The Issue Whether or not Respondent committed violations of Sections 481.2251(1)(d) and 481.2251(1)(n) F.S. [1991], as alleged in the administrative complaint, and if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Thomas Maxwell Guilford, Respondent, is licensed by the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design as a registered interior designer, License No. ID 0002093. Respondent was first licensed as a registered interior designer by the Board of Architecture and Interior Design in 1990, when the interior designer licensure statute was enacted. Mr. Guilford has practiced as an interior designer for approximately 20 years. Prior to becoming licensed, Respondent practiced under the trade name, "Thomas Maxwell Guilford Architectural and Interior Design." Respondent has utilized this term and trade name to describe his professional services for approximately 20 years. Respondent disclosed to the Board and Department of Professional Regulation his use of the foregoing term to describe his occupation when he applied for licensure in January, 1990. Mr. Guilford's professional identification was set forth on his City of Tallahassee Occupational Licence, a copy of which was submitted to the Board as part of his licensure application. During the licensure application process, Respondent also submitted correspondence to the Board on letterhead paper bearing the trade name, "Thomas Maxwell Guilford Architectural and Interior Design." At no time prior to issuing Respondent's interior designer license or prior to the administrative complaint herein did the Board indicate to Respondent that his use of the trade name, "Thomas Maxwell Guilford Architectural and Interior Design" violated any licensing statutes, including but not limited to Sections 481.2251(1)(d) and (n) F.S., which he is now charged with violating. Had the licensing authorities advised Respondent of any disapproval of his use of the term "architectural and interior design" prior to licensure, he would have stopped using the designation. Not aware of any objection to his long-established identification and letterhead, Respondent continued, subsequent to becoming licensed, to practice interior design under the trade name he had consistently utilized for fourteen or more years before licensure. Upon licensure, Respondent also added to his letterhead the phrase, "Registered with the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design, ID 0002093" to specifically indicate his licensure status. The Board requires licensees to display their license numbers on all written materials. In 1992, Respondent submitted two statements to a client, one for "billable hours for design consultation and installation" and the other for "landscaping front and rear yard." Each statement appeared on stationery bearing the term, "Thomas Maxwell Guilford Architectural and Interior Design" as described above. The client filed a complaint with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation over a billing dispute, which was ultimately resolved without disciplinary activity. However, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating Section 481.2251(1)(d) F.S., by engaging in false, deceptive or misleading advertising, and with violating Section 481.2251(1)(n) F.S., by rendering or offering to render architectural services without a license, solely upon the wording of his stationery. Respondent never intentionally or knowingly represented himself to the public to be a licensed architect. Respondent has never previously been disciplined by the Board of Architecture and Interior Design. He is not charged in this administrative complaint with failing to make the proper disclosures required by Section 481.2131(1) F.S., as to the extent of interior designers' capabilities on any drawing, rendering, or elevation. At no time since the filing of the administrative complaint herein on November 12, 1993, has the Board or the Department issued an order directing Respondent to cease and desist his use of the term, "architectural and interior design" in his stationery or billing statements. Jerry Hicks, an expert licensed architect, testified that in his opinion, the use of the term, "architectural design" on Respondent's stationery was misleading, misrepresentative, and inappropriate because, "it uses the word 'architectural' to enhance the interior designer's position" and because Mr. Hicks thought lay persons would think architecture was being practiced by a licensed architect. Basically, Mr. Hicks asserted the prosecutorial position that because the adjective "architectural" springs from the noun, or word-root, "architecture," it must be misleading if utilized on an interior designer's stationery. However, he conceded that the adjective is not misleading anywhere else. (See Findings of Fact 24-26). As an architect, Mr. Hicks had no difficulty looking at the Respondent's stationery and recognizing that only interior design services were being offered and that the Respondent's license number was clearly an ID (interior designer) license number and not an AR (architect's) license number. No layperson testified to being misled or confused by the Respondent's stationery. The statement concerning Respondent's licensure status and licensure number appearing on his letterhead is truthful in every respect. Any client or consumer, familiar or unfamiliar with the ID versus AR licensure designations, can verify the extent of Respondent's licensure status by inquiring of the Board of Architecture and Interior Design. There are no facts or circumstances in this record which demonstrate that Respondent ever actually rendered or offered to render any services which would require performance exclusively by a licensed architect. See the statutory definitions of the two professions at Sections 481.203(6) F.S. for architecture and 481.203(8) F.S. for interior design. These definitions are adopted and incorporated as a finding of fact. It is undisputed that the services commonly rendered by architects and interior designers overlap significantly. Mr. Hicks described the process of "architecture" as a business which involves five basic services or phases: a conceptual schematic phase, a design development phase, a construction design phase, bidding and negotiation phase, and a construction and administration phase. According to Mr. Hicks, licensed interior designers may properly engage in each of the activities comprising the five phases, so long as they do not perform services involving the specific