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
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
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Petitioner should be licensed without examination as an interior designer on the ground that Petitioner had six years experience as an interior designer prior to January 1, 1990, in accordance with applicable provisions of Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner timely applied to the Board of Architecture and Interior Design (the "Board") for licensure without examination as an interior designer pursuant to Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida. Petitioner's application was dated December 29, 1989, and was received by the Board on January 4, 1990. The Board advised Petitioner of its intention to deny her application in a letter dated October 22, 1990. The letter stated in relevant part: A review of your application by the Interior Design Committee shows that you did not sufficiently document that you have met the definition of Interior Design for a six year period. Employers prior to 1986 did not evaluate your design abilities, nor did they provide a job description. Also client forms previously submitted do not contain a sufficient description of Interior Design services. In order to receive reconsideration you must submit three additional detailed client reference forms that span six years of experience. These letter must contain both the time frame and a detailed description of Interior Designer, not an Interior Decorator. The Committee has also requested that you send in samples of your interior design plans and drawings. Petitioner graduated from Western Michigan University in 1983 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Interior Design. The curriculum required the last three years of the four year educational program to concentrate on interior design. Petitioner had three years of drafting, studied space and electrical utilization, and the application of building codes to interior design. Petitioner completed courses in architecture, art design, art principles, textitles, design principles, and floor plans. Michigan did not then nor does it now license interior designers. While attending college, Petitioner began working 15 to 20 hours a week in April, 1982, as an assistant interior designer for Xenia Eliadeas at Interiors by Xenia in Gross Pointe, Michigan ("Xenia"). Petitioner's primary responsibility was to draw floor plans for use in interior design projects. Ms. Eliadeas graduated from Michigan State University with a degree in interior design and had 20 years of experience in interior design. Petitioner has been identified by the title "interior designer" and has six years experience performing interior design services prior to January 1, 1990, in accordance with applicable provisions of Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. Petitioner worked full time as an interior designer from July, 1983, through December, 1989, at Xenias and Worrells Interiors, 201 South Ocean Boulevard, Manalpian, Florida ("Worrells"). In July, 1983, Petitioner began working full time with Xenia as an interior designer. Petitioner worked six days a week from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. For the first six months, Petitioner's duties primarily involved commercial and residential floor plan drawings including design drawings for restaurants. Petitioner was responsible for Xenia's clients whenever the owner was not present. The largest single project for which Petitioner had primary responsibility while at Xenias involved the renovation of a warehouse. The renovation required walls to be removed, bathrooms to be installed, and for the warehouse to be renovated into an office and factory. Petitioner had 100 percent "hands-on" responsibility for the project. The renovation took two years to complete and was finished sometime in July, 1985. From July, 1985, until January, 1986, 90 percent of Petitioner's duties involved interior design for residential projects including both retainer contracts and "walk-ins." Petitioner moved walls, re-designed space planning for traffic patterns in existing homes, and designed jacuzzis and work-out rooms which had to be installed over plumbing and had to have ventilation designed. Some of her space planning required Petitioner to design proper clearances for wheel chairs. Petitioner performed interior design services in all of the jobs she performed on a full time basis from July, 1983, through January, 1986. The proportion of design services to decorating services performed by Petitioner at Xenias varied with each job, but the portion of design services was approximately 60 percent of her duties. However, Petitioner prepared drawings in 100 percent of her jobs. Petitioner left Xenias in January, 1986, and moved to Florida. On April 5, 1986, Petitioner began working full time as an interior designer for Worrells. Since joining Worrells, Petitioner has spent 100 percent of her time performing the duties of an interior designer. Worrells has a drafting room with drafting equipment and tables located behind the studio. Petitioner prepared design plans in the drafting room on a daily basis. She has averaged approximately 25 jobs a year. Each job requires anywhere from three months to a year to complete. She has developed a substantial referral business which comprises approximately 50 percent of her clientele. Petitioner has performed a variety of interior design functions at Worrells involving new construction, renovations, and both commercial and residential projects. Petitioner has performed a great deal of space utilization involving the removal of walls, making adjustments in space utilization, and recreating rooms. Petitioner has presented original ideas and concepts, worked from floor plans, reflected ceiling plans, and electrical plans. She has performed functions involving off-space planning and design and prepared design plans. She has consulted with professionals and with a full complement of general contractors and subcontractors, including electrical contractors and plumbers. Petitioner typically works on six to eight jobs at a time. She always performs in a professional and competent manner and has never had an unsatisfied client or an unfinished job.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a Final Order granting Petitioner licensure, without examination, as an interior designer pursuant to Section 21(1)(b) of Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of November 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-3 Accepted in finding 1-3 4 Accepted in finding 5 5 Accepted in finding 3 6-7 Rejected as recited testimony 8-10 Rejected for the reasons stated in finding 4-8 Accepted in finding 6 Rejected for the reasons stated in finding 6 Rejected in finding 10 Accepted in finding 10 15 Accepted in findings 10, 12 16 Rejected as recited testimony 17 Accepted in finding 12 18-20 Accepted in findings 12-13 21 Rejected as immaterial COPIES FURNISHED: Marla Kay Sanford Post Office Box 3323 Lantana, Florida 33465-3323 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture & Interior Design 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact 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 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
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
