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
Findings Of Fact On October 16, 1989, Donna Marie Johnson filed her application for licensure as an interior designer with he Department of Professional Regulation ("DPR"). According to the policy and practice of the DPR Board of Architecture and Interior Design, interior design licensing matters are addressed by the Interior Design Committee (comprised of two interior designers and one architect) which reports to the Board of Architecture and Interior Design. There is no evidence that Ms. Johnson's application was ever considered by the full Interior Design Committee or by the Board. Ms. Johnson's application was initially reviewed by Susan M. May, Professional Regulation Specialist I, for the DPR Board of Architecture and Interior Design. Ms. May is responsible for review of applications for completeness and for review of additional information provided. She has no formal education or training in interior design or decorating, and has received no formal training in review of licensure applications by the DPR. In this case, Ms. May determined that the application filed by Ms. Johnson was incomplete. Ms. Johnson was notified of the missing information and was provided an opportunity to complete the application. Ms. May also forwarded three "CLIENT REFERENCE FORMS" to Ms. Johnson. The forms, as well as other material was subsequently submitted to the Board by Ms. Johnson. 1/ The client reference form prepared by the DPR sets forth the definition of "interior designer" provided by statute and refers to the applicant as the "interior designer". The form, which includes three questions which are answered by the client related to the work that the "interior designer" performed, does not distinguish interior design from interior decorating and gives no indication any such distinction exists. The form requires each client to "describe the work performed by the Interior Designer" by making reference to the statutory definition. Each client must sign the form and have the signature notarized. Given the terminology of the form and the identification of the applicant as an "interior designer", an attestation by a client that the applicant is qualified to be an "interior designer" is of little meaning and is not persuasive. However, the attachments to the forms submitted by the clients are credited as accurate reflections of the services provided by Ms. Johnson. Such letters establish that Ms. Johnson primarily provided interior decorating services such as color coordination, flooring, wallpaper, window treatments, and furniture selection. By letter dated January 18, 1990, Ms. Johnson was informed that her application was being denied on the grounds that six years of interior design experience had not been demonstrated. The letter stated that Johnson could submit additional materials and seek reconsideration of her application. Subsequently, Ms. Johnson requested reconsideration and submitted additional material. The additional material was reviewed by Carl Gerkin, a member of the Interior Design Committee. Gerkin allegedly determined that her credentials did not warrant licensure under the referenced "grandfather" provisions. No other committee member reviewed the materials. By letter dated October 19, 1990, Johnson was informed that her application was again being denied on the grounds that six years of interior design experience had not been demonstrated and again provided that Ms. Johnson could request reconsideration. Ms. Johnson did so. By letter dated August 21, 1991, Johnson was informed that her application failed to demonstrate six years of interior design experience prior to December 31, 1989, as required by the "grandfather" provision under which Johnson had applied for licensure. Ms. Johnson was informed of her right to a formal administrative hearing which resulted in the subject proceeding. Ms. Johnson's application for licensure states that she has worked as a "design consultant" for a number of businesses and individuals. Ms. Johnson's resume, included with her application, lists her capabilities as color coordination, flooring, wallpaper, window treatments, furniture and space planning. Although there is evidence that Ms. Johnson 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. Johnson's services met the statutory definition of "interior design". To the contrary, the evidence establishes that services provided by Ms. Johnson during the referenced six year period consisted primarily of interior decorating services generally provided through the retail carpet and flooring business owned by Ms. Johnson and her husband, and through new home contractors who referred new home buyers to Ms. Johnson for decorating services. Ms. Johnson's application indicates that she worked for Mary Smith of Buckeye Homes during 1980-81 and describes her participation with Buckeye Homes as "[c]ustomers referred for interior design of their new home." There is no credible information which permits a determination that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to Buckeye Homes customers meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson handled new customer referrals from Wesley Oben, Sr. of Cedar Homes Factory Direct, Inc. during 1987- 1989, for interior design of new homes. There is no credible information which permits a determination that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to Cedar Homes customers meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Liz