design and construction of structural or mechanical components, which would require additional professional licensure such as an architect or engineer. Interior designers commonly perform services involving both the interior and exterior design and construction phases of buildings, so long as such work is limited to the non-structural elements of the building. The role of the interior designer in the design and construction phase is limited primarily to dealing with "esthetic appliques to building structures." Such activities may include aspects of both interior and exterior design, commonly taking the form of line drawings showing what the finished product would look like and known as "interior elevations" and "exterior elevations." A licensed interior designer may sketch both conceptual, schematic and detailed drawings of an exterior facade or elevation or of an interior elevation for a client, so long as the design documents do not involve specific structural components. The term "architectural design" can properly be used to describe such drawings rendered by an interior designer. As a licensed interior designer, Respondent is permitted, and often does, consult with clients concerning every phase of the design and construction process for new construction, as well as additions or renovations. In the normal course of his business, he is required to develop conceptual schematic designs, prepare detailed, non-structural design documents, assist in the bidding and negotiation process and assist in the construction and administration phases of a project. These activities are essentially identical to those of an architect, with the exception that the limitations of Respondent's licensure preclude him from participation in the design and construction of the structural or mechanical components of a building project, such as electric wiring or plumbing connections. However, interior designers may appropriately select plumbing fixtures and locate electric outlets and illustrate these elements on design documents for their customers. The preparation of conceptual schematic designs and later specific design documents were characterized by Respondent, who was accepted as an expert in interior design, as "architectural design." The agency's expert witness, an architect, Jerry Hicks, did not disagree with such a usage. According to Mr. Hicks, it would not even be inappropriate for an interior design firm or an individual interior designer to prepare schematics and elevations of interiors and exteriors and call the schematics "architectural designs". Interior designers also may appropriately use the reference "architectural design" to describe their work to customers or architects on specific projects. Mr. Hicks saw nothing misleading in the use of the word "architectural" to describe displays of products as "architectural lighting" or "architectural mouldings" in building supply stores, or in the title of magazines. Building supply stores typically sell self-described "architectural" products, such as architectural hardware, architectural shingles, and architectural mouldings. The term, "architectural design," also appears in the title of the publication "Architectural Digest", a widely-recognized publication used by consumers, designers and architects, which bills itself as "the international magazine of fine interior design." The term also appears in textbooks, which are typically utilized by both architects and designers. The term is used in book titles appearing on a recommended reading list submitted by the Board of Architecture and Interior Design to registered interior designers, including Respondent. The reading list includes titles, such as "Interior Design and Introduction to Architectural Interiors", "Architectural Drawing", "Architectural Lighting Design", and "Architectural Detailing." The evidence as a whole shows that in common usage, the term "architectural," when used as an adjective, is essentially generic in nature. The evidence as a whole shows that the term, "architectural design" is a term widely utilized throughout the industry, that there is a common understanding as to what the term entails, and that it commonly includes interior designing without professional licensure as an architect. If anything, Respondent's stationery reading, "Architectural and Interior Design" (emphasis supplied) is even more accurate and informative of what he is licensed to do than is the generic term, "architectural design."
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint herein as unproven. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-2860 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2) F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-6, 9 Accepted, except that preliminary, unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been adopted. 7-8, 11 Rejected, as a misleading characterization of isolated testimony. 10 Rejected because not supported by a citation to the transcript or evidence. Moreover, it is not supported by the record as a whole. No charges on this issue are contained in this case. See Finding of Fact number 12 and Conclusion of Law number 35. 12 Rejected as a conclusion of law and as not supported by the evidence. 13-15 Accepted that these statements were made but rejected that they fully describe Mr. Hicks' testimony which is detailed more thoroughly in the facts as found. Rejected further as partial conclusions of law. Respondent's PFOF: 1-29 Accepted, except that legal argument, conclusions of law, and unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Ellen Clark, Esquire Donna Bass, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patrick J. Phelan, Jr., Esquire Skelding, Labasky, Corry, Eastman, Houser & Jolly, P.A. Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Petitioner, Karen D. Mast, qualifies for licensure without examination as an interior designer as a result of the breadth of her experience consistent with provisions of Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, (Board), was the state agency charged with the responsibility for the licensing and regulation of the interior design profession in Florida. At some time prior to 1975, when the Petitioner moved to South Florida from Long Island, she attended Nassau Community College, working toward an associate degree in fine arts. She was going to continue with her education when, in that year, she received a call from her brother to come to work with him and another brother who had started a furniture design and construction business in south Florida. As a result of the call, she moved to south Florida and started work with them on a full time basis, designing furniture pieces and the settings for their display. She also started taking her own clients in 1976. Petitioner's brother, Robert Sabin, with his brother, started a business called Cartel in Miami in 1970. Cartel manufactured furniture, upholstery, case goods and stainless steel furniture and distributed it throughout the United States. Though the company had hired a designer, J.S. & Associates, at the brothers' request, Petitioner came to work with the company in the early 1970's, initially starting with J.S. & Associates. By 1975, however, she was a full fledged designer both in conjunction with and independent of the company. When, at that time, the company outgrew its prior facility and purchased a new building, Petitioner designed not only the interior showroom but the facade of the building as well to increase its appearance. Primarily this involved the rearrangement of interior walls but little structural change. In 1980, the company bought a new building which required extensive redesign, and Mr. Sabin and his brother gave Petitioner the job of redesigning it. With regard to this change, Petitioner did everything from drawing the blue prints to final design. Her plan for the building involved gutting it, installing new walls consistent with her design, new windows, doors, display platforms, scenic displays and the like, and at the same time, she was hard at work designing new product. In addition to working for the company in the design of its product and building, she also designed outside projects for the firm, going to out of state showrooms to insure the company's product was properly displayed. This, however, appears to be theatrical design rather than interior design since it consisted of the design of backdrops, props and the like. In addition, she did an apartment for the owner of Carnival Cruise Lines, and a restaurant, and she assisted in the interior redesign of the Eden Roc Hotel, though she made no changes to the structure. She also worked on the Cricket Club as well, all of which involved major changes without going beyond the limits of her capabilities. Through all this time, Petitioner worked for her brothers' firm doing the design projects. Witness Sabin was in charge of production; his brother, now deceased, was in charge of sales, and Petitioner was the designer. Ms. Mast's primary design work was more intensive from 1981 on when the major reconstruction of the new building was under way. At this point, though the job was hers, she was not just a decision maker on design done by someone else. She, in fact, did the actual design work for the various construction segments. She knew her brothers' taste and could design what they wanted and she believed they would like. She designed it from the beginning and supervised it through its fulfillment. The concepts were hers, though they were based on the general thoughts conveyed to her by them. In 1983, Paul F. McCarthy, a resident of Vero Beach, met Petitioner and her brothers and has been friendly with her family since then. In fact, Petitioner helped him guide his daughter into the field of interior design. In 1987 Mr. McCarthy retained the Petitioner to redo a house he had bought in Vero Beach. As a part of her work, she redesigned the kitchen, the family room and the living room into a wide open great room. The result was "spectacular." She met the strict time constraints for all work done which included submitting renderings involving the removal of interior walls and board samplings and elevations, all before the work started, and when the work was completed, Mr. McCarthy classified it as no less than "outstanding." When he sold the property at a large profit, he believed his ability to sell at such a profit was due primarily to the work done by Petitioner. Because he was so satisfied with her work, Mr. McCarthy introduced Petitioner to two top interior designers practicing in Vero Beach, and has also recommended her to developers and builders. He feels she is extremely talented, straightforward and honest. She gives excellent service in a prompt manner and she recognizes and satisfies her client's needs in a warm, caring and friendly manner. He would recommend her to others and would use her on future projects. Donald Wright, a winter resident of Fort Lauderdale and a summer resident of Toronto, has known Petitioner since 1983 when he was referred to her by a realtor. Mr. Wright is in the business of purchasing and remodeling homes and condominium apartments and at that time, when he was considering a redoing a condo for resale in Toronto, he contacted Petitioner and requested she come there and work with him on the project. At that time, he did not know any suppliers and was very impressed with the work she had done in the past. The facility in question needed complete rehabilitation since it was an older building which he wanted to update and modernize. It required a redoing of the flooring, changing the floors, walls and counters in the kitchen, changing the laundry room, and adding a bathroom. Initially, Mr. Wright took Petitioner to the material suppliers with whom he had worked in the past, but once she agreed to do the job, she took over and ran with the ball. She got samples, made suggestions and completely redesigned the interior of the apartment. He was satisfied with her work which took approximately a month and a half. In 1988, Mr. Wright, who had been contacted by a foreign investor to convert three apartments in Toronto into one large apartment, retained Petitioner to work with him in the redesign of this project. He gave Petitioner the original plan for the three apartment, and in general described to her how he wanted them converted into one large apartment. This involved the movement of bathrooms, two kitchens, four bedrooms, a maid's quarters and a pantry. Having evaluated the project, Petitioner suggested changes to be done and gave Mr. Wright rough drawings of how the project would look when completed. Mr. Wright took these to the owner who approved them, after which Petitioner did the final drawings which were also approved by the owner. Petitioner and Mr. Wright worked together on this project. He gave her the sources of supply and got samples, and they worked together until the job was finished. She redesigned the complete interior of the new apartment, changing the layout of the bathrooms and