Findings Of Fact On October 3, 1989, Maureen Timm filed with the Department of Professional Regulation ("DPR"), her application for licensure without examination as an interior designer. By letter dated December 18, 1991, Ms. Timm was informed that her application was being denied and that she was entitled to request a formal hearing to challenge the decision. Ms. Timm thereafter filed a request for formal hearing. During the period between October 3, 1989 and December 18, 1989, Ms. Timm filed supplemental information in support of her application. For the purposes of this Recommended Order, all information submitted by Ms. Timm has been considered without regard to the date of submission. Although there is evidence that Ms. Timm is currently capable of providing interior design services, the greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that, for the six year period prior to December 31, 1989, Ms. Timm's services met the statutory definition of "interior design". To the contrary, the evidence establishes that services provided by Ms. Timm during the referenced six year period, especially prior to the November of 1987, consisted primarily of interior decorating services provided first through a paint and decorating store and then through department store furniture sales. Ms. Timm's application states that she worked for Havco Paint and Decorating from July, 1979 to July 1980 as a "designer in wallcovering and window treatment department." During this time, Ms. Timm primarily assisted customers in selection of wallcoverings, window treatments and floor coverings. The evidence fails to establish that such services meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from July 1981 to December 1984, Ms. Timm was employed as a "designer in the furniture department" of an Ivey's department store unit. During this period, Ms. Timm assisted customers in selection and placement of furniture, window treatments and wall coverings. The evidence fails to establish that such services as were related to the sale of furniture and related decorating services meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from January 1985 to January 1986, Ms. Timm was employed as a "designer in the furniture department" of a Robinson's department store unit. During this period, Ms. Timm assisted customers in selection and placement of furniture, window treatments and wall coverings. The evidence fails to establish that such services as were related to the sale of furniture and related decorating services meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from September 1986 to April 1987, Ms. Timm was employed as a "floral designer" for World Bazaar, during which time she designed flower arrangements for the store and individual customers. The services provided by Ms. Timm to World Bazaar customers clearly fail to meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from November 1987 to September 1988, Ms. Timm was employed as an "interior designer for "Midge Wright, The Wright Place." As set forth in the application, Ms. Timm "designed customer's homes, estimated cost of jobs, placed orders, followed through on completion of jobs." The evidence fails to establish that Ms. Timm's services to Ms. Wright's customers meet the definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from September 1988 to the present, Ms. Timm has worked as a "self-employed interior designer" during which time she has "designed U. S. Home models and customers homes and condos". Ms. Timm's file includes references from a number of customers who have utilized her services during this period. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the services provided by Ms. Timm during this period meet the statutory definition of "interior design". Services such as color coordination, flooring, wallpaper, window treatments and furniture selection are interior decorating services. During the hearing, Ms. Timm asserted that her work during the six year period prior to December 31, 1989 met the definition of "interior design". Beyond the evidence addressed herein, there is no documentary support for Ms. Timm's testimony. Although Ms. Timm appears to be capable of providing some interior design services, the evidence is insufficient to establish that she has done so for the six year period ending December 31, 1989. Accordingly, she does not qualify for licensure without examination as an interior designer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a Final Order denying the application of Maureen Timm for licensure as an interior designer under the "grandfather" provisions cited herein. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1992 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0948 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed recommended order consisted of five unnumbered paragraphs which are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Paragraph #1, Rejected, cumulative. Paragraph #2, Accepted, however, preparation of window treatments and wallcovering does not meet the statutory definition of interior design. Paragraph #3, Rejected, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Paragraph #4, Accepted as to submission of additional material. Rejected as to discussions with DPR representative, irrelevant. Paragraph #5, Rejected, conclusion not supported by evidence. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2-5. Rejected, unnecessary, subordinate. 13. Rejected, irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Maureen Timm 12950 Iona Road Fort Myers, FL 33908 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Esq. Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
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
