The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born in Europe. Since both her father and her brother were architects, she was exposed to a background of architecture and design. She received a bachelor of arts degree in fine arts in Holland, which included many drafting courses and interior design courses. She travelled extensively through Europe studying the many different architectural styles of many different time periods. She came to the United States twenty years ago. From January 1982 through September 1984 Petitioner was employed full- time by Lucido Brothers as a design consultant. Lucido Brothers is a manufacturer and seller of fine cabinetry, specializing in custom-made kitchens and bathrooms, including built-in wall-units and room dividers, storage cabinets, wet bars, bookcases, and entertainment centers. Lucido Brothers further specializes in new construction and renovations. During that employment, Petitioner consulted with customers, visited job sites, and took measurements. Although Petitioner worked closely with builders and architects, she did her own drawings, designs, and spacial analyses. She designed custom-made furniture, wall-units, and built-in dividers as non-structural walls. She designed kitchens and bathrooms and built-in window seats. She drew floor plans, reflected ceiling plans, and drawings for wall partitions. She supervised the construction and installation of the custom-made furniture, built-ins, and cabinets. She specified recessed lighting and the placement of light fixtures and electrical outlets. After leaving the employ of Lucido Brothers, Petitioner opened her own business, called Barbara's Interiors, on March 29, 1985. She obtained an occupational license which she still renews every year. She worked full-time as an interior designer in that business through December of 1986. Petitioner's husband is an electrical contractor. While at Barbara's Interiors, she did many jobs with her husband, as she has for the last twenty years. In conjunction with those jobs, Petitioner designed recessed lighting (indirect lighting), suspended ceilings, track lighting, soffit lighting, and spot lighting. Many of her customers at Barbara's Interiors were building new homes or renovating existing homes. However, Petitioner also designed interiors for offices and commercial buildings. At Barbara's Interiors, Petitioner consulted with customers, visited job sites, and took measurements. She reviewed blueprints with architects and builders. She analyzed space and did her own drafting and layouts. She drew reflected ceiling plans. She drew interior elevations, doorway locations, and window locations, and drew how they should be altered by enlarging to improve lighting or view. She selected floor coverings based on safety and functional criteria. She selected window treatments based on functionality, lighting, ventilation, and the alteration of window form and appearance. She drew floor plans, designed additional storage space, and re-designed lighting. She designed non-structural walls and room dividers to separate living areas. She assisted contractors in the remodeling of homes, converting a porch into a kitchen, and a dining room and kitchen into a larger dining room. She remodelled bathrooms. In addition to doing interior design work while at Barbara's Interiors, Petitioner also did work which can be done by interior decorators. The division of labor between designing and decorating was probably fifty percent each. From January of 1987 through May of 1990 Petitioner was employed full- time by Ethan Allen Galleries in West Palm Beach as an interior designer. Ethan Allen is a retail business, which manufactures its own furnishings and offers interior design services. At Ethan Allen Petitioner consulted with customers, visited job sites, and took measurements. Although she used blueprints provided by customers and worked with their builders and architects, she also did her own room layouts. She designed rooms according to the architectural style and period specified by her customers. She designed built-in furniture to be used as room dividers, designed recessed and soffit lighting, added partitions to existing rooms and enlarged windows, and supervised the manufacturing of custom-built furniture. She also supervised subcontractors implementing her selection of paint, wallpaper, and carpeting. She designed floor-to-ceiling shelves as a dividing wall and drew her own floor plans. She designed additional storage space and re-designed lighting. Working with architects and builders, she designed room additions. She designed changes to interior doorways and to windows. She performed spacial analysis, and she supervised installation. In addition to performing interior design services at Ethan Allen Galleries, Petitioner also performed interior decorating services. The division of labor between those things currently requiring licensure and those things not requiring licensure was 50/50. Prior to January 1, 1990, Petitioner had a total of seven years and five months of full-time interior designer experience.