the kitchen, not only with cabinets but counters as well, provided for tiling in both areas, obtained furniture samples and wall covering, and the like and the job was completed before the time allotted had expired. The owner of the apartment was very satisfied with the work done by Wright and the Petitioner. Sometime in 1986, Mr. Wright again retained Petitioner to work on the redesign of the interior of a 70 foot yacht, the owner of which wanted the interior gutted and replaced. This involved the redesign of the staterooms, bath and galley, and included new paneling, new furniture, new colors, new dimensions, and the like. The owner picked out the appliances he wanted, but Mr. Wright and Petitioner worked together in designing their placement and the placement of the lighting. She designed the cabinetry work and the layout of the kitchen and a sound system so as to get the most usable space out of the limited area available. The owner was extremely pleased with the result. Mr. Wright has been in the modification business for approximately 15 years and is not, himself, a designer. However, he has a very high opinion of the quality of the work performed by Petitioner. She has impeccable taste and knows how to lay out and utilize space. She knows the limitations that are placed on structural changes and is capable of redesigning space to conform to and comply with limitations on structural change. Ms. Mast is extremely proud of the work she has done and believes she has dedicated her life to her work. She limits her practice to high end clients and the majority come to her as the result of referrals from other clients. She is proud of the name she has developed in the interior design field over the years she has practiced. Petitioner presented a brochure of her brothers' furniture line and was able to point out some 15 or so individual pieces she had designed in addition to the showroom layout. As to her design of the building in which the company operates, she designed the tile work, the placement of interior walls, the use of glass block and the structure within the supporting walls of the building. In addition, she designed the interior of a restaurant in Bogota, Colombia, and the departure bar in the Aruba International Airport in the West Indies. With regard to those last two projects, the plans submitted by Petitioner as having been drawn by her reflect that the departure bar was designed in 1985 and the restaurant in 1989. Review of the plans indicates that the date on the drawing purportedly done by Petitioner appears to have been altered, since the figures, "85" do not seem to have been drawn by the same individual who inserted the "19". They appear different. Much the same appears on the chicken restaurant drawings where the Petitioner's initials appear to have been inserted over some other name, and not placed there at the time the plans were drawn. However, no evidence was submitted by the Department to contest the identity of the plans or that Petitioner drafted them, and as a result, they are accepted as offered. With regard to these facilities, Petitioner claims she did the floor plans, the tile detail and the interior design detail on both. She has been a member of the International Furniture and Design Association for several years. Petitioner's application for registration as an interior designer in Florida was received by the Department on January 5, 1990. Petitioner was requesting registration by exemption rather than by examination, and properly submitted the $50.00 fee at the time of her application. The application as initially submitted, reflected her experience from 1975 to 1982 with Cartel, Inc., her brothers' furniture firm, and from 1982 to the present as an interior designer with Rudolph Collections, also a design firm owned by her deceased brother, Paul. From November, 1989 to the present, she was an interior designer with Thomasville Showcase Interiors in Pompano Beach. It would appear from the application and the supporting documents that the Board did not consider the listed description of the nature of her work performed to fall within the criteria qualifying her for an exemption. Along with the application, Petitioner also submitted a statement from Mr. McCarthy, and one from the personnel administrator of Thomasville Showcase Interiors with whom she has worked since 1989, which indicated she was involved not only in layout, color coordination, furniture selection and the like, but performed the additional task of space planning as well. Petitioner also submitted several client reference forms which reflect that she performed the services of an interior designer for those clients in 1987 and two more from as early as 1983 and 1984. The one from Jean Craft, which relates to a 1984 employment, concerns Petitioner's activities in selecting fabrics, window treatments and the use of mirrors and wall covering. This is more the work of an interior decorator, however, than that of an interior designer. In 1983 and 1984, however, Petitioner worked for a Mrs. Nettie Effron in New York. In that operation, Petitioner prepared drawings showing elevations and concept details which involved structural changes and the introduction of skylights, glass panels and other interior changes. The Board, however, in reviewing Petitioner's application, concluded that the references submitted by Petitioner with her application did not sufficiently describe experience in interior design for the six years prior to January 1, 1990, which is required by the statute. The additional testimony presented at hearing, which includes a statement of Mr. Don Blumenthal, of Miller Construction, adds considerable to the history of interior design experience, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the Petitioner, Karen D. Mast, registration as an interior designer in Florida without examination. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of January, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Mast 600 Parkview Drive, Apt. 527 Hallandale, Florida 33309 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner, Colleen Ann Kelly, is qualified for licensure without examination as an interior designer based upon her cumulative experience. If she possesses the required number of months experience in work which meets the definition of interior design, she will be able to be licensed as an interior designer without having to sit for the relevant examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted her application for licensure as an interior designer on November 8, 1989. The Petitioner predicates her experience in interior design, to the extent of at least 72 months, based upon her experience in that field in both Texas and Florida, working for various interior design and decorating firms. The Petitioner specifically applied for licensure in interior design under the provisions of Section 21, Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. (Prehearing Stipulation). The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with regulating, implementing and enforcing the licensure standards and practice standards for interior designers in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, and related statutes. The Petitioner has met all conditions precedent to obtaining licensure as an interior designer pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, except that the Respondent agency considers that the Petitioner has only 59 months of experience as an interior designer, rather than the required 72 months necessary for licensure without sitting for the examination, which is the category Petitioner maintains she occupies. The Petitioner was denied licensure as an interior designer by letter from the Respondent agency dated January 30, 1991. The sole basis for denial was that her previous employment experience at Westgate Fabrics was not accepted as interior-designer experience. The Petitioner graduated in May of 1981 from Stephen F. Austin University in Nacagdoches, Texas. She received a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in interior design and a minor in art. She has been a member of the American Society of Interior Designers since 1977. During her work experience, the Petitioner was identified with the title "interior designer" for at least six (6) years prior to January 1, 1990 and has had six (6) years of interior design experience prior to that date. From November of 1981 to August of 1982, the Petitioner was employed full-time at the Sanger Harris Company in Arlington, Texas, a period of nine (9) months. During her employment with Sanger Harris, she did "space planning" and planned furniture arrangements. She designed draperies, valances and window treatments, as well. She performed fabrication and design of fabrics, as well as the fabrication and design of accessories, lighting, wall coverings and carpeting. The Petitioner was the person responsible for insuring that the fabrics on furniture would be appropriate as an end-use fabric. Additionally, the Petitioner did sketches for interior design "layouts". The Petitioner's employment with Sanger Harris was proven to qualify as interior design experience for purposes of the "grandfather" provisions of the above-referenced statutes. The Petitioner was employed full-time by Westgate Fabrics from August of 1982 to June of 1983, a period of 11 months. During that employment, the Petitioner dealt with the fabric problems of the company. She took orders for fabrics and checked on back orders. The Petitioner was, again, employed full-time at Westgate Fabrics from December of 1983 to August of 1985, a period of 20 months. During this period of employment with Westgate, she held a different position from the one previously held during her employment with Westgate from August of 1982 to June of 1983. From December of 1983 to August of 1985, the Petitioner gave "consultations to customers". She assisted customers in finding the appropriate material needed for draperies, window coverings, or for specific fabrics. The Petitioner assisted customers with color schemes and textures for their rooms. The Petitioner "did sketches" for window treatments and also "did studies with the clients to make sure that we met the needs they had". She did custom designs and designed custom upholsteries and did "sketches as far as the style of window treatment that [the client] wanted to have". During her employment with Westgate from December of 1983 to August of 1985, the Petitioner performed one particular job involving a restaurant chain which illustrates interior design duties. The restaurant chain needed a fabric for indoor seating, outdoor seating, and for wall covering. The Petitioner gave consultation to the client regarding the fabric design and the color. The Petitioner prepared the specifications to prepare the fabric to suit the client's needs regarding resistance to mildew and suitability for commercial use. The Petitioner also provided specifications with regard to wall coverings which had the flammability code necessary for a commercial building and provided the proper installation procedures for the wall coverings. For this project, the Petitioner prepared sketches for planning the design of the fabric. In addition, the Petitioner gave consultation regarding the goods that were to be used in the project to make sure that the end use of the materials was appropriate (for instance, weather resistance and mildew resistance). Another project performed by the Petitioner during that employment period with Westgate involved assisting a homeowner with a window problem. The Petitioner consulted with that client as to the proper fabrics to solve the client's problem involving excess cold air entering through the window and involving direct sunlight during the day. The Petitioner prepared sketches on the design of the window treatment and depicting what the window treatment would look like after installation. John Stenger is the Vice President of Westgate Fabrics and was one of the Petitioner's supervisors during that second employment with that company. According to Mr. Stenger's Affidavit, in evidence, from December of 1983 to August of 1985, the Petitioner provided consultations and specifications to customers of Westgate Fabrics in connection with draperies, floor coverings, wall coverings, space utilization, furnishings and the fabrication of nonstructural elements within and surrounding interior spaces of buildings. Another one of the Petitioner's supervisors at Westgate, Midge Staller, supports those conclusions. This testimony, by Affidavit, stipulated into evidence, is consistent with the Petitioner's testimony as to her work experience during this period of time and is accepted. The Petitioner's employment with Westgate from December of 1983 to August of 1985 qualifies as interior design experience for purposes of the "grandfather" provisions of the interior design laws of the State of Florida. From August of 1985 to February of 1986, the Petitioner was employed full-time at Diane