or Phil Vail of Edison Homes during 1988-1989, for interior design of new homes. No further information was provided. The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Fred Nachbrun of FCN Builders during 1979-1989 for interior design of new homes. By letter of reference dated September 19, 1989, Fred Nachbrun wrote during a 12 year period, Ms. Johnson had worked with his customers "in the capacity of decorating advisor. Her knowledge of floor covering, wallpaper, and window treatments have enabled our customers to make their transition into their new homes a pleasant one....I feel as though Ms. Johnson's knowledge and capabilities surpasses those of any other decorator I have worked with in the past." There is no credible evidence that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to FCN Builders met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for "Julio or Pat" of Fairview Builders during 1986-1989. There is no credible evidence that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to Fairview Builders met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Arlene Steinweg of R.A. Grant Construction during 1987-1989. By letter of reference dated September 18, 1989, James Matey of R.A. Grant Construction wrote that "R.A. Grant Construction has been using B & D Carpet for the past year. We have used their services in carpeting and interior color schemes. During this time we found their work to be satisfactory." There is no credible evidence that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to R.A. Grant Construction met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Phyllis Nelson of Mission Bay Homes, Inc. during 1980-1989. A letter of reference dated February 10, 1988, states that Ms. Johnson "has been our decorating advisor for the past five years" and attributes the sales of some homes to her interior decorating. There is no credible evidence that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to Mission Bay Homes met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Lynn Kirby at Nu-Cape Construction, Inc. during 1979-1989, as a "design consultant for all their commercial jobs." By letter of reference dated September 18, 1989, Mr. Kirby wrote that he had worked with Ms. Johnson "in the capacity of interior design on all our commercial projects. The job was completed on schedule and was always done in a professional manner." Mr. Kirby opined that Ms. Johnson would be an asset to "your profession". There is no credible evidence as to the types of interior services performed by Ms. Johnson for Nu-Cape Construction which would establish that said services met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Raymond Scalero at Oyster Bay Homes, Inc. during 1983-1989. By letter of reference dated September 12, 1989, Mr. Scalero wrote that "[d]uring the past four years Donna Johnson has worked individually with all our customers. She helps our customers select their personal color needs from the roof to the flooring." The letter further states "Donna has just completed the interior designing of our new Vista model. She has detailed the interior, planning interior and exterior paint colors, window dressing, wallpaper, wall hangings, as well as utilizing space and placement of furniture. She coordinated all colors from the roof to the flooring, selected light fixtures, tile and plumbing fixtures. For our Lehigh Acres model, Donna put together several color boards for our customers to choose from." There is no credible evidence that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to Oyster Bay Homes met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Peter Santos of Air Control Systems during 1989, handling the "[i]nterior of new office building." A subsequent client reference form completed by Mr. Santos states that in February of 1989, Ms. Johnson contracted with Air Control Systems to handle office space planning and remodeling, including wall relocations. Ms. Johnson also supplied drawings, dated in April of 1989, of the floor plan for the Air Control project. The Air Control Systems project meets the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Leland Ritter of Cape Coral Plumbing, Inc. during 1985-1989, handling "[i]nterior of offices, personal home, designed booth for Parade of Homes." A letter of reference dated August 31, 1989, states that during the previous five years, Ms. Johnson has been consulted on various occasions to address problems related to plumbing installations and that her response was always prompt. It notes that she has an excellent reputation among several local builders. It further notes that in 1987, her parade booth design won an award. There is no credible evidence that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to Cape Coral Plumbing met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that during 1987-1989, Ms. Johnson handled the interior design of the Community National Bank building. By letter of reference dated February 2, 1988, Dave Gomer writes that Ms. Johnson and her husband "were selected to furnish the carpeting in our original bank building and most recently were engaged as the interior decorators for our branch bank building. They selected and furnished all floor coverings, window draperies and framed wall art." Mr. Gomer also states that he had engaged the Johnsons "to do interior decorating in my home". There is no credible evidence that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to Community