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received in this case, the following relevant findings of fact are made: In October 1989, Petitioner applied to the Board for licensure as an Interior Designer pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes and Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida (commonly referred to as the grandfather clause), based upon six years of interior design experience prior to January 1, 1990. The application was timely filed and Petitioner paid the appropriate fee. During the application process, the Board required additional information from Petitioner, which was furnished, but on August 21, 1991, the Board issued its notice of denial stating that Petitioner had not shown sufficient evidence of compliance with the requirement of the grandfather clause of six years' interior design experience prior to January 1, 1990. The Board advised the Petitioner that her experience was in the nature of "a cabinet work detailer, not as an Interior Designer. Petitioner began designing custom furniture in 1978 when she and her husband started a business known as Village Woodworking. The business grew to include built-in furniture, cabinetry and related interior design services over the years. As early as 1981, Petitioner began consulting with clients directly on matters such as space utilization, lighting, kitchen design, bathroom design and fabrication of custom-made cabinetry and built-in furniture. Often Petitioner would prepare drawings to reflect her design concepts which were later incorporated into the client's homes or businesses. In 1982, Petitioner consulted on numerous interior design matters in the renovation of the Gardinier estate property. These matters included the design of custom made dining room furniture, space utilization throughout the estate buildings, lighting and the design, fabrication and placement of custom-made cabinetry and built-in furniture. These consultations went on over a period of approximately three years. From the early 1980s through the date of the hearing, Petitioner has consistently consulted with clients, architects and interior designers by reviewing architectural plans and specifications, suggesting modifications and changes, preparing shop drawings to incorporate her design concepts into construction and renovation projects and by designing and fabricating cabinets, furniture and built-in furniture. Some of the jobs where Petitioner performed all or part of these services were: (a) Steve Simon's office; (b) Central National Bank; (c) Wellscraft Marina; (d) Law offices; (e) Sarney Residence on Siesta Key and the Patterman Residence; and (f) the Gardinier Estate mentioned in Finding of Fact 3. These jobs covered a period from 1982 to 1987. Also, it was Petitioner's unrebutted testimony that she had been rendering interior design services such as those mentioned above for over six years prior to January 1, 1990. There is competent, substantial evidence to establish facts to show that Petitioner has been performing, and is qualified to perform interior design consultations and studies and to prepare drawings and specifications in connection with lighting plans, space utilization, furnishings and fabrication of nonstructured elements within and surrounding interior spaces of buildings, both residential and commercial, and has been continuously engaged in, and performing, this type of work in the normal course of her business for more than six years prior to January 1, 1990. There was insufficient evidence to show that Petitioner's work had been limited to that of a "cabinet work detailer" but there was sufficient evidence to show that the services described above constituted a large portion of Petitioner's business for at least six years prior to January 1, 1990.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order granting Petitioner licensure as an Interior Designer without examination under the provisions of Chapter 88-383, Section 21, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 3(2); 4(3); 5(4-5); 7(6); 8(6); and 9(6). Proposed finding of fact 2 is more of a restatement of the witnesses' testimony rather than stated as a proposed finding of fact, but see finding of fact 4. Proposed finding of fact 6 is not necessary in that the affidavits corroborates the testimony of Petitioner as set out in findings of fact 2-4. Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(2); 2(2); 3-6(4); 9(2); and 11(3). Proposed findings of fact 7, 8 and 10 are not relevant to the conclusions reached in the Recommended Order. Rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip N. Hammersley, Esquire TRAWICK HAMMERSLEY & VALENTINE Post Office Box 4019 Sarasota, Florida 34230 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture & Interior Design Northwood Centre - Suite 60 1940 N Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0751 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0792
Findings Of Fact On December 8, 1989, Petitioner's application for registration in Florida as an interior designer under the exemption provisions of the licensure law was received by the Board. The application was reviewed and found to be incomplete because the required documentation of 6 years experience was not included. Petitioner was so notified on January 5, 1990, and her application was held in abeyance until the requested documentation was received. On July 2, 1990, a second notice was sent to Petitioner. This notice explained that the client verification forms sent with her application did not span a 6-year period and they did not provide sufficient detail of design experience. Petitioner was asked to submit 3 more forms that span at least a six year period. Client verifications prior to 1984 and after 1987 were needed by a July 31, 1990 deadline. By October 16, 1990, two additional client verification forms were received. One form was for a project in 1983 and the other was for a project in 1989. The application submitted by Petitioner through October 31, 1991, did not contain sufficient material to demonstrate that she has six years of interior design practice as required by Section 21 of Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida. Specifically, more detailed work experience was needed with supporting plans to show full scale design occurred. The evidence submitted by Petitioner in her application to the Board reflects work more 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.
Recommendation Based on 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 4th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 4th day of December, 1991. Copies furnished: TAMMY GREENE 105 W GENESEE TAMPA FL 33603 JOHN J RIMES III ESQ ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1050 ANGEL GONZALEZ - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FL BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR DESIGN 1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 JACK MCRAY ESQ - GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0792
