Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an application for licensure as an interior designer and paid the appropriate fee. Petitioner's application was reviewed and on November 18, 1991, the Board sent Petitioner a letter denying licensure on grounds that Petitioner did not have a degree that is accredited by the Foundation of Interior Design Educational Research (F.I.D.E.R.). Furthermore, the Board found Petitioner seven months short of the experience required for licensure. The Board notified Petitioner he could submit additional information to determine the equivalency of his educational curriculum to a F.I.D.E.R. accredited degree. On May 22, 1992, Petitioner submitted a letter to the Board stating that he had now completed his experience requirement and requesting another review of his educational courses. At hearing, Respondent stipulated to Petitioner's four years of interior design experience to qualify for licensure. The Petitioner studied interior design at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh, where he completed a two-year program in 1980. During the course of his studies at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh, the Petitioner completed the equivalent of 1.5 semester hours of study in the field of "business practice". During the course of his studies at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh, the Petitioner did not take any courses in the fields of "diverse post-secondary level liberal arts, sciences, and humanities." The Petitioner has not completed any post-secondary level courses in "business practice" or in "liberal arts, sciences, and humanities" since receiving his degree in 1980. Since that time the Petitioner has taken two courses in sculpting clay and two courses in sculpting stone. All four of these courses involved hands-on work in the studio learning and practicing practical skills. There is insufficient evidence in the record to determine whether these four courses were the equivalent of college level courses and, if so, how many semester hours they might be equivalent to. Since receiving his degree in 1980, the Petitioner has, on at least two occasions, tutored other students in areas related to interior design. There is insufficient evidence in the record to determine whether these tutoring activities were the equivalent of college level courses and, if so, how many semester hours they might be equivalent to.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a Final Order denying Petitioner licensure as an interior designer. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 26th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5931 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner: (None) Proposed findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 5 and 6: Rejected as constituting conclusions of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Brian K. Carter 421 51st Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture and 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 October 3, 1989, Maureen Timm filed with the Department of Professional Regulation ("DPR"), her application for licensure without examination as an interior designer. By letter dated December 18, 1991, Ms. Timm was informed that her application was being denied and that she was entitled to request a formal hearing to challenge the decision. Ms. Timm thereafter filed a request for formal hearing. During the period between October 3, 1989 and December 18, 1989, Ms. Timm filed supplemental information in support of her application. For the purposes of this Recommended Order, all information submitted by Ms. Timm has been considered without regard to the date of submission. Although there is evidence that Ms. Timm is currently capable of providing interior design services, the greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that, for the six year period prior to December 31, 1989, Ms. Timm's services met the statutory definition of "interior design". To the contrary, the evidence establishes that services provided by Ms. Timm during the referenced six year period, especially prior to the November of 1987, consisted primarily of interior decorating services provided first through a paint and decorating store and then through department store furniture sales. Ms. Timm's application states that she worked for Havco Paint and Decorating from July, 1979 to July 1980 as a "designer in wallcovering and window treatment department." During this time, Ms. Timm primarily assisted customers in selection of wallcoverings, window treatments and floor coverings. The evidence fails to establish that such services meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from July 1981 to December 1984, Ms. Timm was employed as a "designer in the furniture department" of an Ivey's department store unit. During this period, Ms. Timm assisted customers in selection and placement of furniture, window treatments and wall coverings. The evidence fails to establish that such services as were related to the sale of furniture and related decorating services meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from January 1985 to January 1986, Ms. Timm was employed as a "designer in the furniture department" of a Robinson's department store unit. During this period, Ms. Timm assisted customers in selection and placement of furniture, window treatments and wall coverings. The evidence fails to establish that such services as were related to the sale of furniture and related decorating services meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from September 1986 to April 1987, Ms. Timm was employed as a "floral designer" for World Bazaar, during which time she designed flower arrangements for the store and individual customers. The services provided by Ms. Timm to World Bazaar customers clearly fail to meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from November 1987 to September 1988, Ms. Timm was employed as an "interior designer for "Midge Wright, The Wright Place." As set forth in the application, Ms. Timm "designed customer's homes, estimated cost of jobs, placed orders, followed through on completion of jobs." The evidence fails to establish that Ms. Timm's services to Ms. Wright's customers meet the definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from September 1988 to the present, Ms. Timm has worked as a "self-employed interior designer" during which time she has "designed U. S. Home models and customers homes and condos". Ms. Timm's file includes references from a number of customers who have utilized her services during this period. