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 central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as an interior designer under the criteria set forth in Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner, M. Sharma Bryant McAlwee, is an applicant for licensure as a registered interior designer. Petitioner sought licensure without examination based upon the procedure described in Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida. The Department does not dispute that Petitioner timely filed the licensure application pursuant to that section but has alleged that Petitioner failed to establish she meets the relevant criteria for licensure without examination. More specifically, the Department denied the Petitioner's application based upon a purported failure to show at least six years of interior design experience as a principal of a firm offering interior design services. Whether or not Petitioner has passed the examination administered by the National Council for Interior Design Qualifications is unknown. That qualification has not been stated to be at issue in these proceedings. The Petitioner received a master of arts degree from Western Michigan University in December, 1980. The course work undertaken by Petitioner while at that university included a number of interior design studies. Petitioner's B.S. degree was conferred by Grand Valley State Colleges in 1978. In March, 1980, Petitioner was employed by Altered Spaces, an interior design company. At that time, Petitioner represented herself to be an interior designer on business cards utilized in her work for that company. While employed by Altered Spaces, Petitioner prepared several kitchen remodeling designs for Mr. and Mrs. Tammer. Those designs considered the structural support of the existing room together with the windows, doorways and arch. After conferring with the client, Petitioner prepared drawings and sketches to demonstrate her suggestions for the proposed project. Those drawings considered such items as lighting, location of appliances, flooring, and the relocation of counters and sink. During her employment with Altered Spaces, Petitioner designed several projects where wiring, duct work, and plumbing had to be considered. Additionally, Petitioner proposed color, fabric, and lighting plans for that company's projects. Petitioner presented copies of bank records from the years 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984 wherein the account was entitled in Petitioner's name with the designation "Interior Designer." Petitioner presented copies of occupational license records issued by the City of Indian Harbour Beach, Florida, which indicate Petitioner has been doing business in that community as an interior designer for the years 1989-90 and 1990- 91. The first of those licenses was issued on September 8, 1989. In 1984-85, Petitioner was associated with a company known as Bizarre Bazaar. The business card for that company indicated "Antiques-Uniques." Petitioner may have engaged in a limited amount of design work while with that company but not to the extent as with her prior association, Altered Spaces. In 1981, Petitioner worked with the builder of Chinatown Restaurant in Grand Rapids, Michigan. She made adjustments in the floor plans, reworked certain structural elements to facilitate the traffic plan, planned the arrangement of tables, designed a space divider, drew a reflected ceiling plan and designed certain decorative elements. In 1981, Petitioner designed a wall graphic for Wolverine Tractor Company. Sometime in 1980 or 1981, Petitioner did a feasibility study for a Middle Eastern restaurant and grocery store in Kalamazoo, Michigan. This project involved the redesign of the floor plan to accommodate the restaurant and store. Sometime in 1981-1982, Petitioner prepared plans for a basement T.V. room for Mr. Paccari in Michigan. In doing so, she prepared drawings and a color board with samples of carpet, formica and wallpaper. Petitioner worked on a kitchen project in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In that project, Petitioner drew plans for installing new cabinets, painting, wallpaper and designed some decorative rails. Petitioner's exhibit concerning this project did not include a date but it was probably performed in 1983. Petitioner's work in 1986 included graphics for a driveway design in Miami. In 1987, Petitioner drew a space plan for Layton Financial Enterprises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, enter a final order approving Petitioner's application as it meets the criteria set forth in subparagraph (1)(b)1. of the licensure without examination section. DONE and ENTERED this 12 day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 91-0906 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are accepted. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 12 are rejected as recitation of testimony, comment, argument or irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 2 is accepted. The balance is rejected as recitation of testimony. The first three sentences of paragraph 8 are accepted. The balance is rejected as comment, argument or irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant; otherwise the paragraph is accepted. The following paragraphs are rejected as argumentative, contrary to the weight of the evidence, a conclusion of law, or irrelevant: 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27. Paragraphs 13, 19 and 22 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: M. Sharma Bryant McAlwee 417 Entrance Way Melbourne, Florida 32940-1853 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603--The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Patricia Ard, Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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
