Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: 3/ By application dated September 19, 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 25, 1991. The Board, by letter dated July 25, 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 do not have 6 years of experience and you do not meet the definition of Interior Design. The Committee felt that it was impossible for you to have 6 years of full-time, full-scale Interior design experience since you were in school full time in 1983 and 1984. They also felt that being a librarian in a design firm, a show room manager, and assistant designer would not qualify as full-scale interior design. Prior to January 1, 1990, Petitioner used, and was identified by, the title "interior designer." Prior to January 1, 1990, Petitioner was employed by: Carriage House Interiors, d/b/a Eclectic International (Eclectic) for 13 months; Curzon Designs (Curzon) for five months; J.J. Chalk (Chalk) for 25 months; and Stevenson Design and Builders (Stevenson) for 5 months. These were all full- time positions which regularly involved the rendering of interior design services, including consulting with clients concerning the utilization of interior spaces and preparing for them blueprints and drawings containing Petitioner's recommendations regarding how these spaces should be utilized. For 14 months during 1984 and 1985, Petitioner was employed on a full- time basis by Petit Contract Interiors, Inc. (Petit), a design firm which also manufactured and sold furniture. During a typical workday, she performed the duties of an assistant designer, showroom manager and librarian. Approximately 60-70 percent of her workday generally was spent as an assistant designer, during which time she did interior design work similar in nature to the work she did at Eclectic, Curzon, Chalk and Stevenson. As a showroom manager and librarian, she also rendered interior design services on a regular basis. When she was acting in her capacity as the showroom manager, Petitioner met with walk-in clients and discussed their needs. Following such consultations and based upon the information provided by the clients, she prepared drawings depicting her plans as to how the clients could best utilize the interior spaces under discussion. She then assisted the clients in making their purchases. Petit had one of the largest design libraries in the southeastern United States. It was stocked with source materials utilized by the interior design community. As the librarian, Petitioner was responsible for organizing the library and updating its materials, tasks that she often had to perform during her overtime hours. In addition, Petitioner assisted those interior designers who used the library. The assistance that she provided at times involved consulting with clients and preparing drawings. It was essential for Petitioner to have a working knowledge of interior design to fulfill her librarian duties. Petitioner attended the Florida Art Institute (Institute) from March, 1982, until June, 1984, when she graduated with an Associate Arts degree in interior design. During her first two or three semesters at the Institute, she had classes from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Thereafter, her classes were scheduled only in the morning, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon each weekday. While a student at the Institute, she was "head manager" of three student interior design projects. 4/ Petitioner was employed at least a portion of the time that she was enrolled as a student at the Institute. During this period of time, she worked for Roy F. Sklarin Interiors (Sklarin), Mark B. Meyer and Associates (Meyer), and the Good Wood Frame Shop (Good Wood). Petitioner worked for Sklarin for six months rendering interior design services under the supervision and direction of Mr. Sklarin. She held a part- time position. Typically, she had a 20 to 25 hour work week. Petitioner's employment with Meyer lasted 11 months. Her position was a full-time one. Meyer has a large showroom in which it displays carpeting, fabric, wall covering and furniture. Petitioner was the manager of the showroom. It was her responsibility to maintain the showroom and make sure all items were in their proper place. As the showroom manager, Petitioner consulted with interior designers and their clients and assisted them in selecting merchandise. This involved reviewing specifications, floor plans and other drawings. Petitioner was employed for 12 months at Good Wood. 5/ She served as a designer, appraiser and artistic consultant. Her duties included the appraisal of art work for clients. In addition, she consulted with clients and gave them advice regarding the display and placement of their art work. This involved the drawing of elevations and floor plans. Prior to attending the Institute, Petitioner worked at Pierre Deux, the Norton Art Gallery (Norton) and the James Hunt Barker Art Gallery (Barker). Pierre Deux is a boutique that sells specialized fabrics and antiques. Petitioner worked there on a full-time basis for 16 months as designer/sales person. In discharging her duties, she regularly met with clients and ascertained their needs. If they wanted window treatments, table skirts, bedspreads or other soft furnishings, Petitioner went to their homes to take the appropriate measurements and, based upon these measurements, prepared specifications and the design to be used in making these items. While employed at Norton and Barker, Petitioner assisted the curator in deciding where exhibits should be located. 6/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED 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 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of September, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 September, 1991.