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting licensure to Petitioner, 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 29th day of April, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 91-6759 Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 11, 13-16, and 18- 21 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-9 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 12, 17, and 22 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Isabella B. Gomulka 1663 Pleasant Drive Juno Beach, Florida 33408 Arthur R. Weidinger, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Petitioner should be licensed without examination as an interior designer on the ground that Petitioner had six years experience as an interior designer prior to January 1, 1990, in accordance with applicable provisions of Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner timely applied to the Board of Architecture and Interior Design (the "Board") for licensure without examination as an interior designer pursuant to Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida. Petitioner's application was dated December 29, 1989, and was received by the Board on January 4, 1990. The Board advised Petitioner of its intention to deny her application in a letter dated October 22, 1990. The letter stated in relevant part: 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. Employers prior to 1986 did not evaluate your design abilities, nor did they provide a job description. Also client forms previously submitted do not contain a sufficient description of Interior Design services. In order to receive reconsideration you must submit three additional detailed client reference forms that span six years of experience. These letter must contain both the time frame and a detailed description of Interior Designer, not an Interior Decorator. The Committee has also requested that you send in samples of your interior design plans and drawings. Petitioner graduated from Western Michigan University in 1983 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Interior Design. The curriculum required the last three years of the four year educational program to concentrate on interior design. Petitioner had three years of drafting, studied space and electrical utilization, and the application of building codes to interior design. Petitioner completed courses in architecture, art design, art principles, textitles, design principles, and floor plans. Michigan did not then nor does it now license interior designers. While attending college, Petitioner began working 15 to 20 hours a week in April, 1982, as an assistant interior designer for Xenia Eliadeas at Interiors by Xenia in Gross Pointe, Michigan ("Xenia"). Petitioner's primary responsibility was to draw floor plans for use in interior design projects. Ms. Eliadeas graduated from Michigan State University with a degree in interior design and had 20 years of experience in interior design. Petitioner has been identified by the title "interior designer" and has six years experience performing interior design services prior to January 1, 1990, in accordance with applicable provisions of Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. Petitioner worked full time as an interior designer from July, 1983, through December, 1989, at Xenias and Worrells Interiors, 201 South Ocean Boulevard, Manalpian, Florida ("Worrells"). In July, 1983, Petitioner began working full time with Xenia as an interior designer. Petitioner worked six days a week from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. For the first six months, Petitioner's duties primarily involved commercial and residential floor plan drawings including design drawings for restaurants. Petitioner was responsible for Xenia's clients whenever the owner was not present. The largest single project for which Petitioner had primary responsibility while at Xenias involved the renovation of a warehouse. The renovation required walls to be removed, bathrooms to be installed, and for the warehouse to be renovated into an office and factory. Petitioner had 100 percent "hands-on" responsibility for the project. The renovation took two years to complete and was finished sometime in July, 1985. From July, 1985, until January, 1986, 90 percent of Petitioner's duties involved interior design for residential projects including both retainer contracts and "walk-ins." Petitioner moved walls, re-designed space planning for traffic patterns in existing homes, and designed jacuzzis and work-out rooms which had to be installed over plumbing and had to have ventilation designed. Some of her space planning required Petitioner to design proper clearances for wheel chairs. Petitioner performed interior design services in all of the jobs she performed on a full time basis from July, 1983, through January, 1986. The proportion of design services to decorating services performed by Petitioner at Xenias varied with each job, but the portion of design services was approximately 60 percent of her duties. However, Petitioner prepared drawings in 100 percent of her jobs. Petitioner left Xenias in January, 1986, and moved to Florida. On April 5, 1986, Petitioner began working full time as an interior designer for Worrells. Since joining Worrells, Petitioner has spent 100 percent of her time performing the duties of an interior designer. Worrells has a drafting room with drafting equipment and tables located behind the studio. Petitioner prepared design plans in the drafting room on a daily basis. She has averaged approximately 25 jobs a year. Each job requires anywhere from three months to a year to complete. She has developed a substantial referral business which comprises approximately 50 percent of her clientele. Petitioner has performed a variety of interior design functions at Worrells involving new construction, renovations, and both commercial and residential projects. Petitioner has performed a great deal of space utilization involving the removal of walls, making adjustments in space utilization, and recreating rooms. Petitioner has presented original ideas and concepts, worked from floor plans, reflected ceiling plans, and electrical plans. She has performed functions involving off-space planning and design and prepared design plans. She has consulted with professionals and with a full complement of general contractors and subcontractors, including electrical contractors and plumbers. Petitioner typically works on six to eight jobs at a time. She always performs in a professional and competent manner and has never had an unsatisfied client or an unfinished job.