Flack Interiors in San Antonio, Texas, a period of six (6) months. During her employment with that firm, the Petitioner "did consultations regarding fabrics, regarding window treatment, regarding wallpaper". The Petitioner "did carpeting" and "did sketches for window treatments". The Petitioner "made sure the specifications on the fabrics were appropriate for the end use". The employment period with Diane Flack Interiors was from August of 1985 to February of 1986, and it was shown to qualify as interior design experience for purposes of the above- statutory authority. From February 1986 to August of 1986, the Petitioner was employed full-time at Inside Story in San Antonio, Texas, a period of six (6) months. During that employment, the Petitioner "did space planning.. .did, selecting fabrics, wall coverings, wallpaper". She "worked with window treatments and had them fabricated". The Petitioner "did sketches of the window treatments to make sure that they were what the client needed". The Petitioner "handled installation, all purchasing". The Petitioner, during this employment period, also assisted customers regarding reflected ceiling plans. She provided specifications as to floor coverings, as well. The Petitioner's employment with Inside Story qualifies as interior design experience for purposes of the above-mentioned grandfather provisions. From October of 1986 to the present, the Petitioner has been employed full-time at Oldfield Interiors in Tallahassee, Florida. She has worked a total of 38 months at Oldfield Interiors prior to January 1, 1990, as an interior designer. During her employment at Oldfield Interiors, the Petitioner has done consultations, sketches, floor plans, and space planning. The Petitioner worked with the customer "from their floor plan to the finished product, furnishing as far as furniture, wallpaper, carpet, tile, lighting, lighting plans, reflective ceiling plans, window treatment, sketches". The Petitioner's employment with Oldfield Interiors from October of 1986 to January 1, 1990 qualifies as interior design experience for purposes of the above-mentioned grandfather provisions of the Florida interior design laws. The Petitioner's activities at each of the interior design employments mentioned above were not identical to one another and did vary somewhat. During her employment with Sanger Harris, Westgate Fabrics, Diane Flack Interiors, Inside Story and Oldfield Interiors, the Petitioner's employers considered her work to be interior design work. Jill Dzurik Smith is licensed as an interior designer in the State of Florida and qualified to testify as an expert in interior design. Ms. Smith was present at the hearing during all of the testimony, including the testimony of the Petitioner. Ms. Smith's expert opinion is that the Petitioner's work experience at Westgate Fabrics, from December of 1983 to August of 1985, qualifies as interior design experience. The basis for Ms. Smith's opinion is that the Petitioner gave consultations, performed studies, and prepared sketches. "Basically from everything she said, she carried out almost all of the duties that are listed in the statutes. Well, she did carry out all the duties that were listed." That opinion is accepted as fact. The term "interior design" covers a broad range of activities. Every interior designer does not perform identically the same activities as every other interior designer. Some interior designers specialize in one particular area. Some interior designers do nothing but space planning. Some do nothing but arrive at specifications, while others do nothing but lighting and lighting plans. Some interior designers only design and produce furniture. Just because an interior designer specializes in any one field does not mean that person is not actually performing interior design work and services. An interior designer performs the duties of arriving at specifications, doing consultations, the fabrication of nonstructural elements, sketches, drawings, and space planning. Nonstructural elements are the finishing processes, including window treatments, non-load bearing walls, floor coverings, draperies, furniture, and lighting. The selection of furniture itself is part of interior designing. An interior decorator can perform some interior design duties, and there is some overlap between interior decorating and interior designing. Interior decorators mostly handle the selection of fabrics, wallpaper, and floor covering and do not prepare drawings or perform space planning nor do they plan and design lighting. Jobs that interior designers perform that interior decorators do not perform involve use of floor plans, drawings, reflective ceiling plans, and space planning. In Ms. Smith's expert opinion, the Petitioner's experience at Westgate Fabrics from December of 1983 to August of 1985 was interior design work because the Petitioner performed the following duties: consultations, sketches, drawings and specifications. The term "specification" covers the actual items being used and all of the information about that particular item. Specification includes how an item is to be installed, the manner in which it should be installed, the materials which should be used in installation, and the preparation required beforehand. While the Petitioner's previous work experiences are not identical and do vary somewhat, her employment with Westgate Fabrics from December of 1983 to August of 1985 is similar in nature to her work experience at Sanger Harris, Diane Flack Interiors, Inside Story, and Oldfield Interiors. At each of these employments, the Petitioner performed interior designer services with variations in the types of services provided.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the competent evidence of record, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent agency finding the Petitioner to be entitled to licensure as an interior designer pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, without the Petitioner being required to take the written examination and that the Petitioner be licensed as an interior designer. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 4th day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-2708 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-37. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-6. Accepted. 7-9. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 10-11. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted, but it does not necessarily include all of her duties. 15-16. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture & Interior Design Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 William M. Furlow, Esq. KATZ, KUTTER, ET AL. First Florida Bank Building Suite 400 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esq. Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
