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
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received in this case, the following relevant findings of fact are made: In October 1989, Petitioner applied to the Board for licensure as an Interior Designer pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes and Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida (commonly referred to as the grandfather clause), based upon six years of interior design experience prior to January 1, 1990. The application was timely filed and Petitioner paid the appropriate fee. During the application process, the Board required additional information from Petitioner, which was furnished, but on August 21, 1991, the Board issued its notice of denial stating that Petitioner had not shown sufficient evidence of compliance with the requirement of the grandfather clause of six years' interior design experience prior to January 1, 1990. The Board advised the Petitioner that her experience was in the nature of "a cabinet work detailer, not as an Interior Designer. Petitioner began designing custom furniture in 1978 when she and her husband started a business known as Village Woodworking. The business grew to include built-in furniture, cabinetry and related interior design services over the years. As early as 1981, Petitioner began consulting with clients directly on matters such as space utilization, lighting, kitchen design, bathroom design and fabrication of custom-made cabinetry and built-in furniture. Often Petitioner would prepare drawings to reflect her design concepts which were later incorporated into the client's homes or businesses. In 1982, Petitioner consulted on numerous interior design matters in the renovation of the Gardinier estate property. These matters included the design of custom made dining room furniture, space utilization throughout the estate buildings, lighting and the design, fabrication and placement of custom-made cabinetry and built-in furniture. These consultations went on over a period of approximately three years. From the early 1980s through the date of the hearing, Petitioner has consistently consulted with clients, architects and interior designers by reviewing architectural plans and specifications, suggesting modifications and changes, preparing shop drawings to incorporate her design concepts into construction and renovation projects and by designing and fabricating cabinets, furniture and built-in furniture. Some of the jobs where Petitioner performed all or part of these services were: (a) Steve Simon's office; (b) Central National Bank; (c) Wellscraft Marina; (d) Law offices; (e) Sarney Residence on Siesta Key and the Patterman Residence; and (f) the Gardinier Estate mentioned in Finding of Fact 3. These jobs covered a period from 1982 to 1987. Also, it was Petitioner's unrebutted testimony that she had been rendering interior design services such as those mentioned above for over six years prior to January 1, 1990. There is competent, substantial evidence to establish facts to show that Petitioner has been performing, and is qualified to perform interior design consultations and studies and to prepare drawings and specifications in connection with lighting plans, space utilization, furnishings and fabrication of nonstructured elements within and surrounding interior spaces of buildings, both residential and commercial, and has been continuously engaged in, and performing, this type of work in the normal course of her business for more than six years prior to January 1, 1990. There was insufficient evidence to show that Petitioner's work had been limited to that of a "cabinet work detailer" but there was sufficient evidence to show that the services described above constituted a large portion of Petitioner's business for at least six years prior to January 1, 1990.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order granting Petitioner licensure as an Interior Designer without examination under the provisions of Chapter 88-383, Section 21, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 28th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 3(2); 4(3); 5(4-5); 7(6); 8(6); and 9(6). Proposed finding of fact 2 is more of a restatement of the witnesses' testimony rather than stated as a proposed finding of fact, but see finding of fact 4. Proposed finding of fact 6 is not necessary in that the affidavits corroborates the testimony of Petitioner as set out in findings of fact 2-4. Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(2); 2(2); 3-6(4); 9(2); and 11(3). Proposed findings of fact 7, 8 and 10 are not relevant to the conclusions reached in the Recommended Order. Rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip N. Hammersley, Esquire TRAWICK HAMMERSLEY & VALENTINE Post Office Box 4019 Sarasota, Florida 34230 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture & Interior Design Northwood Centre - Suite 60 1940 N Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0751 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N 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