The Issue Whether or not Respondent committed violations of Sections 481.2251(1)(d) and 481.2251(1)(n) F.S. [1991], as alleged in the administrative complaint, and if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Thomas Maxwell Guilford, Respondent, is licensed by the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design as a registered interior designer, License No. ID 0002093. Respondent was first licensed as a registered interior designer by the Board of Architecture and Interior Design in 1990, when the interior designer licensure statute was enacted. Mr. Guilford has practiced as an interior designer for approximately 20 years. Prior to becoming licensed, Respondent practiced under the trade name, "Thomas Maxwell Guilford Architectural and Interior Design." Respondent has utilized this term and trade name to describe his professional services for approximately 20 years. Respondent disclosed to the Board and Department of Professional Regulation his use of the foregoing term to describe his occupation when he applied for licensure in January, 1990. Mr. Guilford's professional identification was set forth on his City of Tallahassee Occupational Licence, a copy of which was submitted to the Board as part of his licensure application. During the licensure application process, Respondent also submitted correspondence to the Board on letterhead paper bearing the trade name, "Thomas Maxwell Guilford Architectural and Interior Design." At no time prior to issuing Respondent's interior designer license or prior to the administrative complaint herein did the Board indicate to Respondent that his use of the trade name, "Thomas Maxwell Guilford Architectural and Interior Design" violated any licensing statutes, including but not limited to Sections 481.2251(1)(d) and (n) F.S., which he is now charged with violating. Had the licensing authorities advised Respondent of any disapproval of his use of the term "architectural and interior design" prior to licensure, he would have stopped using the designation. Not aware of any objection to his long-established identification and letterhead, Respondent continued, subsequent to becoming licensed, to practice interior design under the trade name he had consistently utilized for fourteen or more years before licensure. Upon licensure, Respondent also added to his letterhead the phrase, "Registered with the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design, ID 0002093" to specifically indicate his licensure status. The Board requires licensees to display their license numbers on all written materials. In 1992, Respondent submitted two statements to a client, one for "billable hours for design consultation and installation" and the other for "landscaping front and rear yard." Each statement appeared on stationery bearing the term, "Thomas Maxwell Guilford Architectural and Interior Design" as described above. The client filed a complaint with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation over a billing dispute, which was ultimately resolved without disciplinary activity. However, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating Section 481.2251(1)(d) F.S., by engaging in false, deceptive or misleading advertising, and with violating Section 481.2251(1)(n) F.S., by rendering or offering to render architectural services without a license, solely upon the wording of his stationery. Respondent never intentionally or knowingly represented himself to the public to be a licensed architect. Respondent has never previously been disciplined by the Board of Architecture and Interior Design. He is not charged in this administrative complaint with failing to make the proper disclosures required by Section 481.2131(1) F.S., as to the extent of interior designers' capabilities on any drawing, rendering, or elevation. At no time since the filing of the administrative complaint herein on November 12, 1993, has the Board or the Department issued an order directing Respondent to cease and desist his use of the term, "architectural and interior design" in his stationery or billing statements. Jerry Hicks, an expert licensed architect, testified that in his opinion, the use of the term, "architectural design" on Respondent's stationery was misleading, misrepresentative, and inappropriate because, "it uses the word 'architectural' to enhance the interior designer's position" and because Mr. Hicks thought lay persons would think architecture was being practiced by a licensed architect. Basically, Mr. Hicks asserted the prosecutorial position that because the adjective "architectural" springs from the noun, or word-root, "architecture," it must be misleading if utilized on an interior designer's stationery. However, he conceded that the adjective is not misleading anywhere else. (See Findings of Fact 24-26). As an architect, Mr. Hicks had no difficulty looking at the Respondent's stationery and recognizing that only interior design services were being offered and that the Respondent's license number was clearly an ID (interior designer) license number and not an AR (architect's) license number. No layperson testified to being misled or confused by the Respondent's stationery. The statement concerning Respondent's licensure status and licensure number appearing on his letterhead is truthful in every respect. Any client or consumer, familiar or unfamiliar with the ID versus AR licensure designations, can verify the extent of Respondent's licensure status by inquiring of the Board of Architecture and Interior Design. There are no facts or circumstances in this record which demonstrate that Respondent ever actually rendered or offered to render any services which would require performance exclusively by a licensed architect. See the statutory definitions of the two professions at Sections 481.203(6) F.S. for architecture and 481.203(8) F.S. for interior design. These definitions are adopted and incorporated as a finding of fact. It is undisputed that the services commonly rendered by architects and interior designers overlap significantly. Mr. Hicks described the process of "architecture" as a business which involves five basic services or phases: a conceptual schematic phase, a design development phase, a construction design phase, bidding and negotiation phase, and a construction