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.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as an interior designer under the criteria which allow licensure without examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner, Ruth J. Stieren, is an applicant for licensure without examination seeking to be registered as an interior designer in the State of Florida. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing applications to verify that applicants meet the statutory criteria for licensure without examination. To date, the Petitioner has not passed the examination administered by the National Council for Interior Design Qualifications or its predecessor, the American Institute of Interior Design. Petitioner is married to Charles F. Stieren, Jr., a licensed general contractor in the State of Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Stieren own and operate Stieren Construction, Inc. Mr. Stieren has been licensed, continuously performing contracting services, for the last eighteen years. For the last fourteen years Petitioner has identified herself out as an interior designer and has performed services for Stieren Construction, Inc. and others. Individually, Petitioner has held occupational licenses and has been registered for sales tax purposes with the Department of Revenue since 1981. Petitioner's Seminole County occupational license for 1987 indicates she was licensed during that year as a designer. Over the course of her work, Petitioner has successfully consulted with clients regarding their project needs. She has offered options or solutions to project requirements such as floor plans (including elevation information), furniture suggestions together with proposed placements shown, fabric and finish recommendations, and lighting. With regard to lighting, Petitioner has recommended wiring configurations e.g. the placement and type of switches, as well as recommending the fixture choices for the proposed use. In connection with her work, Petitioner has made drawings and sketches depicting her proposals as well as color boards. Petitioner's residential and commercial designs have considered space utilization, client preferences, and budget constraints. Petitioner has not submitted samples of work showing reflected ceiling plans. Michael Cavanaugh, an architect licensed in Indiana who has worked with Petitioner on projects in Florida, described Petitioner's work as that of an "interior designer" and not the more limited "interior decorator".
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure without examination. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-6691 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraph 1 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 2 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as comment, recitation of testimony or argument. The first sentence of paragraph 3 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as comment, recitation of testimony or argument. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Petitioner has shown that she had held herself out as an interior designer for at least six years. Petitioner has not established that her work experience covers all aspects within the definition of interior design. Paragraph 5 is rejected as argument or comment. Moreover, Petitioner bears the burden in this proceeding to establish she meets the criteria for licensure without examination. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. To the extent that paragraphs 2 and 3 indicate Mr. Cavanaugh is a licensed architect and has reviewed some of Petitioner's work they are accepted; otherwise, rejected as argument, recitation of testimony, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. To the extent that Petitioner documented at least six years of business experience the exhibits have been accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as comment. Paragraph 7 is accepted to the extent that it states that Petitioner consulted with and prepared a floor plan for Mrs. Norman. Otherwise rejected as argument. Paragraph 8 is rejected as recitation of testimony and argument. Paragraph 9 is rejected as comment. Paragraph 10 is rejected as comment. Paragraph 11 is rejected a recitation of testimony and argument. Paragraphs 12 through 22 are rejected as recitation of testimony, comment, argument, conclusions of law, or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603--The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Patricia Ard, Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William H. Morrison BALDWIN & MORRISON, P.A. 7100 S. Highway 17-92 Fern Park, Florida 32730
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Janet Friedman, is qualified for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer pursuant to Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of-Florida, based upon her experience and employment history.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. By application dated August 31, 1989, Petitioner applied to the Board for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer pursuant to Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida. Her application was received by the Board on September 7, 1989. Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner's application was timely filed. The Board, by letter dated October 19, 1990, advised Petitioner of its intention to deny her application. The following explanation was given in the letter: A review of your application by the Interior Design Committee shows that you did not sufficiently document that you have met the definition of Interior Design for a six year period. The Committee is concerned with whether you were working full-time in the Interior Design field during the time you were in school. Also client reference forms previously provided do not give us sufficient interior design descriptions [ sic] . Petitioner graduated with honors from Broward Community College with an AS degree in Interior Design in 1985. Petitioner attended Broward Community College from 1982 through June, 1985. Petitioner took three years to complete a program that would usually take a full-time student two years to complete. Petitioner attended school on a part-time basis and generally did not take more than 9 credit hours at a time. Thus, she was usually not in class more than 9 hours per week. Some of her classes were at night and on weekends. She took classes straight through the summers. Beginning in June of 1983, Petitioner started working with Executive Caterers. That position was a full-time job and she was paid on a weekly basis. Executive Caterers handled functions such as weddings, etc. for a synagogue. The company was responsible for managing and coordinating the renovations of the facilities at the synagogue. Her employer, Sabino Demieri, testified at the hearing and confirmed that he allowed Petitioner to arrange her work schedule around her classes. Petitioner was expected to and did work between 35 to 40 hours per week and sometimes more. Mr. Demieri also confirmed that Petitioner's employment with Executive Caterers was exclusively limited to coordinating renovations to the existing facilities and her duties consisted of interior design work. Throughout the time that Petitioner worked with Executive Caterers, the company was involved in renovations of the facilities. Renovations were undertaken with respect to the ballroom, the reception area, the lobbies, two bathrooms and the bridal room. Petitioner no longer has any of the drawings related to these projects. As part of her work, Petitioner prepared electrical ceiling plans, lighting plans and a space plan. As part of her space planning, she created closets and moved non-load bearing walls. She picked wall coverings, colors and furnishings. Petitioner worked for Executive Caterers from 1983 to sometime in l985. During that time, she also did interior design work for other groups and individuals on the side. In October of 1983, Petitioner prepared a floor plan showing the placement of tables and lighting for a proposed restaurant called the Grill. The restaurant was being developed by some of the people involved with Executive Caterers, however, Petitioner was paid separately for her work on the Grill. The plans prepared by Petitioner included a reflective electrical ceiling plan. For reasons not pertinent to this case, the developers of this restaurant decided not to go forward with the project and the facility was never constructed. In December of 1983, Petitioner prepared plans for a proposed office renovation for Outpatient Services, a medical clinic. The plans included a floor plan and lighting plan for the lobby, clerical and reception areas. The plans included a space utilization plan and a reflective lighting plan. The plans were submitted for bid, but work was never commenced. In December of 1984, Petitioner prepared a site plan for a home owned by Ken Williams. These plans (which were identified at the hearing, but were not transmitted with the rest of the blueprints in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 7) included a floor plan with the electrical schedules shown on the plans, and house elevations. l0. In 1984, while Petitioner was still employed by Executive Caterers, she was retained by Scott Heiken to design renovations for his house. The discussions regarding this work began sometime in 1983. Petitioner actually prepared the plans during 1984. While the plans relating to this work are no longer available, Mr. Heiken testified regarding Petitioner's preparation of those plans. As part of the plans, Petitioner designed the kitchen, living room and dining room areas. These plans involved moving certain non-load bearing walls and the design of a pass through area in the kitchen. Petitioner also prepared plans showing electrical fixtures and lighting fixtures prior to the commencement of the work. These plans were reviewed with the client and the work was successfully completed in 1984. Petitioner began her own business, Interiors By Janet, sometime in 1984 or 1985. Petitioner has held occupational licenses for this business beginning with the year ending September, 1985 through the present. Sandy Samole, a licensed interior designer, has known Petitioner since approximately 1985 and she has been aware of Petitioner functioning as an interior designer throughout the whole time that she has known her. Petitioner is a member of the Interior Design Guild ("IDG") an organization made up of interior designers in South Florida. IDG has two levels of membership. Those individuals who do not meet the qualifications to be called designers are affiliate members as opposed to professional members. This distinction has been in place for several years. Petitioner is First Vice President and has a professional membership in IDG. In 1988, Petitioner passed an exam given to prospective design members of IDG. While passage of the IDG exam is not a basis for licensure under the statute, it does confirm Petitioner's focus on the design aspects of the business during the pertinent time period. There is apparently a rivalry between IDG and ASID. It has been suggested that there is a reluctance to accept and/or recognize design members of IDG for purposes of licensure. Those issues are beyond the scope of this hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMNENDED that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner is qualified for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer pursuant to Section 21(1)(b) of Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 27 day of February, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27 day of February, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/ Board of Architecture & Interior Design Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Pau1 M. Zisholtz, Esquire Crocker Center, Tower I 52430 Town Center Circle Suite 105 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Esquire Off-ice of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Board of Architecture Interior Design Suite 1603, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 APPENDIX Only Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact. The following constitutes my rulings on those proposals. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in the Preliminary Statement and in Findings of Fact 1, Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Addressed in Conclusions of Law 5 and 6. Addressed in Conclusions of Law 5 and 6. 5, Addressed in Conclusions of Law 5 and 6. Addressed in Conclusions of Law 5 and 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings-of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5.