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the services provided by Ms. Timm during this period meet the statutory definition of "interior design". Services such as color coordination, flooring, wallpaper, window treatments and furniture selection are interior decorating services. During the hearing, Ms. Timm asserted that her work during the six year period prior to December 31, 1989 met the definition of "interior design". Beyond the evidence addressed herein, there is no documentary support for Ms. Timm's testimony. Although Ms. Timm appears to be capable of providing some interior design services, the evidence is insufficient to establish that she has done so for the six year period ending December 31, 1989. Accordingly, she does not qualify for licensure without examination as an interior designer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a Final Order denying the application of Maureen Timm for licensure as an interior designer under the "grandfather" provisions cited herein. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1992 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0948 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed recommended order consisted of five unnumbered paragraphs which are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Paragraph #1, Rejected, cumulative. Paragraph #2, Accepted, however, preparation of window treatments and wallcovering does not meet the statutory definition of interior design. Paragraph #3, Rejected, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Paragraph #4, Accepted as to submission of additional material. Rejected as to discussions with DPR representative, irrelevant. Paragraph #5, Rejected, conclusion not supported by evidence. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2-5. Rejected, unnecessary, subordinate. 13. Rejected, irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Maureen Timm 12950 Iona Road Fort Myers, FL 33908 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Esq. Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
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
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, Russell G. Brabec, filed an application for licensure as an interior designer on December 14, 1989, together with the applicable fees, with the Board on December 14, 1989. Within 30 days, the Board advised the Petitioner that it had not received the client forms and reference forms required to assess his application. After being placed upon notice that his application was incomplete, Mr. Brabec continued to have contact with the Board and its staff. Client forms and additional references continued to be filed on his behalf until March 1991. These materials are outlined in detail in the preliminary statement above, and incorporated by reference at this point in the Findings of Fact and amplified below. The record shows a continuing effort on the part of the Petitioner to perfect his application, and the Petitioner did not abandon his application. The Board received a client form from Ben H. Engbrecht indicating the Petitioner had consulted on the renovation of several areas of an educational building, developing a master plan for the entire building. The Petitioner was able to direct the completion of phases 1 and 2 of the renovation. Although the form does not indicate the institution at which the work was performed, the Petitioner's testimony clarified that Mr. Engbrecht's references were to Sioux Falls Teacher College where the Petitioner had been a member of the faculty. The information provided by Engbrecht establishes that the Petitioner consulted on design work between February of 1984 and July of 1985. The Board received a client form completed by Kate Christopulos on March 26, 1990, which indicated that the Petitioner had done three projects for the client. In 1983, the Petitioner was in charge of design and renovation of a restaurant and coordinated all contractors in interior design for the client who stated that the did a "great job." In 1985, the Petitioner assisted in the design of another restaurant. The client stated that he was easy to work with and "came up with great ideas." In 1986, the Petitioner designed the interior of the client's home. At the hearing, the Petitioner had photographs of the restaurants he had planned for the Christopulos' upon which he pointed out the walls, the ceilings and the serving fixtures which he had designed. The Petitioner's testimony is consistent with, and substantiated by, a letter dated June 27, 1990, from Kate Christopulos which is contained in the Board's file. Said letter reflects that the Petitioner's firm, Brabec Interiors, was first retained by the client in 1983 to complete their new home and their first restaurant, Chris' Grill. The Petitioner not only designed the interior, including the carpets, tables, chairs and draperies, but selected the tableware. The letter continues to point out that in 1986, the Petitioner designed the Time Out Restaurant, integrating a athletic theme which the client described as "looking great and being timeless." Kate Christopulos closes her letter by pointing out that the Petitioner had done six other projects for her, and that if the Board desires more detail, they can call her. The Board received an employment verification form completed by Valerie J. Putnam on January 19, 1990. The form indicates the Petitioner was employed as an interior decorator from 1975 until 1982. The Petitioner testified regarding work done for the Putnams, and clarified that they were clients as opposed to his having been employed within a business operated by the Putnams. The Putnams' response, albeit on the wrong form, substantiated that the Petitioner was holding himself out as an interior decorator between 1975 and 1982. Ms. Putnam indicated in her answers to the form's detail questions that the Petitioner had substantial experience in programming (consultation and analysis), design concept analysis, and specifying furnishings and materials, and adequate experience in preparing drawings, drafting, consulting with other contractors, and project management. Notwithstanding Putnam's terming the Petitioner an "interior decorator," the work she described is consistent with the activities of an interior designer. The Board received a client form from Dr. Jaako J. Hintikka on November 5, 1990. The form and its attachments indicate that between June and August of 1988, the Petitioner planned and supervised the complete redecoration of a 4500 square foot home on Tipperary Drive in Tallahassee, Florida. This project involved the creation of two libraries, extensive new flooring, extensive wallpapering and painting, the placement of furniture and the acquisition of new furnishing, and placement of works of art, et cetera. The Petitioner, referring to photographs of this project, pointed out details of the design work he performed to include lighting design and planning an environment with constant humidity. The form also addresses the period January to May 1990 when the Petitioner designed and supervised the interior construction and decoration of a new residence which the