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
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: By application dated September 19, 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 25, 1989. Section 11 of the application form filled out by Petitioner addressed work experience. The form provided the following instructions for completion of this section of the application: On the attached experience record give full information concerning periods of employment which have contributed to your experience as an Interior Designer. Start with your present position and work back, explaining clearly your exact duties and other details of job. "INTERIOR DESIGN" MEANS DESIGN SERVICES WHICH DO NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE PERFORMANCE BY AN ARCHITECT, INCLUDING CONSULTATIONS, STUDIES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH REFLECTED CEILING PLANS, SPACE UTILIZATION, FURNISHINGS, OR THE FABRICATION OF NONSTRUCTURAL ELEMENTS WITHIN THE SURROUNDING INTERIOR SPACES OF BUILDINGS; BUT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDING MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, EXCEPT FOR SPECIFICATION OF FIXTURES AND THEIR LOCATION WITHIN INTERIOR SPACES. (IF YOU DID NOT TAKE OR PASS THE NCIDQ EXAM, BUT ARE STILL CLAIMING UNDER SECTION 21, YOU MUST PROVE 6 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE). Petitioner completed the attached experience record. She indicated thereon that from "1988- ," for a period of eight months, she had been employed as an "Interior Designer" by Eclectic International (Eclectic); from "1988-1988," for a period of five months, she had been employed as the "Director of Design" by Curzon Designs (Curzon); from "1986-1988," for a period of 25 months, she had been employed as an Interior Designer" by J.J. Chalk (Chalk); from "1985-1986," for a period of five months, she had been employed as an "Assistant Designer" by Stevenson Builders and Design (Stevenson); from "1984- 1985," for a period of 13 months, she had been employed as an "Assistant Designer, Librarian [and] Showroom Mgr." by Petit Contract Interiors (Petit); from "1983-1984," for a period of six months, she had been employed as an "Assistant Designer [and] Draftsman" by Roy F. Sklarin Interiors (Sklarin); from "1983-1983," for a period of six months, she had been employed as a "Designer [and] Librarian" by Mark B. Meyer and Associates (Meyer); from "1982- 1983," for a period of 12 months, she had been employed as a "Designer & Appraiser [and] Artistic Consultant" by the Good Wood Frame Shop (Good Wood); from "1980-1982," for a period of 16 months, she had been employed as a "Designer [and] Salesperson" by Pierre Deux; from "1979 -1980," for a period of three months, she had been employed as a "Curatorial [Worker]" by the Norton Art Gallery (Norton); and from "1977-1978," for a period of 12 months, she had been employed as the "Manager" by the James Hunt Barker Art Gallery (Barker). Petitioner provided on her completed experience record the following information regarding the nature of the work she had performed in these various positions: Eclectic- All aspects of Interior Design including consulting and advising, drafting, specif[y]ing cabinet plans, space planning, purchasing, furnishing, accessori[z]ing & installation in homes and offices. Overseeing construction in all phases and showroom display. Curzon- All aspects of Interior Design; consulting with clients, advising space planning & light planning, specif[y]ing cabinet plans, presentations, pricing, purchasing, overseeing construction, furnishing, accessori[z]ing & installation of residential & commercial projects. Chalk- All aspects of interior design including consulting & advising, pricing, space planning, electrical & light planning, specif[y]ing cabinet plans, overseeing construction, purchasing, furnishing and accessori[z]ing, and installation of residential and commercial projects. Stevenson- Assisting in all aspects of design including consulting, drafting, space planning, electrical & light planning, cabinet plans, specif[y]ing, overseeing construction, purchasing, furnishing, accessori[z]ing & installation of residential projects. Petit- Assisting in all aspects of design including consulting, drafting, space planning, electrical & light planning, overseeing construction, purchasing, furnishing, accessori[z]ing & installations of commercial projects. Overseeing & managing library and showroom. Sklarin- Assisting Mr. Sklarin in all aspects of drafting, space planning, lighting & electrical planning, cabinetry & interior and exterior elevations. Assist in fabric choices, furniture choices & purchasing. Meyer- Consulting with designers in areas of flooring, wall covering, furniture fabrics, accessories