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 At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Respondent, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, (Board), was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of interior designers in this state. The Petitioner, Anne C. Pepper, is and was an interior designer whose application for licensure as such in this state was denied by the Respondent under the provisions of Section 481.203(8), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. Petitioner, who is presently an employee of Jessup, Inc., an interior design firm, started her own design business, Weston House Interiors, in Connecticut in 1978. Her first project was a design of a floor plan for an apartment. During the early years of her practice, her work was primarily involved with floor planning and with selection of materials and colors. In 1980, however, she did a room for a show house in a designer showcase, also in Connecticut. In 1982, prior to her move to Switzerland with her husband, Petitioner designed a kitchen which involved the destruction of the old kitchen and a remodeling and reconstruction of a new one in an 18th Century house in Connecticut. During this period, between 1978 and 1982, she took on clients who remain her clients to this day. In 1982, she moved to Switzerland and, because of the work permit laws, while there could do only consulting work. In addition, however, she did independent study at museums and homes throughout Europe. On trips back to the Untied States, as will be seen later, she did take on work for clients which involved remodeling and reconstruction. In December, 1985, she returned to New York and worked for a design firm, under another designer, and also took on clients of her own. In 1986, she was selected to do a room in the Junior League Design Showcase. This project was a small room, almost a closet, which she turned into a yacht berth bedroom. This project involved more than merely the selection of colors, fabrics, and furniture, but included the actual design of built in sleeping accommodations and storage. In June, 1987, she was asked to come to Florida to Jessup, Inc.'s home office to see if she would like to live and work in the area. Due to the company's large resources and the opportunity this provided to work with the company's chief designer, she agreed to do so and has been doing design work for the firm ever since. Mr. McGinnis, president of Jessup, Inc. and himself a licensed interior designer, has known Petitioner since 1985 when she came to the company's New York office. He and the firm, as well as all other interior designers excluding the Petitioner, are licensed by the state. However, Petitioner does the same work, to the same extent and with the same complexity, that all the other licensed designers with the firm do. Mr. McGinnis felt Petitioner was needed in Florida because of her exceptional talent. As a part of her duties for the firm, Petitioner works with contractors, with architects, and with painters on the design and construction as well as the decoration of the facility upon completion. In one facility, the Bath Club, she performed all functions. In another project, a new residence, she designed all book casing and paneling, and did a redesign of hallways. She worked with the architect from the beginning of the construction on lighting and the placement of interior walls. In New York, while working for the firm, she did the design for the apartment she described previously, and in regards to her work with harmony House in 1989 and 1990, removed the kitchen and made it a combination kitchen/family room. Mr. McGinnes emphasized that Petitioner does the same work as the other licensed interior designers with the firm and has done so since 1985 when employed by the firm in New York. As part owner of the firm, he frequently travelled to New York and observed the work Petitioner was doing. The parties stipulated at the hearing that from the time Petitioner began working with Jessup, Inc. as an interior designer in December, 1985, and up to the present her work experience was of the type envisioned by the statute as qualifying interior design. The parties also agreed that the period from 1982 to 1985, when Petitioner was in Europe, cannot be considered as so qualifying. Therefore, the issue remains only as to that period of time prior to her departure for Europe, when she was in practice in Connecticut. With regard, then, to the time in issue, Petitioner asserts that in 1978 and 1979 in Weston, Connecticut, she did work for the Cochranes involving a 19th Century house. She worked on the layout of the living room which, admittedly, involved no movement of walls. Nonetheless, she remodeled the family room to break through the north wall and put in a bay window, and installed built-in book cases on the south wall. She also removed electrical outlets to compensate for the other changes. On the second floor and elsewhere in the house, however, the work was primarily decorative. Nonetheless, the above described remodeling would constitute interior design. When the Cochranes moved as the result of a fire prior to 1985, they again retained Petitioner to renovate the house. As a part of this job she changed the size of the dining room, designed a bathroom, and did some design work on the family room. Though this was done during the period of time she was a primary resident in Europe, nonetheless, the