National Bank met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson handled the interior design of the main office of First National Bank in 1988-1989, and was working on a bank branch at the time of the application. By letter dated September 7, 1989, Michael P. Geml, bank president/CEO, states that, in may of 1988, Ms. Johnson competed for and received the bid to "design a 15,000 square foot, two-story office building that was destined to be the focal point of Cape Coral for years to come." The letter state that "[t]he contract was awarded to Donna, and the results were magnificent. She brought her design boards, her carpet samples, but more importantly she brought with her expertise and her willingness to work with the design committee....I can recommend Donna Johnson of B & D Carpets, Inc. to anyone who may ask for a reference and feel with complete confidence she will deliver a product to be proud of." A subsequent client reference form completed by Mr. Geml states that from October 1987 to February 1989, her "recommendations on the lay-out of the teller line were beneficial; her collaboration with all sub-contractors was crucial in not only the structural aspect, but also keeping in mind that we don't deter from the basic concept." Beyond the specific reference to design of the teller line, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the services provided by Ms. Johnson meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson remodeled a branch office of First Federal Savings & Loan in 1989. No further information was provided. The application indicates that Ms. Johnson decorated offices and color coordinated all flooring at Cape Coral Hospital during 1979-1989. By letter of reference addresses to Mr. Bill Johnson from David R. Van Loon, vice-president, wrote "[i]n the past several years, B & D Carpets, Inc. has installed the floor coverings on all Cape Coral Hospital's major expansion and renovation projects. Carpet installation was completed on schedule and always in an extremely professional manner. The letter further acknowledges Mr. Johnson's personal assistance in addressing carpet seaming problems and advises that the Hospital may be used as a reference for B & D Carpets, Inc. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Ms. Johnson provided "interior design" services to Cape Coral Hospital. The application indicates that Ms. Johnson handled the design of the art studios at Savonna Art Consultants during 1988-1989. A letter of reference dated August 30, 1989, states that the writers "have worked with Donna Johnson of B & D Carpets, Inc. for several years in conjunction with the interior decorating service offered by Mrs. Johnson and have always found that she has superior ability in planning and designing difficult interiors as commissioned by her clients. The carpeting, furniture, window treatments, wall coverings and accessories are fully coordinated to achieve the specific ambience and function needed." The letter further states that Ms. Johnson "has always provided detailed drawings and elevations which are necessary to determine the size and number of pieces needed and has spent long hours with us in choosing the correct mats and frames to blend with the decor, and to best compliment the art selected by the client....We have furnished design boards with the total color schemes, furniture selections, wall and floor treatments, etc., as directed by Mrs. Johnson." The letter concludes by noting that Mr. and Mrs. Johnson were honest, trustworthy, and the writers' "most prompt paying customer". The evidence is insufficient to establish that Ms. Johnson provided "interior design" services to Savonna Art Consultants. The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked with J.G. Steinweg, consultant to construction, during 1987-1989, assisting customers in color coordination of new homes. By letter of reference dated September 29, 1989, Mr. Steinweg states that he has known Ms. Johnson for three years and that he would "refer her to all those that I come in contact with who require a professional in the field of interior design." Mr. Steinweg's letter does not identify any specific projects on which Ms. Johnson has worked. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Ms. Johnson provided "interior design" services to J.G. Steinweg. The application indicates that Ms. Johnson designed the interior of Zak's Jewelry Store during 1985-1989. No further information was provided. The application indicates that Ms. Johnson designed the interior of the Law Offices of Robert Adamski, beginning at a date uncertain (the copy of the application in evidence is unclear) and continuing through 1989. By subsequent client reference form, Mr. Adamski states that he had worked with Ms. Johnson twice over a seven year period in two separate law office projects. He states, "Mrs. Johnson was able to accommodate my personal needs in utilizing the space designed for my office, as well as the secretarial office and the waiting area. She created a very functional environment for all concerned." A copy of a floor plan was attached to Mr. Adamski's form, however the copy identifies neither the name or date of the person who prepared the plan or the project depicted on the plan. The client reference form makes no mention of the attachment. Based on the information provided by Mr. Adamski, it is not possible to determine whether the services provided by Ms. Johnson met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson designed the interior of the Joseph Zeterberg Medical Office, during at an unidentified period (the copy of the application in evidence is unclear). No further information was provided. The application indicates that Ms. Johnson designed the complete interior of Powell's Restaurant and Robbie's Roadhouse Restaurant during unidentified periods (the copy of the application in evidence is unclear). No further information was provided. The client reference forms initially provided to Ms. Johnson by Ms. May were completed by three of Ms. Johnson's clients (Henri Lafenetre, Linda Hayward, and John M. and Julie A. Young) and submitted to the DPR. Attached to each form was a letter from each client providing additional information regarding services provided by Ms. Johnson. By letter dated December 1, 1989, Mr. Henri Lafenetre, former general manager for Oyster Bay Homes, wrote that he had been referred to Ms. Johnson when he first became employed by Nu-Cape Construction and "would refer my clients to Mrs. Johnson for all their decorating needs". As the general manager of Oyster Bay Homes, he undertook construction of three model homes. Ms. Johnson participated in the model home project. According to the letter, "she not only did a complete layout, but furnished me with color boards, which enabled me to see the model in its entirety." Linda Hayward wrote that Ms. Johnson's knowledge of "space management" permitted her to enlarge her office using "perception and color. Her ability to relax a given area with color stories has enabled my sales staff to double their sales in an extremly (sic) comfortable environment." Ms. Hayward notes that "Donna and I have just completed an addition to my home were (sic) a nursery and florida (sic) room were added" and closes by stating that she "would not consider making any decorating or space management decisions without Donna and her color boards, swatches, and instruments of her profession". The Youngs wrote that the primary reason for the purchase of a new Mission Bay home was "the innovative color and design of their models, created by Mrs. Johnson." The Youngs further state that, during the construction of their home, Ms. Johnson provided "space utilization, full interior and exterior selections, which were available per the builder's specifications. Color boards which included the furniture lay-out, wallpaper selections, window treatments, with the complete decor, were made available...." No dates were provided. By letter of reference dated September 12, 1989, John Wyatt wrote that during Ms. Johnson's 18 years in the Cape Coral area, she had "gained the knowledge and experience in color coordination, flooring, wallpaper, window treatments and furniture." Mr. Wyatt opined that Ms. Johnson was qualified to be a licensed designer. Testifying during the hearing, Mr. Wyatt stated that he has known Ms. Johnson for five or six years, not the 18 years referenced in his letter. His discussion of the distinction between interior design and interior decorating services failed to clearly indicate an understanding of the statutory definitions of the terms. Although Mr. Wyatt opined that Ms. Johnson was qualified for licensure without examination as an interior designer, his personal knowledge of Ms. Johnson's work over the referenced six year period was very limited and was not persuasive. By letter of reference dated September 29, 1989, Jack Thomas wrote that during Ms. Johnson's 18 years in the Cape Coral area, "[t]he knowledge and experience that she has gained, not only in flooring, but also in color coordination, wallpaper, window treatments and furniture, has definitely enable (sic) her to work more closely in the field of interior design." Mr. Thomas opined that Ms. Johnson was qualified to be a licensed designer. At some point in the application process, Ms. Johnson submitted floor plans for a remodeling of a kitchen. The plans are dated "2-24-88" and were prepared by Ms. Johnson for "Mr. & Mrs. Reeves". The floor plan indicates that Ms. Johnson was providing services meeting the definition of "interior design" to the couple. Although an interior designer may provide interior decoration services, such services as color coordination, flooring, wallpaper, window treatments and furniture selection are interior decorating services. During the hearing, Ms. Johnson asserted that her work during the six year period prior to December 31, 1989 met the definition of "interior design". Beyond the evidence addressed previously, there is no documentation which supports Ms. Johnson's testimony. As documented in Ms. Johnson's application and supplemental references, the services provided by Ms. Johnson were primarily interior decorating services such as selection of or assistance in selection of surface materials, window treatments, wallcoverings, paint, floor coverings, surface mounted lighting, or loose furnishings. Although Ms. Johnson currently appears to be capable of providing interior design services (and has cited several projects undertaken in 1988-89 which required design capabilities) the evidence is insufficient to establish that she has done so for the six year period ending December 31, 1989. As such, she does not qualify for licensure without examination as an interior designer pursuant to law referenced herein.
