood Frame Shop (Good Wood). Petitioner worked for Sklarin for six months rendering interior design services under the supervision and direction of Mr. Sklarin. She held a part- time position. Typically, she had a 20 to 25 hour work week. Petitioner's employment with Meyer lasted 11 months. Her position was a full-time one. Meyer has a large showroom in which it displays carpeting, fabric, wall covering and furniture. Petitioner was the manager of the showroom. It was her responsibility to maintain the showroom and make sure all items were in their proper place. As the showroom manager, Petitioner consulted with interior designers and their clients and assisted them in selecting merchandise. This involved reviewing specifications, floor plans and other drawings. Petitioner was employed for 12 months at Good Wood. 5/ She served as a designer, appraiser and artistic consultant. Her duties included the appraisal of art work for clients. In addition, she consulted with clients and gave them advice regarding the display and placement of their art work. This involved the drawing of elevations and floor plans. Prior to attending the Institute, Petitioner worked at Pierre Deux, the Norton Art Gallery (Norton) and the James Hunt Barker Art Gallery (Barker). Pierre Deux is a boutique that sells specialized fabrics and antiques. Petitioner worked there on a full-time basis for 16 months as designer/sales person. In discharging her duties, she regularly met with clients and ascertained their needs. If they wanted window treatments, table skirts, bedspreads or other soft furnishings, Petitioner went to their homes to take the appropriate measurements and, based upon these measurements, prepared specifications and the design to be used in making these items. While employed at Norton and Barker, Petitioner assisted the curator in deciding where exhibits should be located. 6/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED 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 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of September, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 27th day of September, 1991.
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 central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as an interior designer.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witness and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is an applicant for licensure as an interior designer. Petitioner timely filed for registration without examination and paid all appropriate fees. The Petitioner, after being notified of the denial of her request for licensure, timely requested an administrative hearing to establish her record of experience in the field. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing such applications for licensure. The Department stipulated at hearing that the Petitioner, for the years 1987, 1988, and 1989, had appropriate experience to qualify as interior design experience. Consequently, the only issue as to Petitioner's experience related to the time frame prior to 1987. Accordingly, the Petitioner must show three additional years of appropriate experience. In as early as 1979, Petitioner began work hanging wallpaper for an interior design firm in Ohio. Because of the success of that work, she started her own business, Quality Paper Hanging. As an outgrowth of the paper hanging work and her experience with the interior design firm, Petitioner expanded her business to include remodeling jobs and design work. This work constitutes interior design experience. In 1981, Petitioner became licensed as a home improvement contractor. According to Petitioner the contractor's license was required as she was no longer just hanging wallpaper but was designing and pulling permits for remodeling work. Petitioner used licensed electricians, plumbers and carpenters to perform the work under her supervision and direction. Examples of the work Petitioner performed during this period were two funeral home remodeling jobs. Petitioner worked for a funeral home company that retained her to remodel an existing home and to convert a second location into a branch home. Both projects involved the drawings and design work required of an interior designer. These projects were completed prior to 1983 and evidence interior design experience. Another project completed by Petitioner prior to 1983 was a remodeling job for the Hensil family. This project involved the redesign of a kitchen and basement area and evidences interior design experience. In 1983, after an unpleasant divorce, Petitioner moved from Ohio and, unfortunately, lost her business records for the work performed prior to the move. However, Petitioner's testimony as to the type of work performed during the years 1981 and 1982 has been accepted, and constitutes interior design experience for that period. After 1983, Petitioner held herself out as an interior designer and performed interior design work in Florida. More specifically, Petitioner designed and supervised the remodeling of a kitchen for the Nunn home, remodeled a porch and bath entry for the Morris home, and worked for Home Interiors for fourteen months. While with Home Interiors, Petitioner designed remodeling projects, consulted on new construction, and assisted a builder as was required. The work with Home Interiors to the extent that it involved redrafting plans and remodeling projects constituted interior design experience. Following the work with Home Interiors, Petitioner worked for Burdines for approximately one year. While at Burdines, Petitioner did interior design work when it was available. During that time, Petitioner remodeled a kitchen for the Chafin home and worked with the Windoms on their remodeling project. These projects constituted interior design work. After building a clientele and becoming familiar with the local trade people, Petitioner opened her own business, Interior Designs by Diana, in 1986. The experience with that company constitutes appropriate interior design experience. In addition to the full-time work experience noted above, Petitioner has attended classes at two community colleges and has earned a 4.0 grade point for the six courses taken in design. The other course taken, college math, was also an A grade. Petitioner has established that she has the requisite interior design experience to qualify for licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as an interior designer. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 11th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 91-6316 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: None submitted in a form sufficient to accept or reject. Petitioner's proposed order recited the conclusion of law that Petitioner had established six years of experience, prior to 1990, such that she should be qualified for licensure without examination. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: 1. Paragraphs 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, are accepted. Paragraphs 2 through 5 are accepted but are irrelevant. These paragraphs merely recite the procedural history this application apparently had. With regard to paragraphs 8 and 9 which have been accepted, it should be noted that the work described was illustrative of the type of the work performed by Petitioner during the period noted. Petitioner did not testify that the work described was the only work she did during the years 1981 and 1982. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. While aspects of the work performed for Home Interiors would be more closely associated with "interior decoration," clearly other aspects of the work, such as assisting with drafts for remodeling, would be design experience. The percentages attributable to each type of work are not clear from this record; however, to suggest that none of the work for the fourteen month period was design experience is contrary to the evidence and a mischaracterization of Petitioner's job. With regard to paragraph 15, it is accepted that Petitioner was employed at Burdines during the period noted; however, at the same time, Petitioner moonlighted design jobs such as that described in paragraph 16 in order to build a referral and clientele base so that she could later open her own business (which she did). Paragraphs 18 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603--The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Richard G. Sunner John A. Sunner 150 West Warren Avenue P.O. Box 520771 Longwood, Florida 32752-0771 Jack McRay, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Dept. of Professional Regulation Board of Architecture & Interior Design 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