work on this renovation was accomplished on visits home from overseas and, notwithstanding the parties' agreement, mentioned earlier, as to the inapplicability of the period encompassed by the time in Europe, at least those times when she was back in this country would qualify and it is so found. Petitioner was also involved in the remodeling of the dining room in a small home owned by the Ittners in 1978. As part of this work she changed the windows and the doorways; she put in a breeze way and designed a miniature garden room. When the Ittners moved, she worked in the kitchen of their new house to move cabinets and rearrange appliances. In addition, in 1982, Petitioner worked with Mr. and Mrs. Kornfield in Connecticut on a late 19th Century house wherein she was involved in the fabrication of valances for window treatment and possibly installation of electrical units to accommodate a light fixture the owner had. She also designed furniture which was made to her specifications. Through much of the early years, Petitioner worked out of her home in Connecticut and during this period, she was also taking courses at the University of Connecticut, Stamford, in the interior design department. In the early 1980's the majority of her business involved the remodeling of old homes and new construction additions to older homes. As a part of this,. she would study the job site and do sketches of her proposals. She then did on-site consultation with clients and contractors. Mr. Brett, of Stroheim and Rohmann, a fabrics house, recalls praise for her space planning, design elements and the like during that period. Petitioner's work has changed very little in nature since she started in 1978 - only the magnitude of the projects and the volume has increased. Any increase in spectrum is related to the increase in experience, and this is to be expected. Taken together, it would appear, and it is so found, that even from the very beginning, Petitioner's work, for the most part, consisted of projects containing those elements which amount to interior design as opposed to interior decoration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case granting the Petitioner, Anne C. Pepper, registration as an interior designer in Florida without examination. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. First portion accepted and incorporated herein. The conclusions drawn regarding the characterization of the work is rejected. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue. Accepted but, again, not dispositive. Not a Finding of Fact but argument on the nature of the evidence. Accepted, but complication of the project is not required to constitute interior design. This is not dispositive of any issue even if accepted. The work, though not done continuously, was definitely design. COPIES FURNISHED: Anne C. Pepper 333 Seaspray Avenue Palm Beach, Florida 33480 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Architecture and Interior Design 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Petitioner, Karen D. Mast, qualifies for licensure without examination as an interior designer as a result of the breadth of her experience consistent with provisions of Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, (Board), was the state agency charged with the responsibility for the licensing and regulation of the interior design profession in Florida. At some time prior to 1975, when the Petitioner moved to South Florida from Long Island, she attended Nassau Community College, working toward an associate degree in fine arts. She was going to continue with her education when, in that year, she received a call from her brother to come to work with him and another brother who had started a furniture design and construction business in south Florida. As a result of the call, she moved to south Florida and started work with them on a full time basis, designing furniture pieces and the settings for their display. She also started taking her own clients in 1976. Petitioner's brother, Robert Sabin, with his brother, started a business called Cartel in Miami in 1970. Cartel manufactured furniture, upholstery, case goods and stainless steel furniture and distributed it throughout the United States. Though the company had hired a designer, J.S. & Associates, at the brothers' request, Petitioner came to work with the company in the early 1970's, initially starting with J.S. & Associates. By 1975, however, she was a full fledged designer both in conjunction with and independent of the company. When, at that time, the company outgrew its prior facility and purchased a new building, Petitioner designed not only the interior showroom but the facade of the building as well to increase its appearance. Primarily this involved the rearrangement of interior walls but little structural change. In 1980, the company bought a new building which required extensive redesign, and Mr. Sabin and his brother gave Petitioner the job of redesigning it. With regard to this change, Petitioner did everything from drawing the blue prints to final design. Her plan for the building involved gutting it, installing new walls consistent with her design, new windows, doors, display platforms, scenic displays and the like, and at the same time, she was hard at work designing new product. In addition to working for the company in the design of its product and building, she also designed outside projects for the firm, going to out of state