The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Janet Friedman, is qualified for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer pursuant to Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of-Florida, based upon her experience and employment history.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. By application dated August 31, 1989, Petitioner applied to the Board for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer pursuant to Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida. Her application was received by the Board on September 7, 1989. Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner's application was timely filed. The Board, by letter dated October 19, 1990, advised Petitioner of its intention to deny her application. The following explanation was given in the letter: A review of your application by the Interior Design Committee shows that you did not sufficiently document that you have met the definition of Interior Design for a six year period. The Committee is concerned with whether you were working full-time in the Interior Design field during the time you were in school. Also client reference forms previously provided do not give us sufficient interior design descriptions [ sic] . Petitioner graduated with honors from Broward Community College with an AS degree in Interior Design in 1985. Petitioner attended Broward Community College from 1982 through June, 1985. Petitioner took three years to complete a program that would usually take a full-time student two years to complete. Petitioner attended school on a part-time basis and generally did not take more than 9 credit hours at a time. Thus, she was usually not in class more than 9 hours per week. Some of her classes were at night and on weekends. She took classes straight through the summers. Beginning in June of 1983, Petitioner started working with Executive Caterers. That position was a full-time job and she was paid on a weekly basis. Executive Caterers handled functions such as weddings, etc. for a synagogue. The company was responsible for managing and coordinating the renovations of the facilities at the synagogue. Her employer, Sabino Demieri, testified at the hearing and confirmed that he allowed Petitioner to arrange her work schedule around her classes. Petitioner was expected to and did work between 35 to 40 hours per week and sometimes more. Mr. Demieri also confirmed that Petitioner's employment with Executive Caterers was exclusively limited to coordinating renovations to the existing facilities and her duties consisted of interior design work. Throughout the time that Petitioner worked with Executive Caterers, the company was involved in renovations of the facilities. Renovations were undertaken with respect to the ballroom, the reception area, the lobbies, two bathrooms and the bridal room. Petitioner no longer has any of the drawings related to these projects. As part of her work, Petitioner prepared electrical ceiling plans, lighting plans and a space plan. As part of her space planning, she created closets and moved non-load bearing walls. She picked wall coverings, colors and furnishings. Petitioner worked for Executive Caterers from 1983 to sometime in l985. During that time, she also did interior design work for other groups and individuals on the side. In October of 1983, Petitioner prepared a floor plan showing the placement of tables and lighting for a proposed restaurant called the Grill. The restaurant was being developed by some of the people involved with Executive Caterers, however, Petitioner was paid separately for her work on the Grill. The plans prepared by Petitioner included a reflective electrical ceiling plan. For reasons not pertinent to this case, the developers of this restaurant decided not to go forward with the project and the facility was never constructed. In December of 1983, Petitioner prepared plans for a proposed office renovation for Outpatient Services, a medical clinic. The plans included a floor plan and lighting plan for the lobby, clerical and reception areas. The plans included a space utilization plan and a reflective lighting plan. The plans were submitted for bid, but work was never commenced. In December of 1984, Petitioner prepared a site plan for a home owned by Ken Williams. These plans (which were identified at the hearing, but were not transmitted with the rest of the blueprints in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 7) included a floor plan with the electrical schedules shown on the plans, and house elevations. l0. In 1984, while Petitioner was still employed by Executive Caterers, she was retained by Scott Heiken to design renovations for his house. The discussions regarding this work began sometime in 1983. Petitioner actually prepared the plans during 1984. While the plans relating to this work are no longer available, Mr. Heiken testified regarding Petitioner's preparation of those plans. As part of the plans, Petitioner designed the kitchen, living room and dining room areas. These plans involved moving certain non-load bearing walls and the design of a pass through area in the kitchen. Petitioner also prepared plans showing electrical fixtures and lighting fixtures prior to the commencement of the work. These plans were reviewed with the client and the work was successfully completed in 1984. Petitioner began her own business, Interiors By Janet, sometime in 1984 or 1985. Petitioner has held occupational licenses for this business beginning with the year ending September, 1985 through the present. Sandy Samole, a licensed interior designer, has known Petitioner since approximately 1985 and she has been aware of Petitioner functioning as an interior designer throughout the whole time that she has known her. Petitioner is a member of the Interior Design Guild ("IDG") an organization made up of interior designers in South Florida. IDG has two levels of membership. Those individuals who do not meet the qualifications to be called designers are affiliate members as opposed to professional members. This distinction has been in place for several years. Petitioner is First Vice President and has a professional membership in IDG. In 1988, Petitioner passed an exam given to prospective design members of IDG. While passage of the IDG exam is not a basis for licensure under the statute, it does confirm Petitioner's focus on the design aspects of the business during the pertinent time period. There is apparently a rivalry between IDG and ASID. It