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
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 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.
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
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received in this case, the following relevant findings of fact are made: In October 1989, Petitioner applied to the Board for licensure as an Interior Designer pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes and Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida (commonly referred to as the grandfather clause), based upon six years of interior design experience prior to January 1, 1990. The application was timely filed and Petitioner paid the appropriate fee. During the application process, the Board required additional information from Petitioner, which was furnished, but on August 21, 1991, the Board issued its notice of denial stating that Petitioner had not shown sufficient evidence of compliance with the requirement of the grandfather clause of six years' interior design experience prior to January 1, 1990. The Board advised the Petitioner that her experience was in the nature of "a cabinet work detailer, not as an Interior Designer. Petitioner began designing custom furniture in 1978 when she and her husband started a business known as Village Woodworking. The business grew to include built-in furniture, cabinetry and related interior design services over the years. As early as 1981, Petitioner began consulting with clients directly on matters such as space utilization, lighting, kitchen design, bathroom design and fabrication of custom-made cabinetry and built-in furniture. Often Petitioner would prepare drawings to reflect her design concepts which were later incorporated into the client's homes or businesses. In 1982, Petitioner consulted on numerous interior design matters in the renovation of the Gardinier estate property. These matters included the design of custom made dining room furniture, space utilization throughout the estate buildings, lighting and the design, fabrication and placement of custom-made cabinetry and built-in furniture. These consultations went on over a period of approximately three years. From the early 1980s through the date of the hearing, Petitioner has consistently consulted with clients, architects and interior designers by reviewing architectural plans and specifications, suggesting modifications and changes, preparing shop drawings to incorporate her design concepts into construction and renovation projects and by designing and fabricating cabinets, furniture and built-in furniture. Some of the jobs where Petitioner performed all or part of these services were: (a) Steve Simon's office; (b) Central National Bank; (c) Wellscraft Marina; (d) Law offices; (e) Sarney Residence on Siesta Key and the Patterman Residence; and (f) the Gardinier Estate mentioned in Finding of Fact 3. These jobs covered a period from 1982 to 1987. Also, it was Petitioner's unrebutted testimony that she had been rendering interior design services such as those mentioned above for over six years prior to January 1, 1990. There is competent, substantial evidence to establish facts to show that Petitioner has been performing, and is qualified to perform interior design consultations and studies and to prepare drawings and specifications in connection with lighting plans, space utilization, furnishings and fabrication of nonstructured elements within and surrounding interior spaces of buildings, both residential and commercial, and has been continuously engaged in, and performing, this type of work in the normal course of her business for more than six years prior to January 1, 1990. There was insufficient evidence to show that Petitioner's work had been limited to that of a "cabinet work detailer" but there was sufficient evidence to show that the services described above constituted a large portion of Petitioner's business for at least six years prior to January 1, 1990.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order granting Petitioner licensure as an Interior Designer without examination under the provisions of Chapter 88-383, Section 21, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 28th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 3(2); 4(3); 5(4-5); 7(6); 8(6); and 9(6). Proposed finding of fact 2 is more of a restatement of the witnesses' testimony rather than stated as a proposed finding of fact, but see finding of fact 4. Proposed finding of fact 6 is not necessary in that the affidavits corroborates the testimony of Petitioner as set out in findings of fact 2-4. Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(2); 2(2); 3-6(4); 9(2); and 11(3). Proposed findings of fact 7, 8 and 10 are not relevant to the conclusions reached in the Recommended Order. Rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip N. Hammersley, Esquire TRAWICK HAMMERSLEY & VALENTINE Post Office Box 4019 Sarasota, Florida 34230 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture & Interior Design Northwood Centre - Suite 60 1940 N Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0751 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0792
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
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