showrooms to insure the company's product was properly displayed. This, however, appears to be theatrical design rather than interior design since it consisted of the design of backdrops, props and the like. In addition, she did an apartment for the owner of Carnival Cruise Lines, and a restaurant, and she assisted in the interior redesign of the Eden Roc Hotel, though she made no changes to the structure. She also worked on the Cricket Club as well, all of which involved major changes without going beyond the limits of her capabilities. Through all this time, Petitioner worked for her brothers' firm doing the design projects. Witness Sabin was in charge of production; his brother, now deceased, was in charge of sales, and Petitioner was the designer. Ms. Mast's primary design work was more intensive from 1981 on when the major reconstruction of the new building was under way. At this point, though the job was hers, she was not just a decision maker on design done by someone else. She, in fact, did the actual design work for the various construction segments. She knew her brothers' taste and could design what they wanted and she believed they would like. She designed it from the beginning and supervised it through its fulfillment. The concepts were hers, though they were based on the general thoughts conveyed to her by them. In 1983, Paul F. McCarthy, a resident of Vero Beach, met Petitioner and her brothers and has been friendly with her family since then. In fact, Petitioner helped him guide his daughter into the field of interior design. In 1987 Mr. McCarthy retained the Petitioner to redo a house he had bought in Vero Beach. As a part of her work, she redesigned the kitchen, the family room and the living room into a wide open great room. The result was "spectacular." She met the strict time constraints for all work done which included submitting renderings involving the removal of interior walls and board samplings and elevations, all before the work started, and when the work was completed, Mr. McCarthy classified it as no less than "outstanding." When he sold the property at a large profit, he believed his ability to sell at such a profit was due primarily to the work done by Petitioner. Because he was so satisfied with her work, Mr. McCarthy introduced Petitioner to two top interior designers practicing in Vero Beach, and has also recommended her to developers and builders. He feels she is extremely talented, straightforward and honest. She gives excellent service in a prompt manner and she recognizes and satisfies her client's needs in a warm, caring and friendly manner. He would recommend her to others and would use her on future projects. Donald Wright, a winter resident of Fort Lauderdale and a summer resident of Toronto, has known Petitioner since 1983 when he was referred to her by a realtor. Mr. Wright is in the business of purchasing and remodeling homes and condominium apartments and at that time, when he was considering a redoing a condo for resale in Toronto, he contacted Petitioner and requested she come there and work with him on the project. At that time, he did not know any suppliers and was very impressed with the work she had done in the past. The facility in question needed complete rehabilitation since it was an older building which he wanted to update and modernize. It required a redoing of the flooring, changing the floors, walls and counters in the kitchen, changing the laundry room, and adding a bathroom. Initially, Mr. Wright took Petitioner to the material suppliers with whom he had worked in the past, but once she agreed to do the job, she took over and ran with the ball. She got samples, made suggestions and completely redesigned the interior of the apartment. He was satisfied with her work which took approximately a month and a half. In 1988, Mr. Wright, who had been contacted by a foreign investor to convert three apartments in Toronto into one large apartment, retained Petitioner to work with him in the redesign of this project. He gave Petitioner the original plan for the three apartment, and in general described to her how he wanted them converted into one large apartment. This involved the movement of bathrooms, two kitchens, four bedrooms, a maid's quarters and a pantry. Having evaluated the project, Petitioner suggested changes to be done and gave Mr. Wright rough drawings of how the project would look when completed. Mr. Wright took these to the owner who approved them, after which Petitioner did the final drawings which were also approved by the owner. Petitioner and Mr. Wright worked together on this project. He gave her the sources of supply and got samples, and they worked together until the job was finished. She redesigned the complete interior of the new apartment, changing the layout of the bathrooms and the kitchen, not only with cabinets but counters as well, provided for tiling in both areas, obtained furniture samples and wall covering, and the like and the job was completed before the time allotted had expired. The owner of the apartment was very satisfied with the work done by Wright and the Petitioner. Sometime in 1986, Mr. Wright again retained Petitioner to work on the redesign of the interior of a 70 foot yacht, the owner of which wanted the interior gutted and replaced. This involved the redesign of the staterooms, bath and galley, and included new paneling, new furniture, new colors, new dimensions, and the like. The owner picked