and purchasing of same. Overseeing display in the showroom & taking care of all store samples. Good Wood- Appraising art work. Consulting clients over art work, proper display and placement of art work. Drafting & space planning for artwork, accessori[z]ing for residential & commercial projects. [O]verseeing showroom display. Pierre Deux- Consulting with clients and designers in fabric & furniture selections, purchasing, ordering of soft furnishings & installation. Desig[n]ing and ordering new soft furnishings for the Boutique, showroom display, inventory, pricing & accounting. Norton- Assistant to Curator including all aspects of museum work, consulting, space planning, installation of new exhibits, appraising and cat[e]gorizing, inspecting art work, overseeing d[o]cents, planning education programs for children and adults, inventory, ordering proper maintenance & display. Barker- Consulting with clients in appraisal, purchasing, displaying and placement of art work, including space planning, consulting with artists & planning exhibits from space plan to installation. Sales and installation displays and secretarial duties. Appended to Petitioner's completed application form was her resume, which indicated, among other things, that from "1982-1984" she had attended the Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale and during that period of time had received the following "ACADEMIC HONORS:" Award for outstanding academic achievement- Summer 1984. First Place- Student Art Competition- Spring 1984. Recipient Erlaine Pitts Scholarship- Spring 1984. Student Chairman for "Office For Success." Student Chairman of Opus House Showcase Committee- Spring 1984. ASID Board of Directors- 1983-1984. President of ASID Student Chapter- 1983-1984. Vice President of ASID Student Chapter- 1982- 1983. Award of Merit in Spring Poster Competition- 1983. Her resume also included the following brief summary of her work experience: 1989. Eclectic International West Palm Beach, Florida. POSITION: Interior Designer. 1988. Curzon Designs Boca Raton, Florida. POSITION: Director of Design. 1986-1988. J.J. Chalk West Palm Beach, Florida. POSITION: Project Manager and Designer. 1985-1986. Stevenson Builders and Design. Boca Raton, Florida. POSITION: Assistant Designer. 1984-1985. Petit Contract Interiors West Palm Beach, Florida. POSITIONS: Design Assistant, Librarian and Showroom Manager. Fall 1983. Roy F. Sklarin Interiors Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. POSITION: Draftsman. 1983. Mark Meyer Associates West Palm Beach, Florida. POSITION: Librarian 1982. Good Wood Frame Shop Ft. Lauderdale, Florida POSITION: Curatorial Assistant. 1980-1982. Pierre Deux Palm Beach, Florida POSITION: Salesman. 1979-1980 Norton Art Gallery West Palm Beach, Florida. POSITION: Intern Curator. 1977-1978. James Hunt Barker Gallery Palm Beach, Florida. POSITION: Weekend Manager. In addition, the Board received letters of recommendation in support of Petitioner's application. These letters were from Lewis Kapner, an attorney; Kathleen Shackman, Kapner's administrative assistant; and Stanley Stein, the President of Chalk, one of Petitioner's former employers. In their letters, Kapner and Shackman praised Petitioner for the assistance she provided in "decorating" and "accessorizing" Kapner's new law office. In his letter, Stein wrote: Miss Vivian Hoover Heeke was employed by this firm since April 6, 1986 to May 20, 1989 and was responsible for every phase of design required for the successful completion of a design project. Vivian is not only qualified as a fine designer but, is also a dedicated and caring person. Petitioner also had college transcripts sent to the Board. In the fall of 1989, Susan May was employed as a staff assistant with Board. May was assigned to assist in the processing of Petitioner's application. On October 18, 1989, May sent Petitioner a letter acknowledging the Board's receipt of Petitioner's application. May further indicated in her letter that, in order for Petitioner's application to be considered complete, Petitioner needed to have at least three completed client reference forms submitted from clients for whom she had performed work "span[ning] a six year period." May enclosed with her letter blank client reference forms. The forms requested the current or former clients completing them to answer "yes" or "no" to the following three questions (Questions 1-3): Did the Interior Designer successfully consult with you as a client about your project requirements? Did the Interior Designer present a solution to your project requirements, such as: floor plans; furniture specifications; fabric and finish selections; lighting? Did the Interior Designer complete the project and conduct him/herself in a professional and ethical manner? The clients were then asked to "provide the dates, or time frame [they] enlisted the service of the before mentioned Interior Designer," "a brief but detailed description of what his duties were" and any "additional comments" they wished to make. Finally, they were asked whether they recommended the applicant as "qualified and competent" for licensure and, if not, to explain the basis of their recommendation against licensure. Along with her October 19, 1989, letter, and the above-described blank