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 presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born in Europe. Since both her father and her brother were architects, she was exposed to a background of architecture and design. She received a bachelor of arts degree in fine arts in Holland, which included many drafting courses and interior design courses. She travelled extensively through Europe studying the many different architectural styles of many different time periods. She came to the United States twenty years ago. From January 1982 through September 1984 Petitioner was employed full- time by Lucido Brothers as a design consultant. Lucido Brothers is a manufacturer and seller of fine cabinetry, specializing in custom-made kitchens and bathrooms, including built-in wall-units and room dividers, storage cabinets, wet bars, bookcases, and entertainment centers. Lucido Brothers further specializes in new construction and renovations. During that employment, Petitioner consulted with customers, visited job sites, and took measurements. Although Petitioner worked closely with builders and architects, she did her own drawings, designs, and spacial analyses. She designed custom-made furniture, wall-units, and built-in dividers as non-structural walls. She designed kitchens and bathrooms and built-in window seats. She drew floor plans, reflected ceiling plans, and drawings for wall partitions. She supervised the construction and installation of the custom-made furniture, built-ins, and cabinets. She specified recessed lighting and the placement of light fixtures and electrical outlets. After leaving the employ of Lucido Brothers, Petitioner opened her own business, called Barbara's Interiors, on March 29, 1985. She obtained an occupational license which she still renews every year. She worked full-time as an interior designer in that business through December of 1986. Petitioner's husband is an electrical contractor. While at Barbara's Interiors, she did many jobs with her husband, as she has for the last twenty years. In conjunction with those jobs, Petitioner designed recessed lighting (indirect lighting), suspended ceilings, track lighting, soffit lighting, and spot lighting. Many of her customers at Barbara's Interiors were building new homes or renovating existing homes. However, Petitioner also designed interiors for offices and commercial buildings. At Barbara's Interiors, Petitioner consulted with customers, visited job sites, and took measurements. She reviewed blueprints with architects and builders. She analyzed space and did her own drafting and layouts. She drew reflected ceiling plans. She drew interior elevations, doorway locations, and window locations, and drew how they should be altered by enlarging to improve lighting or view. She selected floor coverings based on safety and functional criteria. She selected window treatments based on functionality, lighting, ventilation, and the alteration of window form and appearance. She drew floor plans, designed additional storage space, and re-designed lighting. She designed non-structural walls and room dividers to separate living areas. She assisted contractors in the remodeling of homes, converting a porch into a kitchen, and a dining room and kitchen into a larger dining room. She remodelled bathrooms. In addition to doing interior design work while at Barbara's Interiors, Petitioner also did work which can be done by interior decorators. The division of labor between designing and decorating was probably fifty percent each. From January of 1987 through May of 1990 Petitioner was employed full- time by Ethan Allen Galleries in West Palm Beach as an interior designer. Ethan Allen is a retail business, which manufactures its own furnishings and offers interior design services. At Ethan Allen Petitioner consulted with customers, visited job sites, and took measurements. Although she used blueprints provided by customers and worked with their builders and architects, she also did her own room layouts. She designed rooms according to the architectural style and period specified by her customers. She designed built-in furniture to be used as room dividers, designed recessed and soffit lighting, added partitions to existing rooms and enlarged windows, and supervised the manufacturing of custom-built furniture. She also supervised subcontractors implementing her selection of paint, wallpaper, and carpeting. She designed floor-to-ceiling shelves as a dividing wall and drew her own floor plans. She designed additional storage space and re-designed lighting. Working with architects and builders, she designed room additions. She designed changes to interior doorways and to windows. She performed spacial analysis, and she supervised installation. In addition to performing interior design services at Ethan Allen Galleries, Petitioner also performed interior decorating services. The division of labor between those things currently requiring licensure and those things not requiring licensure was 50/50. Prior to January 1, 1990, Petitioner had a total of seven years and five months of full-time interior designer experience.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting licensure to Petitioner, 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 29th day of April, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 91-6759 Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 11, 13-16, and 18- 21 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-9 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 12, 17, and 22 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Isabella B. Gomulka 1663 Pleasant Drive Juno Beach, Florida 33408 Arthur R. Weidinger, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
