Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an application for licensure as an interior designer and paid the appropriate fee. Petitioner's application was reviewed and on November 18, 1991, the Board sent Petitioner a letter denying licensure on grounds that Petitioner did not have a degree that is accredited by the Foundation of Interior Design Educational Research (F.I.D.E.R.). Furthermore, the Board found Petitioner seven months short of the experience required for licensure. The Board notified Petitioner he could submit additional information to determine the equivalency of his educational curriculum to a F.I.D.E.R. accredited degree. On May 22, 1992, Petitioner submitted a letter to the Board stating that he had now completed his experience requirement and requesting another review of his educational courses. At hearing, Respondent stipulated to Petitioner's four years of interior design experience to qualify for licensure. The Petitioner studied interior design at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh, where he completed a two-year program in 1980. During the course of his studies at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh, the Petitioner completed the equivalent of 1.5 semester hours of study in the field of "business practice". During the course of his studies at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh, the Petitioner did not take any courses in the fields of "diverse post-secondary level liberal arts, sciences, and humanities." The Petitioner has not completed any post-secondary level courses in "business practice" or in "liberal arts, sciences, and humanities" since receiving his degree in 1980. Since that time the Petitioner has taken two courses in sculpting clay and two courses in sculpting stone. All four of these courses involved hands-on work in the studio learning and practicing practical skills. There is insufficient evidence in the record to determine whether these four courses were the equivalent of college level courses and, if so, how many semester hours they might be equivalent to. Since receiving his degree in 1980, the Petitioner has, on at least two occasions, tutored other students in areas related to interior design. There is insufficient evidence in the record to determine whether these tutoring activities were the equivalent of college level courses and, if so, how many semester hours they might be equivalent to.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a Final Order denying Petitioner licensure as an interior designer. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 26th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5931 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner: (None) Proposed findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 5 and 6: Rejected as constituting conclusions of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Brian K. Carter 421 51st Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 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 which allow licensure without examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner, Ruth J. Stieren, is an applicant for licensure without examination seeking to be registered as an interior designer in the State of Florida. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing applications to verify that applicants meet the statutory criteria for licensure without examination. To date, the Petitioner has not passed the examination administered by the National Council for Interior Design Qualifications or its predecessor, the American Institute of Interior Design. Petitioner is married to Charles F. Stieren, Jr., a licensed general contractor in the State of Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Stieren own and operate Stieren Construction, Inc. Mr. Stieren has been licensed, continuously performing contracting services, for the last eighteen years. For the last fourteen years Petitioner has identified herself out as an interior designer and has performed services for Stieren Construction, Inc. and others. Individually, Petitioner has held occupational licenses and has been registered for sales tax purposes with the Department of Revenue since 1981. Petitioner's Seminole County occupational license for 1987 indicates she was licensed during that year as a designer. Over the course of her work, Petitioner has successfully consulted with clients regarding their project needs. She has offered options or solutions to project requirements such as floor plans (including elevation information), furniture suggestions together with proposed placements shown, fabric and finish recommendations, and lighting. With regard to lighting, Petitioner has recommended wiring configurations e.g. the placement and type of switches, as well as recommending the fixture choices for the proposed use. In connection with her work, Petitioner has made drawings and sketches depicting her proposals as well as color boards. Petitioner's residential and commercial designs have considered space utilization, client preferences, and budget constraints. Petitioner has not submitted samples of work showing reflected ceiling plans. Michael Cavanaugh, an architect licensed in Indiana who has worked with Petitioner on projects in Florida, described Petitioner's work as that of an "interior designer" and not the more limited "interior decorator".
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure without examination. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-6691 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraph 1 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 2 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as comment, recitation of testimony or argument. The first sentence of paragraph 3 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as comment, recitation of testimony or argument. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Petitioner has shown that she had held herself out as an interior designer for at least six years. Petitioner has not established that her work experience covers all aspects within the definition of interior design. Paragraph 5 is rejected as argument or comment. Moreover, Petitioner bears the burden in this proceeding to establish she meets the criteria for licensure without examination. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. To the extent that paragraphs 2 and 3 indicate Mr. Cavanaugh is a licensed architect and has reviewed some of Petitioner's work they are accepted; otherwise, rejected as argument, recitation of testimony, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. To the extent that Petitioner documented at least six years of business experience the exhibits have been accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as comment. Paragraph 7 is accepted to the extent that it states that Petitioner consulted with and prepared a floor plan for Mrs. Norman. Otherwise rejected as argument. Paragraph 8 is rejected as recitation of testimony and argument. Paragraph 9 is rejected as comment. Paragraph 10 is rejected as comment. Paragraph 11 is rejected a recitation of testimony and argument. Paragraphs 12 through 22 are rejected as recitation of testimony, comment, argument, conclusions of law, or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603--The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Patricia Ard, Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William H. Morrison BALDWIN & MORRISON, P.A. 7100 S. Highway 17-92 Fern Park, Florida 32730
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