and administration phase. According to Mr. Hicks, licensed interior designers may properly engage in each of the activities comprising the five phases, so long as they do not perform services involving the specific design and construction of structural or mechanical components, which would require additional professional licensure such as an architect or engineer. Interior designers commonly perform services involving both the interior and exterior design and construction phases of buildings, so long as such work is limited to the non-structural elements of the building. The role of the interior designer in the design and construction phase is limited primarily to dealing with "esthetic appliques to building structures." Such activities may include aspects of both interior and exterior design, commonly taking the form of line drawings showing what the finished product would look like and known as "interior elevations" and "exterior elevations." A licensed interior designer may sketch both conceptual, schematic and detailed drawings of an exterior facade or elevation or of an interior elevation for a client, so long as the design documents do not involve specific structural components. The term "architectural design" can properly be used to describe such drawings rendered by an interior designer. As a licensed interior designer, Respondent is permitted, and often does, consult with clients concerning every phase of the design and construction process for new construction, as well as additions or renovations. In the normal course of his business, he is required to develop conceptual schematic designs, prepare detailed, non-structural design documents, assist in the bidding and negotiation process and assist in the construction and administration phases of a project. These activities are essentially identical to those of an architect, with the exception that the limitations of Respondent's licensure preclude him from participation in the design and construction of the structural or mechanical components of a building project, such as electric wiring or plumbing connections. However, interior designers may appropriately select plumbing fixtures and locate electric outlets and illustrate these elements on design documents for their customers. The preparation of conceptual schematic designs and later specific design documents were characterized by Respondent, who was accepted as an expert in interior design, as "architectural design." The agency's expert witness, an architect, Jerry Hicks, did not disagree with such a usage. According to Mr. Hicks, it would not even be inappropriate for an interior design firm or an individual interior designer to prepare schematics and elevations of interiors and exteriors and call the schematics "architectural designs". Interior designers also may appropriately use the reference "architectural design" to describe their work to customers or architects on specific projects. Mr. Hicks saw nothing misleading in the use of the word "architectural" to describe displays of products as "architectural lighting" or "architectural mouldings" in building supply stores, or in the title of magazines. Building supply stores typically sell self-described "architectural" products, such as architectural hardware, architectural shingles, and architectural mouldings. The term, "architectural design," also appears in the title of the publication "Architectural Digest", a widely-recognized publication used by consumers, designers and architects, which bills itself as "the international magazine of fine interior design." The term also appears in textbooks, which are typically utilized by both architects and designers. The term is used in book titles appearing on a recommended reading list submitted by the Board of Architecture and Interior Design to registered interior designers, including Respondent. The reading list includes titles, such as "Interior Design and Introduction to Architectural Interiors", "Architectural Drawing", "Architectural Lighting Design", and "Architectural Detailing." The evidence as a whole shows that in common usage, the term "architectural," when used as an adjective, is essentially generic in nature. The evidence as a whole shows that the term, "architectural design" is a term widely utilized throughout the industry, that there is a common understanding as to what the term entails, and that it commonly includes interior designing without professional licensure as an architect. If anything, Respondent's stationery reading, "Architectural and Interior Design" (emphasis supplied) is even more accurate and informative of what he is licensed to do than is the generic term, "architectural design."
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint herein as unproven. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 31st day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-2860 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2) F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-6, 9 Accepted, except that preliminary, unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been adopted. 7-8, 11 Rejected, as a misleading characterization of isolated testimony. 10 Rejected because not supported by a citation to the transcript or evidence. Moreover, it is not supported by the record as a whole. No charges on this issue are contained in this case. See Finding of Fact number 12 and Conclusion of Law number 35. 12 Rejected as a conclusion of law and as not supported by the evidence. 13-15 Accepted that these statements were made but rejected that they fully describe Mr. Hicks' testimony which is detailed more thoroughly in the facts as found. Rejected further as partial conclusions of law. Respondent's PFOF: 1-29 Accepted, except that legal argument, conclusions of law, and unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Ellen Clark, Esquire Donna Bass, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patrick J. Phelan, Jr., Esquire Skelding, Labasky, Corry, Eastman, Houser & Jolly, P.A. Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