client reference forms, May also sent Petitioner blank employment verification forms. These latter forms requested the current or former employers completing them to indicate whether the applicant gained "[s]ubstantial experience," "[a]dequate experience," "[m]inimal experience," "[p]oor [experience]" or "[n]o experience" in the following six areas (Areas 1-6) of interior design during his or her employment: Programming, such as: client consultation, project analysis, determination of project requirements, site visits, field measurements, existing furnishings inventory Design analysis and development, such as: development of design concept, space planning. Specification of furnishings and materials, such as: selection and/or specification of furniture, furnishings, fabric, finishes, lighting, graphics and equipment. Consultations with other related professionals, such as: architects, engineers, lighting consultants, art consultants, acoustical consultants, communications consultants, historic preservation consultants. Preparation of drawings and documents such as: drafting plans, elevations, details; producing specifications and/or purchase orders. Project management, such as: inspection of work in progress, installation supervision, post installation evaluation and client service. The employers were then asked to indicate the dates of the applicant's employment and the position or positions held by the applicant during said employment. Finally, they were asked whether they recommended the applicant as "qualified and competent" for licensure and, if not, to explain the basis of their recommendation against licensure. On December 14, 1989, the Board received an employment verification form completed by Jerry McFarland, who was the Vice-President of Administration at Petit when Petitioner was employed there. McFarland certified that Petitioner had been employed at Petit as an "Assistant Designer" from September, 1984 to November, 1985. He further indicated that, in his opinion, Petitioner had gained "[a]dequate experience" in the areas of "design analysis and development" (Area 2), "[c]onsultations with other related professionals" (Area 4), and "[p]reparation of drawings and documents" (Area 5) and "[m]inimal experience" in the areas of "[p]rogramming" (Area 1) and "[s]pecification of furnishings and materials (Area 3), as a result of her employment at Petit. He gave no indication on the form as to the experience, if any, Petitioner had attained at Petit in the area of "[p]roject management" (Area 6). McFarland recommended Petitioner for licensure. Appended to McFarland's completed employment verification form was a handwritten letter of recommendation he had prepared, which read as follows: May this letter serve as a recommendation for Vivian Hoover Heeke as an interior designer. She worked in almost all aspects of our business beginning as a librarian and moving up to showroom mgr & assistant designer. She was very competent in all tasks we asked of her. On December 26, 1989, the Board received an employment verification form completed by C. David Williams, a Senior Designer at Stevenson. Williams certified that Petitioner had been employed at Stevenson as an "Assistant Designer." He did not indicate the period of her employment, however. Williams expressed the opinion that Petitioner had gained "[s]ubstantial experience" in Areas 2 and 5, "[a]dequate experience" in Areas 1, 4 and 6 and "[m]inimal experience" in Area 3, as a result of her employment at Stevenson. Williams recommended Petitioner for licensure. On February 13, 1990, May sent Petitioner the following letter regarding the status of her application: This letter is to inform you of the status of your application. After an initial administrative review of your application, your file appears to be incomplete. Your file will be held in abeyance until you satisfy the requirements pursuant to Chapter 481, Part I, Section 21, Florida Statutes. You are required to provide certified proof of 6 years experience. Enclosed is the Client Verification form. Please have 3 client[s] complete this form and mail directly to the Board Office. These client verifications should span at least a 6 year period. The Interior Design Committee is looking for both type of experience and length of experience. Upon completion of the Client Verification forms, your application will be scheduled for the next Committee review. Please return the enclosed forms to the Board Office as promptly as possible. If you do not have the required 6 years experience and wish to become a candidate for examination, please notify the Board Office in writing and your file will be evaluated and if eligible your name will be added to the list of candidates for the next exam. The first State Board Exam will be administered in early 1990. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. On February 15, 1990, the Board received an employment verification form completed by Steven C. Marks, the Treasurer at Eclectic. Marks certified that Petitioner had been employed at Eclectic as a "Designer" from December, 1988 to January, 1990. Marks expressed the opinion that Petitioner had gained "[s]ubstantial experience" in Areas 1-3, 5 and 6 and "[a]dequate experience" in Area 6, as a result of her employment at Eclectic. Marks recommended Petitioner for licensure. On February 15, 1990, the Board also received an employment verification form completed by Sharyn Crockett-Peet, the Corporate Curator at Good Wood. Crockett-Peet certified that Petitioner had been employed at Good Wood as a "Designer/Consultant/Appraiser" from March, 1982 to March, 1983. Crockett-Peet expressed the opinion that Petitioner had gained "[s]ubstantial experience" in Areas 1-4 and "[a]dequate experience" in Areas 5 and 6, as a result of her employment at Good Wood. Crockett-Peet recommended Petitioner for licensure. On February 16, 1990, the Board received an employment verification form completed by Thomas French, the President of Meyer. French certified that Petitioner had been employed at Meyer from February, 1983 to December, 1983. He did not indicate, however, what position or positions Petitioner held. French expressed the opinion that Petitioner had gained "[s]ubstantial experience" in Areas 1 and 3-5 and "[a]dequate experience" in Areas 2 and 6, as a result of her employment at Meyer. French recommended Petitioner for licensure. On February 22, 1990, the Board received an employment verification form completed by the aforementioned Stanley Stein, the President of Chalk. Stein certified that Petitioner had been employed as an "Interior Designer" at Chalk from April 4, 1986 to May 20, 1988. Stein expressed the opinion that Petitioner had gained "[s]ubstantial experience" in Areas 1-4 and 6 and "[a]dequate experience" in Area 5, as a result of her employment at Chalk. Stein recommended Petitioner for licensure. In March of 1990, the Board received four client reference forms completed by current and/or former clients of Petitioner. Each of the clients who filled out these forms answered "yes" to Questions 1-3. Two of the forms were completed by the aforementioned Kathleen Shackman. On one of the forms she wrote: 8-89 to present. Vivian is very professional. She follows up- she goes out of her way to bring accessories to us (we're a law firm). She calls regularly when new items are available which may be of interest. She was consulted on accessorizing our offices and furnishings. She wrote the following on the other form: 12/89 to present. Vivian was consulted regarding furnishing our home. Working with our theme of "Out of Africa" Vivian selected perfect tables & other furniture and she continues to "hunt" for accessories matching our theme. On both forms, Shackman indicated that she recommended Petitioner for licensure. Another of the forms received by the Board was completed by Shaun and Virginia Kavanagh. They too recommended Petitioner for licensure. In addition, they appended to their completed form the following typewritten comments made by Mr. Kavanagh: Last year [1989] my wife and I moved down to Florida from New York to our new home. One of our neighbors told us about Ms. Heeke and said she would help us decorate our home. Well she did the most wonderful job in design for us and what's most important, she worked within our budget. Our friends and neighbors cannot believe what a top notch job she did, we are very pleased. The remaining client reference form received by the Board contained the following remarks made by the client who had completed the form: I asked Vivian Heeke in 1983 to help me design and decorate my home in Palm Beach. She was hired by me and provided full plans for placing of furniture and window treatments. She also placed the furniture according to the plans and the window treatments according to the plans. On May 4, 1990, May sent a letter to Petitioner advising her of the status of her application. In her letter, May informed Petitioner that Petitioner's file still "appear[ed] to be incomplete" inasmuch as the client reference forms received by the Board "[did] not span a 6 year period or [did] not provide sufficient detail of design experience." Accordingly, May requested that Petitioner "have 3 more clients complete this form and mail [the completed form] directly to the Board office." More than a month passed without the Board receiving any additional completed client reference forms. Accordingly, Petitioner was sent another letter on June 14, 1990. The letter advised Petitioner that her file "remain[ed] incomplete" because the completed client reference forms that had been submitted in support of her application "d[id] not span 6 years" and contained either "borderline" or "no design detail." Petitioner was instructed that this deficiency in her application needed to be cured no later July 31, 1990. On July 11, 1990, the Board received three additional client reference forms completed by former clients of Petitioner. Each of the clients who filled out these forms answered "yes" to Questions 1-3 and recommended Petitioner for licensure They also described in some detail the design projects that Petitioner had worked on for them. One client detailed a project undertaken in 1982, another client described a 1986 project and the third client discussed work done in 1989. Following the Board's receipt of these additional completed client reference forms, May again reviewed Petitioner's application file. Thereafter, she submitted the file to the Interior Design Committee of the Board for its review, with the following written "recommendation/comments:" Deny: I do not think she qualifies for 6 yrs. She went to school full time during 83-84, and her 1st few employers say she was a librarian, showroom manager, Assist Designer. Prob. could qualify for exam. In recommending that Petitioner's work experience with her "1st few employers" be discounted, May took into account that neither experience as a librarian, nor experience as a showroom manager, is considered design experience by the national testing organization, NCIDQ, or by the American Society of Interior Designers. The Board's Interior Design Committee (Committee) was comprised of three Board members: Carl Gerken, a licensed architect, and two other Board members who were interior designers by profession. The Committee was responsible for approving or denying applications from those, such as Petitioner, seeking licensure as an interior designer pursuant to the Grandfather Clause. Gerken was the first Committee member to review Petitioner's application file. For the same reasons expressed by May in her written recommendation of denial, Gerken was of the view that Petitioner's application should be denied and he so indicated on the "Checklist for Interior Design Application" (Checklist) that May had appended to Petitioner's application file. The file, along with the Checklist, was then given to another Committee member, who, following review of these materials, concurred that Petitioner's application should be denied. 2/ On July 25, 1992, Pat Ard, who was then the Executive Director of the Board, prepared a letter advising Petitioner that her "[a]pplication for registration to be licensed as an Interior Designer in the State of Florida must be denied, due to the fact that [her] application d[id] not show sufficient evidence that [she] met the requirements of Florida Statute 481 Part I, Chapter Law 88-383, Section 21." This advisement was followed by the following elaboration upon the reasons for the Board's intended action: A review of your application by the Interior Design Committee shows that you do not have 6 years of experience and you do not meet the definition of Interior Design. The Committee felt that it was impossible for you to have 6 years of full-time, full-scale Interior Design experience since you were in school full time in 1983 and 1984. They also felt that being a librarian in a design firm, a showroom manager, and assistant designer would not qualify as full-scale interior design. Ard ended her letter by informing Petitioner of the availability of the following options: You may request reconsideration by submitting supplemental information to your application. Requests for reconsideration by the Board must be made in writing. In addition you may request a hearing. In accordance with Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, you have the right to request a hearing on the denial of your application. The hearing will be conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S. and Rule 22I-6.004, F.A.C. A request for hearing must be received by the Department of Professional Regulation within 21 days of receipt of the Notice of Denial. If you have any questions please contact Matt Croghan. Ard's letter was sent to Petitioner by certified mail on July 27, 1990. Petitioner opted not to "request reconsideration by submitting supplemental information to [her] application." Instead, by letter dated August 14, 1990, Petitioner requested a formal hearing on the Board's preliminary determination to deny her licensure application. On November 29, 1990, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct the hearing Petitioner had requested. It was docketed as Case No. 90-7549. Hearing Officer Donald Conn was subsequently assigned the case. At the final hearing held in Case No. 90-7549 on February 6, 1991, Petitioner testified on her own behalf. She also presented the testimony of the aforementioned Jerry McFarland, the former Vice-President of Administration at Petit. In addition, Petitioner offered two exhibits into evidence, both of which were received by the Hearing Officer. Respondent presented no evidence at the hearing. The evidence adduced at this hearing provided key details concerning Petitioner's work experience that were not contained in the information the Board had available to it at the time it preliminarily determined to deny Petitioner's application. On March 18, 1991, Hearing Officer Conn issued his Recommended Order in Case No. 90-7549. In his Recommended Order, he recommended that the Board "enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the determination that she is not qualified for licensure as an interior designer" pursuant to the Grandfather Clause. Petitioner filed exceptions to the Recommended Order. On August 8, 1991, the Board issued an order remanding the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings "for the entry of an Amended Recommended Order based upon the record developed at the February 6, 1991 hearing [conducted in this case by Hearing Officer Conn]." 