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 Donna Marie Johnson for licensure as an interior designer under the "grandfather" provisions cited herein. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th 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 24th day of September, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Respondent, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, (Board), was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of interior designers in this state. The Petitioner, Anne C. Pepper, is and was an interior designer whose application for licensure as such in this state was denied by the Respondent under the provisions of Section 481.203(8), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. Petitioner, who is presently an employee of Jessup, Inc., an interior design firm, started her own design business, Weston House Interiors, in Connecticut in 1978. Her first project was a design of a floor plan for an apartment. During the early years of her practice, her work was primarily involved with floor planning and with selection of materials and colors. In 1980, however, she did a room for a show house in a designer showcase, also in Connecticut. In 1982, prior to her move to Switzerland with her husband, Petitioner designed a kitchen which involved the destruction of the old kitchen and a remodeling and reconstruction of a new one in an 18th Century house in Connecticut. During this period, between 1978 and 1982, she took on clients who remain her clients to this day. In 1982, she moved to Switzerland and, because of the work permit laws, while there could do only consulting work. In addition, however, she did independent study at museums and homes throughout Europe. On trips back to the Untied States, as will be seen later, she did take on work for clients which involved remodeling and reconstruction. In December, 1985, she returned to New York and worked for a design firm, under another designer, and also took on clients of her own. In 1986, she was selected to do a room in the Junior League Design Showcase. This project was a small room, almost a closet, which she turned into a yacht berth bedroom. This project involved more than merely the selection of colors, fabrics, and furniture, but included the actual design of built in sleeping accommodations and storage. In June, 1987, she was asked to come to Florida to Jessup, Inc.'s home office to see if she would like to live and work in the area. Due to the company's large resources and the opportunity this provided to work with the company's chief designer, she agreed to do so and has been doing design work for the firm ever since. Mr. McGinnis, president of Jessup, Inc. and himself a licensed interior designer, has known Petitioner since 1985 when she came to the company's New York office. He and the firm, as well as all other interior designers excluding the Petitioner, are licensed by the state. However, Petitioner does the same work, to the same extent and with the same complexity, that all the other licensed designers with the firm do. Mr. McGinnis felt Petitioner was needed in Florida because of her exceptional talent. As a part of her duties for the firm, Petitioner works with contractors, with architects, and with painters on the design and construction as well as the decoration of the facility upon completion. In one facility, the Bath Club, she performed all functions. In another project, a new residence, she designed all book casing and paneling, and did a redesign of hallways. She worked with the architect from the beginning of the construction on lighting and the placement of interior walls. In New York, while working for the firm, she did the design for the apartment she described previously, and in regards to her work with harmony House in 1989 and 1990, removed the kitchen and made it a combination kitchen/family room. Mr. McGinnes emphasized that Petitioner does the same work as the other licensed interior designers with the firm and has done so since 1985 when employed by the firm in New York. As part owner of the firm, he frequently travelled to New York and observed the work Petitioner was doing. The parties stipulated at the hearing that from the time Petitioner began working with Jessup, Inc. as an interior designer in December, 1985, and up to the present her work experience was of the type envisioned by the statute as qualifying interior design. The parties also agreed that the period from 1982 to 1985, when Petitioner was in Europe, cannot be considered as so qualifying. Therefore, the issue remains only as to that period of time prior to her departure for Europe, when she was in practice in Connecticut. With regard, then, to the time in issue, Petitioner asserts that in 1978 and 1979 in Weston, Connecticut, she did work for the Cochranes involving a 19th Century house. She worked on the layout of the living room which, admittedly, involved no movement of walls. Nonetheless, she remodeled the family room to break through the north wall and put in a bay window, and installed built-in book cases on the south wall. She also removed electrical outlets to compensate for the other changes. On the second floor and elsewhere in the house, however, the work was primarily decorative. Nonetheless, the above described remodeling would constitute interior design. When the Cochranes moved as the result of a fire prior to 1985, they again retained Petitioner to renovate the house. As a part of this job she changed the size of the dining room, designed a bathroom, and did some design work on the family room. Though this was done during the period of time she was a primary