has been suggested that there is a reluctance to accept and/or recognize design members of IDG for purposes of licensure. Those issues are beyond the scope of this hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMNENDED that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner is qualified for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer pursuant to Section 21(1)(b) of Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 27 day of February, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27 day of February, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/ Board of Architecture & Interior Design Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Pau1 M. Zisholtz, Esquire Crocker Center, Tower I 52430 Town Center Circle Suite 105 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Esquire Off-ice of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Board of Architecture Interior Design Suite 1603, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 APPENDIX Only Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact. The following constitutes my rulings on those proposals. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in the Preliminary Statement and in Findings of Fact 1, Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Addressed in Conclusions of Law 5 and 6. Addressed in Conclusions of Law 5 and 6. 5, Addressed in Conclusions of Law 5 and 6. Addressed in Conclusions of Law 5 and 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings-of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received in this case, the following relevant findings of fact are made: In October 1989, Petitioner applied to the Board for licensure as an Interior Designer pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes and Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida (commonly referred to as the grandfather clause), based upon six years of interior design experience prior to January 1, 1990. The application was timely filed and Petitioner paid the appropriate fee. During the application process, the Board required additional information from Petitioner, which was furnished, but on August 21, 1991, the Board issued its notice of denial stating that Petitioner had not shown sufficient evidence of compliance with the requirement of the grandfather clause of six years' interior design experience prior to January 1, 1990. The Board advised the Petitioner that her experience was in the nature of "a cabinet work detailer, not as an Interior Designer. Petitioner began designing custom furniture in 1978 when she and her husband started a business known as Village Woodworking. The business grew to include built-in furniture, cabinetry and related interior design services over the years. As early as 1981, Petitioner began consulting with clients directly on matters such as space utilization, lighting, kitchen design, bathroom design and fabrication of custom-made cabinetry and built-in furniture. Often Petitioner would prepare drawings to reflect her design concepts which were later incorporated into the client's homes or businesses. In 1982, Petitioner consulted on numerous interior design matters in the renovation of the Gardinier estate property. These matters included the design of custom made dining room furniture, space utilization throughout the estate buildings, lighting and the design, fabrication and placement of custom-made cabinetry and built-in furniture. These consultations went on over a period of approximately three years. From the early 1980s through the date of the hearing, Petitioner has consistently consulted with clients, architects and interior designers by reviewing architectural plans and specifications, suggesting modifications and changes, preparing shop drawings to incorporate her design concepts into construction and renovation projects and by designing and fabricating cabinets, furniture and built-in furniture. Some of the jobs where Petitioner performed all or part of these services were: (a) Steve Simon's office; (b) Central National Bank; (c) Wellscraft Marina; (d) Law offices; (e) Sarney Residence on Siesta Key and the Patterman Residence; and (f) the Gardinier Estate mentioned in Finding of Fact 3. These jobs covered a period from 1982 to 1987. Also, it was Petitioner's unrebutted testimony that she had been rendering interior design services such as those mentioned above for over six years prior to January 1, 1990. There is competent, substantial evidence to establish facts to show that Petitioner has been performing, and is qualified to perform interior design consultations and studies and to prepare drawings and specifications in connection with lighting plans, space utilization, furnishings and fabrication of nonstructured elements within and surrounding interior spaces of buildings, both residential and commercial, and has been continuously engaged in, and performing, this type of work in the normal course of her business for more than six years prior to January 1, 1990. There was insufficient evidence to show that Petitioner's work had been limited to that of a "cabinet work detailer" but there was sufficient evidence to show that the services described above constituted a large portion of Petitioner's business for at least six years prior to January 1, 1990.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order granting Petitioner licensure as an Interior Designer without examination under the provisions of Chapter 88-383, Section 21, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 3(2); 4(3); 5(4-5); 7(6); 8(6); and 9(6). Proposed finding of fact 2 is more of a restatement of the witnesses' testimony rather than stated as a proposed finding of fact, but see finding of fact 4. Proposed finding of fact 6 is not necessary in that the affidavits corroborates the testimony of Petitioner as set out in findings of fact 2-4. Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(2); 2(2); 3-6(4); 9(2); and 11(3). Proposed findings of fact 7, 8 and 10 are not relevant to the conclusions reached in the Recommended Order. Rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip N. Hammersley, Esquire TRAWICK HAMMERSLEY & VALENTINE Post Office Box 4019 Sarasota, Florida 34230 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture & Interior Design Northwood Centre - Suite 60 1940 N Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0751 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0792
The Issue 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