client had built for him by Gritsmill Construction Company in Marlborough, Massachusetts. Hintikka states that this project literally involved all aspects of the interior of the house from finalization of the floor plans through placement of works of art. The Board's file contains a xerox copy of pictures of the exterior of a home and interior of one room, together with notes by the Petitioner to the client discussing a range of issues from dehumidifiers to dutch tiles and the fireplace. It closes with an indication that the Petitioner had been in contact with a landscape designer, and was in the process of developing a long-range landscape plan for the new house. See transcript, pages 95 and 100, where the Petitioner details the work which he did for Dr. Hintikka on the two houses in which he designed the interiors. The Board received an employment verification form on July 31, 1990, from Collier Interiors in Tallahassee, Florida. This form indicated that Collier had employed the Petitioner from November of 1987 until July 30, 1990. The Board appeared to be satisfied with the nature of his practice while with Collier as no questions were raised concerning this period of time. The Board's file contains two submissions from Rayburn Blair, Pastor of the Temple Baptist Church in Tallahassee, Florida. Pastor Blair wrote the Board a letter dated January 3, 1990, in which he states that he has been acquainted with the Petitioner as a full-time practicing interior designer since 1989. Blair states that he met regularly with Brabec who was the church's chief consultant on matters of design and decoration at the church, at North Florida Christian School, and at W65BG Television Station. On March 25, 1991, Pastor Blair submitted the client form which stated that the Petitioner provided Temple Baptist Church with consultations and studies leading to drawings for the new platform. In the Petitioner's testimony he identified on a picture, which was introduced, the stage, wall units, lights, podium, microphones in the podium, and wiring for the podium lights and microphone which Petitioner designed, together with the stairs servicing the balcony. The Petitioner also completed plans for the baptistry and stair wells. The Petitioner's testimony is consistent with Pastor Blair's letter. In addition to his testimony about the clients above who responded to the Board, the Petitioner also produced photographs at the hearing of additional work in had done during the period 1980 through 1985. This included work for Bob Larson for whom the Petitioner developed an overall design and laid out of a restaurant, and supervised the installation of the electrical lights and plumbing, to include steam tables. Petitioner's work included graphics, design of menus, interior wall covers, et cetera. Petitioner also designed a second set of restaurants called "Rembrandt's" for the same client. See Transcript, pages 82 and 91. The Petitioner stated that he spent a year in graduate school at Florida State during which time he did a number of projects for churches, offices and homes in the area. Thereafter, he was employed as a designer with Collier Interiors. See Transcript, Page 91. In summary, the Putnam response covers the period between 1975 and 1982. The Christopulos letter and form cover the period 1983 through 1986. The Engbrecht form covers the period February 1984 through July 1985. The Collier form covers the period 1987 through December of 1989. The Blair letter and form covers the period from 1989 until 1991. The Hintikka form and letter covers the period June to August 1988 and January to May 1990. During the period from 1982 until present, the Petitioner has held himself out regularly as an interior designer based upon the responses received by the Board and Petitioner's testimony about the work done for the clients. His testimony is substantiated by the responses received by the Board, and is uncontroverted. Not a scintilla of evidence was introduced by the Board that the Petitioner did not perform the work about which he testified. On January 30, 1991, the Board sent the Petitioner a letter which the Petitioner received. This letter stated that the Petitioner's application was denied because the application did not show sufficient evidence that the Petitioner met the requirements of "Florida Statutes 481, Part I and Chapter Law 89-19, Section 21." The letter continues, A review of your application by the Interior Design Committee shows that you did not sufficiently document six years of Interior Design experience. In order to receive reconsideration you must submit three additional detailed client reference forms that span six years of experience. These letters must contain both the time and time frame and a detailed description of services provided. You must prove that you meet the definition of interior designer for a full six year period. The Committee has also requested that you send in samples of your interior design plans and drawings. On August 21, 1991, the Board sent the Petitioner a letter which the Petitioner received indicating that the Board deemed the Petitioner's application abandoned and advising the Petitioner of his right to a hearing on the denial of his application. The information provided by the responding clients and the Petitioner reveal that the Petitioner has been asked by several clients to perform additional projects for them. Clients for whom he did commercial work, engaged him to do work in their homes, and vise versa. One of his clients has transported the Petitioner from Tallahassee to Massachusetts in order that the Petitioner could continue to supervise completion of the interior of the client's home. These facts speak positively to the quality of the Petitioner's work. The record above shows that Mr. Brabec did not abandon his application, but sought to have clients provide the Board with the information sought until such time as this appeared to be a futile effort. Sufficient information had been provided to the Board by January 30, 1991 for it to make a determination of whether the Petitioner has the requisite experience. The information provided, as summarized above, reflects that the Petitioner has engaged in consulting, performing studies, drawing plans and providing specifications for space utilization of restaurants, churches, offices and homes in Florida, South Dakota and Massachusetts since 1982.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design license the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of April 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Russell G. Brabec, pro se 2079 Cynthia Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Suite 1603 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 10th day of April 1992. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture & Interior Design Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