resident in Europe, nonetheless, the work on this renovation was accomplished on visits home from overseas and, notwithstanding the parties' agreement, mentioned earlier, as to the inapplicability of the period encompassed by the time in Europe, at least those times when she was back in this country would qualify and it is so found. Petitioner was also involved in the remodeling of the dining room in a small home owned by the Ittners in 1978. As part of this work she changed the windows and the doorways; she put in a breeze way and designed a miniature garden room. When the Ittners moved, she worked in the kitchen of their new house to move cabinets and rearrange appliances. In addition, in 1982, Petitioner worked with Mr. and Mrs. Kornfield in Connecticut on a late 19th Century house wherein she was involved in the fabrication of valances for window treatment and possibly installation of electrical units to accommodate a light fixture the owner had. She also designed furniture which was made to her specifications. Through much of the early years, Petitioner worked out of her home in Connecticut and during this period, she was also taking courses at the University of Connecticut, Stamford, in the interior design department. In the early 1980's the majority of her business involved the remodeling of old homes and new construction additions to older homes. As a part of this,. she would study the job site and do sketches of her proposals. She then did on-site consultation with clients and contractors. Mr. Brett, of Stroheim and Rohmann, a fabrics house, recalls praise for her space planning, design elements and the like during that period. Petitioner's work has changed very little in nature since she started in 1978 - only the magnitude of the projects and the volume has increased. Any increase in spectrum is related to the increase in experience, and this is to be expected. Taken together, it would appear, and it is so found, that even from the very beginning, Petitioner's work, for the most part, consisted of projects containing those elements which amount to interior design as opposed to interior decoration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case granting the Petitioner, Anne C. Pepper, registration as an interior designer in Florida without examination. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 3rd day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. First portion accepted and incorporated herein. The conclusions drawn regarding the characterization of the work is rejected. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue. Accepted but, again, not dispositive. Not a Finding of Fact but argument on the nature of the evidence. Accepted, but complication of the project is not required to constitute interior design. This is not dispositive of any issue even if accepted. The work, though not done continuously, was definitely design. COPIES FURNISHED: Anne C. Pepper 333 Seaspray Avenue Palm Beach, Florida 33480 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Architecture and Interior Design 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Petitioner, Karen D. Mast, qualifies for licensure without examination as an interior designer as a result of the breadth of her experience consistent with provisions of Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, (Board), was the state agency charged with the responsibility for the licensing and regulation of the interior design profession in Florida. At some time prior to 1975, when the Petitioner moved to South Florida from Long Island, she attended Nassau Community College, working toward an associate degree in fine arts. She was going to continue with her education when, in that year, she received a call from her brother to come to work with him and another brother who had started a furniture design and construction business in south Florida. As a result of the call, she moved to south Florida and started work with them on a full time basis, designing furniture pieces and the settings for their display. She also started taking her own clients in 1976. Petitioner's brother, Robert Sabin, with his brother, started a business called Cartel in Miami in 1970. Cartel manufactured furniture, upholstery, case goods and stainless steel furniture and distributed it throughout the United States. Though the company had hired a designer, J.S. & Associates, at the brothers' request, Petitioner came to work with the company in the early 1970's, initially starting with J.S. & Associates. By 1975, however, she was a full fledged designer both in conjunction with and independent of the company. When, at that time, the company outgrew its prior facility and purchased a new building, Petitioner designed not only the interior showroom but the facade of the building as well to increase its appearance. Primarily this involved the rearrangement of interior walls but little structural change. In 1980, the company bought a new building which required extensive redesign, and Mr. Sabin and his brother gave Petitioner the job of redesigning it. With regard to this change, Petitioner did everything from drawing the blue prints to final design. Her plan for the building involved gutting it, installing new walls consistent with her design, new windows, doors, display platforms, scenic displays and the like, and at the same time, she was hard at work designing new product. In addition to working for the company in the design of its product and building, she