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 On December 8, 1989, Petitioner's application for registration in Florida as an interior designer under the exemption provisions of the licensure law was received by the Board. The application was reviewed and found to be incomplete because the required documentation of 6 years experience was not included. Petitioner was so notified on January 5, 1990, and her application was held in abeyance until the requested documentation was received. On July 2, 1990, a second notice was sent to Petitioner. This notice explained that the client verification forms sent with her application did not span a 6-year period and they did not provide sufficient detail of design experience. Petitioner was asked to submit 3 more forms that span at least a six year period. Client verifications prior to 1984 and after 1987 were needed by a July 31, 1990 deadline. By October 16, 1990, two additional client verification forms were received. One form was for a project in 1983 and the other was for a project in 1989. The application submitted by Petitioner through October 31, 1991, did not contain sufficient material to demonstrate that she has six years of interior design practice as required by Section 21 of Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida. Specifically, more detailed work experience was needed with supporting plans to show full scale design occurred. The evidence submitted by Petitioner in her application to the Board reflects work more in the nature of "interior decorating services" as defined by Section 481.229(6), Florida Statutes, as opposed to "interior design" as defined by Section 481.203(8), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the determination that she is not qualified for licensure as an interior designer without examination. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1991. Copies furnished: TAMMY GREENE 105 W GENESEE TAMPA FL 33603 JOHN J RIMES III ESQ ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1050 ANGEL GONZALEZ - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FL BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR DESIGN 1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 JACK MCRAY ESQ - GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0792
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
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as an interior designer.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witness and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is an applicant for licensure as an interior designer. Petitioner timely filed for registration without examination and paid all appropriate fees. The Petitioner, after being notified of the denial of her request for licensure, timely requested an administrative hearing to establish her record of experience in the field. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing such applications for licensure. The Department stipulated at hearing that the Petitioner, for the years 1987, 1988, and 1989, had appropriate experience to qualify as interior design experience. Consequently, the only issue as to Petitioner's experience related to the time frame prior to 1987. Accordingly, the Petitioner must show three additional years of appropriate experience. In as early as 1979, Petitioner began work hanging wallpaper for an interior design firm in Ohio. Because of the success of that work, she started her own business, Quality Paper Hanging. As an outgrowth of the paper hanging work and her experience with the interior design firm, Petitioner expanded her business to include remodeling jobs and design work. This work constitutes interior design experience. In 1981, Petitioner became licensed as a home improvement contractor. According to Petitioner the contractor's license was required as she was no longer just hanging wallpaper but was designing and pulling permits for remodeling work. Petitioner used licensed electricians, plumbers and carpenters to perform the work under her supervision and direction. Examples of the work Petitioner performed during this period were two funeral home remodeling jobs. Petitioner worked for a funeral home company that retained her to remodel an existing home and to convert a second location into a branch home. Both projects involved the drawings and design work required of an interior designer. These projects were completed prior to 1983 and evidence interior design experience. Another project completed by Petitioner prior to 1983 was a remodeling job for the Hensil family. This project involved the redesign of a kitchen and basement area and evidences interior design experience. In 1983, after an unpleasant divorce, Petitioner moved from Ohio and, unfortunately, lost her business records for the work performed prior to the move. However, Petitioner's testimony as to the type of work performed during the years 1981 and 1982 has been accepted, and constitutes interior design experience for that period. After 1983, Petitioner held herself out as an interior designer and performed interior design work in Florida. More specifically, Petitioner designed and supervised the remodeling of a kitchen for the Nunn home, remodeled a porch and bath entry for the Morris home, and worked for Home Interiors for fourteen months. While with Home Interiors, Petitioner designed remodeling projects, consulted on new construction, and assisted a builder as was required. The work with Home Interiors to the extent that it involved redrafting plans and remodeling projects constituted interior design experience. Following the work with Home Interiors, Petitioner worked for Burdines for approximately one year. While at Burdines, Petitioner did interior design work when it was available. During that time, Petitioner remodeled a kitchen for the Chafin home and worked with the Windoms on their remodeling project. These projects constituted interior design work. After building a clientele and becoming familiar with the local trade people, Petitioner opened her own business, Interior Designs by Diana, in 1986. The experience with that company constitutes appropriate interior design experience. In addition to the full-time work experience noted above, Petitioner has attended classes at two community colleges and has earned a 4.0 grade point for the six courses taken in design. The other course taken, college math, was also an A grade. Petitioner has established that she has the requisite interior design experience to qualify for licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as an interior designer. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 91-6316 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: None submitted in a form sufficient to accept or reject. Petitioner's proposed order recited the conclusion of law that Petitioner had established six years of experience, prior to 1990, such that she should be qualified for licensure without examination. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: 1. Paragraphs 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, are accepted. Paragraphs 2 through 5 are accepted but are irrelevant. These paragraphs merely recite the procedural history this application apparently had. With regard to paragraphs 8 and 9 which have been accepted, it should be noted that the work described was illustrative of the type of the work performed by Petitioner during the period noted. Petitioner did not testify that the work described was the only work she did during the years 1981 and 1982. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. While aspects of the work performed for Home Interiors would be more closely associated with "interior decoration," clearly other aspects of the work, such as assisting with drafts for remodeling, would be design experience. The percentages attributable to each type of work are not clear from this record; however, to suggest that none of the work for the fourteen month period was design experience is contrary to the evidence and a mischaracterization of Petitioner's job. With regard to paragraph 15, it is accepted that Petitioner was employed at Burdines during the period noted; however, at the same time, Petitioner moonlighted design jobs such as that described in paragraph 16 in order to build a referral and clientele base so that she could later open her own business (which she did). Paragraphs 18 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603--The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Richard G. Sunner John A. Sunner 150 West Warren Avenue P.O. Box 520771 Longwood, Florida 32752-0771 Jack McRay, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Dept. of Professional Regulation Board of Architecture & Interior Design 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