Recommendation Based 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 granting Petitioner 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 ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of November 1992. DANIEL MANRY 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 10th day of November 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-3 Accepted in finding 1-3 4 Accepted in finding 5 5 Accepted in finding 3 6-7 Rejected as recited testimony 8-10 Rejected for the reasons stated in finding 4-8 Accepted in finding 6 Rejected for the reasons stated in finding 6 Rejected in finding 10 Accepted in finding 10 15 Accepted in findings 10, 12 16 Rejected as recited testimony 17 Accepted in finding 12 18-20 Accepted in findings 12-13 21 Rejected as immaterial COPIES FURNISHED: Marla Kay Sanford Post Office Box 3323 Lantana, Florida 33465-3323 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture & 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
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
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
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as an interior designer.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witness and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is an applicant for licensure as an interior designer. Petitioner timely filed for registration without examination and paid all appropriate fees. The Petitioner, after being notified of the denial of her request for licensure, timely requested an administrative hearing to establish her record of experience in the field. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing such applications for licensure. The Department stipulated at hearing that the Petitioner, for the years 1987, 1988, and 1989, had appropriate experience to qualify as interior design experience. Consequently, the only issue as to Petitioner's experience related to the time frame prior to 1987. Accordingly, the Petitioner must show three additional years of appropriate experience. In as early as 1979, Petitioner began work hanging wallpaper for an interior design firm in Ohio. Because of the success of that work, she started her own business, Quality Paper Hanging. As an outgrowth of the paper hanging work and her experience with the interior design firm, Petitioner expanded her business to include remodeling jobs and design work. This work constitutes interior design experience. In 1981, Petitioner became licensed as a home improvement contractor. According to Petitioner the contractor's license was required as she was no longer just hanging wallpaper but was designing and pulling permits for remodeling work. Petitioner used licensed electricians, plumbers and carpenters to perform the work under her supervision and direction. Examples of the work Petitioner performed during this period were two funeral home remodeling jobs. Petitioner worked for a funeral home company that retained her to remodel an existing home and to convert a second location into a branch home. Both projects involved the drawings and design work required of an interior designer. These projects were completed prior to 1983 and evidence interior design experience. Another project completed by Petitioner prior to 1983 was a remodeling job for the Hensil family. This project involved the redesign of a kitchen and basement area and evidences interior design experience. In 1983, after an unpleasant divorce, Petitioner moved from Ohio and, unfortunately, lost her business records for the work performed prior to the move. However, Petitioner's testimony as to the type of work performed during the years 1981 and 1982 has been accepted, and constitutes interior design experience for that period. After 1983, Petitioner held herself out as an interior designer and performed interior design work in Florida. More specifically, Petitioner designed and supervised the remodeling of a kitchen for the Nunn home, remodeled a porch and bath entry for the Morris home, and worked for Home Interiors for fourteen months. While with Home Interiors, Petitioner designed remodeling projects, consulted on new construction, and assisted a builder as was required. The work with Home Interiors to the extent that it involved redrafting plans and remodeling projects constituted interior design experience. Following the work with Home Interiors, Petitioner worked for Burdines for approximately one year. While at Burdines, Petitioner did interior design work when it was available. During that time, Petitioner remodeled a kitchen for the Chafin home and worked with the Windoms on their remodeling project. These projects constituted interior design work. After building a clientele and becoming familiar with the local trade people, Petitioner opened her own business, Interior Designs by Diana, in 1986. The experience with that company constitutes appropriate interior design experience. In addition to the full-time work experience noted above, Petitioner has attended classes at two community colleges and has earned a 4.0 grade point for the six courses taken in design. The other course taken, college math, was also an A grade. Petitioner has established that she has the requisite interior design experience to qualify for licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as an interior designer. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. 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 11th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 91-6316 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: None submitted in a form sufficient to accept or reject. Petitioner's proposed order recited the conclusion of law that Petitioner had established six years of experience, prior to 1990, such that she should be qualified for licensure without examination. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: 1. Paragraphs 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, are accepted. Paragraphs 2 through 5 are accepted but are irrelevant. These paragraphs merely recite the procedural history this application apparently had. With regard to paragraphs 8 and 9 which have been accepted, it should be noted that the work described was illustrative of the type of the work performed by Petitioner during the period noted. Petitioner did not testify that the work described was the only work she did during the years 1981 and 1982. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. While aspects of the work performed for Home Interiors would be more closely associated with "interior decoration," clearly other aspects of the work, such as assisting with drafts for remodeling, would be design experience. The percentages attributable to each type of work are not clear from this record; however, to suggest that none of the work for the fourteen month period was design experience is contrary to the evidence and a mischaracterization of Petitioner's job. With regard to paragraph 15, it is accepted that Petitioner was employed at Burdines during the period noted; however, at the same time, Petitioner moonlighted design jobs such as that described in paragraph 16 in order to build a referral and clientele base so that she could later open her own business (which she did). Paragraphs 18 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603--The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Richard G. Sunner John A. Sunner 150 West Warren Avenue P.O. Box 520771 Longwood, Florida 32752-0771 Jack McRay, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Dept. of Professional Regulation Board of Architecture & Interior Design 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