also designed outside projects for the firm, going to out of state showrooms to insure the company's product was properly displayed. This, however, appears to be theatrical design rather than interior design since it consisted of the design of backdrops, props and the like. In addition, she did an apartment for the owner of Carnival Cruise Lines, and a restaurant, and she assisted in the interior redesign of the Eden Roc Hotel, though she made no changes to the structure. She also worked on the Cricket Club as well, all of which involved major changes without going beyond the limits of her capabilities. Through all this time, Petitioner worked for her brothers' firm doing the design projects. Witness Sabin was in charge of production; his brother, now deceased, was in charge of sales, and Petitioner was the designer. Ms. Mast's primary design work was more intensive from 1981 on when the major reconstruction of the new building was under way. At this point, though the job was hers, she was not just a decision maker on design done by someone else. She, in fact, did the actual design work for the various construction segments. She knew her brothers' taste and could design what they wanted and she believed they would like. She designed it from the beginning and supervised it through its fulfillment. The concepts were hers, though they were based on the general thoughts conveyed to her by them. In 1983, Paul F. McCarthy, a resident of Vero Beach, met Petitioner and her brothers and has been friendly with her family since then. In fact, Petitioner helped him guide his daughter into the field of interior design. In 1987 Mr. McCarthy retained the Petitioner to redo a house he had bought in Vero Beach. As a part of her work, she redesigned the kitchen, the family room and the living room into a wide open great room. The result was "spectacular." She met the strict time constraints for all work done which included submitting renderings involving the removal of interior walls and board samplings and elevations, all before the work started, and when the work was completed, Mr. McCarthy classified it as no less than "outstanding." When he sold the property at a large profit, he believed his ability to sell at such a profit was due primarily to the work done by Petitioner. Because he was so satisfied with her work, Mr. McCarthy introduced Petitioner to two top interior designers practicing in Vero Beach, and has also recommended her to developers and builders. He feels she is extremely talented, straightforward and honest. She gives excellent service in a prompt manner and she recognizes and satisfies her client's needs in a warm, caring and friendly manner. He would recommend her to others and would use her on future projects. Donald Wright, a winter resident of Fort Lauderdale and a summer resident of Toronto, has known Petitioner since 1983 when he was referred to her by a realtor. Mr. Wright is in the business of purchasing and remodeling homes and condominium apartments and at that time, when he was considering a redoing a condo for resale in Toronto, he contacted Petitioner and requested she come there and work with him on the project. At that time, he did not know any suppliers and was very impressed with the work she had done in the past. The facility in question needed complete rehabilitation since it was an older building which he wanted to update and modernize. It required a redoing of the flooring, changing the floors, walls and counters in the kitchen, changing the laundry room, and adding a bathroom. Initially, Mr. Wright took Petitioner to the material suppliers with whom he had worked in the past, but once she agreed to do the job, she took over and ran with the ball. She got samples, made suggestions and completely redesigned the interior of the apartment. He was satisfied with her work which took approximately a month and a half. In 1988, Mr. Wright, who had been contacted by a foreign investor to convert three apartments in Toronto into one large apartment, retained Petitioner to work with him in the redesign of this project. He gave Petitioner the original plan for the three apartment, and in general described to her how he wanted them converted into one large apartment. This involved the movement of bathrooms, two kitchens, four bedrooms, a maid's quarters and a pantry. Having evaluated the project, Petitioner suggested changes to be done and gave Mr. Wright rough drawings of how the project would look when completed. Mr. Wright took these to the owner who approved them, after which Petitioner did the final drawings which were also approved by the owner. Petitioner and Mr. Wright worked together on this project. He gave her the sources of supply and got samples, and they worked together until the job was finished. She redesigned the complete interior of the new apartment, changing the layout of the bathrooms and the kitchen, not only with cabinets but counters as well, provided for tiling in both areas, obtained furniture samples and wall covering, and the like and the job was completed before the time allotted had expired. The owner of the apartment was very satisfied with the work done by Wright and the Petitioner. Sometime in 1986, Mr. Wright again retained Petitioner to work on the redesign of the interior of a 70 foot yacht, the owner of which wanted the interior gutted and replaced. This involved the redesign of the staterooms, bath and galley, and included new paneling, new furniture, new colors, new dimensions, and