3/ The Board explained in its order that it was remanding the matter because "the Hearing Officer apparently may have erroneously excluded evidence of individuals from his consideration because of his apparent opinion that a certain licensure status was necessary in order for . . . testimony to be competent." In addition, in an effort to eliminate "confusion as to how the Board would credit part-time interior design employment," the Board indicated in its order that it was its position, "as a matter of law, that, so long as an individual is engaged solely in the practice of interior design, then part-time employment may be credited at its pro-rata share of the normal work week." Hearing Officer Conn had left the employ of the Division of Administrative Hearings prior to the Division's receipt of the Board's August 8, 1991, remand order. Accordingly, the case was assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer. In view of Hearing Officer Conn's unavailability to issue the Amended Recommended Order sought by the Board, Petitioner, on August 26, 1991, filed a motion requesting that the Division "remand the cause back to the [Board] for final agency determination" inasmuch as "Donald D. Conn . . . is no longer a hearing officer" and therefore "not legally able to give a clarification on remand." Petitioner argued in her motion that "[i]t would be highly prejudicial and improper for a non-hearing officer or another hearing officer to review the file since this was a hearing held in front of Donald D. Conn [and] only his opinion can be given to clarify the points on remand." On August 30, 1991, the undersigned Hearing Officer issued an order directing Respondent to respond in writing to Petitioner's motion on or before September 6, 1991. On September 6, 1991, Respondent filed a response in opposition to Petitioner's motion for remand. On September 11, 1991, following a hearing on the matter held by telephone conference call, the undersigned Hearing Officer issued an order denying Petitioner's motion for remand. 4/ On September 27, 1991, the undersigned Hearing Officer issued an Amended Recommended Order based upon the evidentiary record developed at the February 6, 1991, hearing conducted by Hearing Officer Conn. The undersigned Hearing Officer found that Petitioner had shown that, prior to January 1, 1990, she had used, and had been identified by, the title "interior designer" and had accumulated at least a total of 81 months of "interior design experience:" 13 months at Eclectic; 5 months at Curzon; 25 months at Chalk; five months at Stevenson; 14 months at Petit; 5/ three months at Sklarin; 6/ and 16 months at Pierre Deux. 7/ Accordingly, the undersigned Hearing Officer recommended that Petitioner's application for licensure be granted. No exceptions to the undersigned's Amended Recommended Order were filed. On November 19, 1991, the Board issued a final order adopting the Hearing Officer's Amended Recommended Order and determining that Petitioner "is qualified to be licensed as an interior designer without examination" pursuant to the Grandfather Clause. By letter dated December 13, 1992, the Executive Director of the Board informed Petitioner that her application for licensure had been approved and that she would be issued a license upon remittance of a $200.00 licensure fee.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner timely filed his application for licensure as an interior designer with the Board of Architecture and Interior Design (the Board) on January 2, 1990. See Respondent's exhibit 2. The Board advised the Petitioner on February 1, 1990, that his application was incomplete and requested additional information from the Petitioner by forwarding to him a copy of supplemental question 11. See Respondent's exhibit 2. The Board advised the Petitioner by letter dated June 7, 1990, that he had not provided the information requested on February 1, 1990. See Respondent's exhibit 2. On November 21, 1990, the Board advised the Petitioner that his application would be deemed abandoned unless he completed his application within 30 days by answering completely questions 7 and supplemental question 11 on the application. See Respondent's exhibit 2. On December 3, 1990, the Board advised the Petitioner, by certified mail, of the information previously provided to him by letter on November 21, 1990. The Petitioner signed a receipt for the certified letter on December 5, 1990. See Respondent's exhibit 2. The Petitioner supplied no further information to the Board after filing his initial application on January 2, 1990. The Board advised the Petitioner by letter dated March 20, 1991, and by certified letter on March 22, 1991, that his file had been deemed abandoned and that he had 21 days from receipt of the letter to request a formal hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. See Respondent's exhibit 2. The Petitioner received this notice, as indicated by his signed receipt, and timely requested a formal hearing by letter to the Board dated April 15, 1991.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner be awarded a license without examination pursuant to Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, and Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 16th day of December, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Lerner 8410 Papelon Way Jacksonville, FL 32217 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esq. Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Architecture and Interior Design 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