out the appliances he wanted, but Mr. Wright and Petitioner worked together in designing their placement and the placement of the lighting. She designed the cabinetry work and the layout of the kitchen and a sound system so as to get the most usable space out of the limited area available. The owner was extremely pleased with the result. Mr. Wright has been in the modification business for approximately 15 years and is not, himself, a designer. However, he has a very high opinion of the quality of the work performed by Petitioner. She has impeccable taste and knows how to lay out and utilize space. She knows the limitations that are placed on structural changes and is capable of redesigning space to conform to and comply with limitations on structural change. Ms. Mast is extremely proud of the work she has done and believes she has dedicated her life to her work. She limits her practice to high end clients and the majority come to her as the result of referrals from other clients. She is proud of the name she has developed in the interior design field over the years she has practiced. Petitioner presented a brochure of her brothers' furniture line and was able to point out some 15 or so individual pieces she had designed in addition to the showroom layout. As to her design of the building in which the company operates, she designed the tile work, the placement of interior walls, the use of glass block and the structure within the supporting walls of the building. In addition, she designed the interior of a restaurant in Bogota, Colombia, and the departure bar in the Aruba International Airport in the West Indies. With regard to those last two projects, the plans submitted by Petitioner as having been drawn by her reflect that the departure bar was designed in 1985 and the restaurant in 1989. Review of the plans indicates that the date on the drawing purportedly done by Petitioner appears to have been altered, since the figures, "85" do not seem to have been drawn by the same individual who inserted the "19". They appear different. Much the same appears on the chicken restaurant drawings where the Petitioner's initials appear to have been inserted over some other name, and not placed there at the time the plans were drawn. However, no evidence was submitted by the Department to contest the identity of the plans or that Petitioner drafted them, and as a result, they are accepted as offered. With regard to these facilities, Petitioner claims she did the floor plans, the tile detail and the interior design detail on both. She has been a member of the International Furniture and Design Association for several years. Petitioner's application for registration as an interior designer in Florida was received by the Department on January 5, 1990. Petitioner was requesting registration by exemption rather than by examination, and properly submitted the $50.00 fee at the time of her application. The application as initially submitted, reflected her experience from 1975 to 1982 with Cartel, Inc., her brothers' furniture firm, and from 1982 to the present as an interior designer with Rudolph Collections, also a design firm owned by her deceased brother, Paul. From November, 1989 to the present, she was an interior designer with Thomasville Showcase Interiors in Pompano Beach. It would appear from the application and the supporting documents that the Board did not consider the listed description of the nature of her work performed to fall within the criteria qualifying her for an exemption. Along with the application, Petitioner also submitted a statement from Mr. McCarthy, and one from the personnel administrator of Thomasville Showcase Interiors with whom she has worked since 1989, which indicated she was involved not only in layout, color coordination, furniture selection and the like, but performed the additional task of space planning as well. Petitioner also submitted several client reference forms which reflect that she performed the services of an interior designer for those clients in 1987 and two more from as early as 1983 and 1984. The one from Jean Craft, which relates to a 1984 employment, concerns Petitioner's activities in selecting fabrics, window treatments and the use of mirrors and wall covering. This is more the work of an interior decorator, however, than that of an interior designer. In 1983 and 1984, however, Petitioner worked for a Mrs. Nettie Effron in New York. In that operation, Petitioner prepared drawings showing elevations and concept details which involved structural changes and the introduction of skylights, glass panels and other interior changes. The Board, however, in reviewing Petitioner's application, concluded that the references submitted by Petitioner with her application did not sufficiently describe experience in interior design for the six years prior to January 1, 1990, which is required by the statute. The additional testimony presented at hearing, which includes a statement of Mr. Don Blumenthal, of Miller Construction, adds considerable to the history of interior design experience, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the Petitioner, Karen D. Mast, registration as an interior designer in Florida without examination. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of January, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Mast 600 Parkview Drive, Apt. 527 Hallandale, Florida 33309 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