the like. The owner picked out the appliances he wanted, but Mr. Wright and Petitioner worked together in designing their placement and the placement of the lighting. She designed the cabinetry work and the layout of the kitchen and a sound system so as to get the most usable space out of the limited area available. The owner was extremely pleased with the result. Mr. Wright has been in the modification business for approximately 15 years and is not, himself, a designer. However, he has a very high opinion of the quality of the work performed by Petitioner. She has impeccable taste and knows how to lay out and utilize space. She knows the limitations that are placed on structural changes and is capable of redesigning space to conform to and comply with limitations on structural change. Ms. Mast is extremely proud of the work she has done and believes she has dedicated her life to her work. She limits her practice to high end clients and the majority come to her as the result of referrals from other clients. She is proud of the name she has developed in the interior design field over the years she has practiced. Petitioner presented a brochure of her brothers' furniture line and was able to point out some 15 or so individual pieces she had designed in addition to the showroom layout. As to her design of the building in which the company operates, she designed the tile work, the placement of interior walls, the use of glass block and the structure within the supporting walls of the building. In addition, she designed the interior of a restaurant in Bogota, Colombia, and the departure bar in the Aruba International Airport in the West Indies. With regard to those last two projects, the plans submitted by Petitioner as having been drawn by her reflect that the departure bar was designed in 1985 and the restaurant in 1989. Review of the plans indicates that the date on the drawing purportedly done by Petitioner appears to have been altered, since the figures, "85" do not seem to have been drawn by the same individual who inserted the "19". They appear different. Much the same appears on the chicken restaurant drawings where the Petitioner's initials appear to have been inserted over some other name, and not placed there at the time the plans were drawn. However, no evidence was submitted by the Department to contest the identity of the plans or that Petitioner drafted them, and as a result, they are accepted as offered. With regard to these facilities, Petitioner claims she did the floor plans, the tile detail and the interior design detail on both. She has been a member of the International Furniture and Design Association for several years. Petitioner's application for registration as an interior designer in Florida was received by the Department on January 5, 1990. Petitioner was requesting registration by exemption rather than by examination, and properly submitted the $50.00 fee at the time of her application. The application as initially submitted, reflected her experience from 1975 to 1982 with Cartel, Inc., her brothers' furniture firm, and from 1982 to the present as an interior designer with Rudolph Collections, also a design firm owned by her deceased brother, Paul. From November, 1989 to the present, she was an interior designer with Thomasville Showcase Interiors in Pompano Beach. It would appear from the application and the supporting documents that the Board did not consider the listed description of the nature of her work performed to fall within the criteria qualifying her for an exemption. Along with the application, Petitioner also submitted a statement from Mr. McCarthy, and one from the personnel administrator of Thomasville Showcase Interiors with whom she has worked since 1989, which indicated she was involved not only in layout, color coordination, furniture selection and the like, but performed the additional task of space planning as well. Petitioner also submitted several client reference forms which reflect that she performed the services of an interior designer for those clients in 1987 and two more from as early as 1983 and 1984. The one from Jean Craft, which relates to a 1984 employment, concerns Petitioner's activities in selecting fabrics, window treatments and the use of mirrors and wall covering. This is more the work of an interior decorator, however, than that of an interior designer. In 1983 and 1984, however, Petitioner worked for a Mrs. Nettie Effron in New York. In that operation, Petitioner prepared drawings showing elevations and concept details which involved structural changes and the introduction of skylights, glass panels and other interior changes. The Board, however, in reviewing Petitioner's application, concluded that the references submitted by Petitioner with her application did not sufficiently describe experience in interior design for the six years prior to January 1, 1990, which is required by the statute. The additional testimony presented at hearing, which includes a statement of Mr. Don Blumenthal, of Miller Construction, adds considerable to the history of interior design experience, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the Petitioner, Karen D. Mast, registration as an interior designer in Florida without examination. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of January, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Mast 600 Parkview Drive, Apt. 527 Hallandale, Florida 33309 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
