Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: 3/ By application dated September 19, 1989, Petitioner applied to the Board for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer pursuant to Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida. Her application was received by the Board on September 25, 1991. The Board, by letter dated July 25, 1990, advised Petitioner of its intention to deny her application. The following explanation was given in the letter: A review of your application by the Interior Design Committee shows that you do not have 6 years of experience and you do not meet the definition of Interior Design. The Committee felt that it was impossible for you to have 6 years of full-time, full-scale Interior design experience since you were in school full time in 1983 and 1984. They also felt that being a librarian in a design firm, a show room manager, and assistant designer would not qualify as full-scale interior design. Prior to January 1, 1990, Petitioner used, and was identified by, the title "interior designer." Prior to January 1, 1990, Petitioner was employed by: Carriage House Interiors, d/b/a Eclectic International (Eclectic) for 13 months; Curzon Designs (Curzon) for five months; J.J. Chalk (Chalk) for 25 months; and Stevenson Design and Builders (Stevenson) for 5 months. These were all full- time positions which regularly involved the rendering of interior design services, including consulting with clients concerning the utilization of interior spaces and preparing for them blueprints and drawings containing Petitioner's recommendations regarding how these spaces should be utilized. For 14 months during 1984 and 1985, Petitioner was employed on a full- time basis by Petit Contract Interiors, Inc. (Petit), a design firm which also manufactured and sold furniture. During a typical workday, she performed the duties of an assistant designer, showroom manager and librarian. Approximately 60-70 percent of her workday generally was spent as an assistant designer, during which time she did interior design work similar in nature to the work she did at Eclectic, Curzon, Chalk and Stevenson. As a showroom manager and librarian, she also rendered interior design services on a regular basis. When she was acting in her capacity as the showroom manager, Petitioner met with walk-in clients and discussed their needs. Following such consultations and based upon the information provided by the clients, she prepared drawings depicting her plans as to how the clients could best utilize the interior spaces under discussion. She then assisted the clients in making their purchases. Petit had one of the largest design libraries in the southeastern United States. It was stocked with source materials utilized by the interior design community. As the librarian, Petitioner was responsible for organizing the library and updating its materials, tasks that she often had to perform during her overtime hours. In addition, Petitioner assisted those interior designers who used the library. The assistance that she provided at times involved consulting with clients and preparing drawings. It was essential for Petitioner to have a working knowledge of interior design to fulfill her librarian duties. Petitioner attended the Florida Art Institute (Institute) from March, 1982, until June, 1984, when she graduated with an Associate Arts degree in interior design. During her first two or three semesters at the Institute, she had classes from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Thereafter, her classes were scheduled only in the morning, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon each weekday. While a student at the Institute, she was "head manager" of three student interior design projects. 4/ Petitioner was employed at least a portion of the time that she was enrolled as a student at the Institute. During this period of time, she worked for Roy F. Sklarin Interiors (Sklarin), Mark B. Meyer and Associates (Meyer), and the Good Wood Frame Shop (Good Wood). Petitioner worked for Sklarin for six months rendering interior design services under the supervision and direction of Mr. Sklarin. She held a part- time position. Typically, she had a 20 to 25 hour work week. Petitioner's employment with Meyer lasted 11 months. Her position was a full-time one. Meyer has a large showroom in which it displays carpeting, fabric, wall covering and furniture. Petitioner was the manager of the showroom. It was her responsibility to maintain the showroom and make sure all items were in their proper place. As the showroom manager, Petitioner consulted with interior designers and their clients and assisted them in selecting merchandise. This involved reviewing specifications, floor plans and other drawings. Petitioner was employed for 12 months at Good Wood. 5/ She served as a designer, appraiser and artistic consultant. Her duties included the appraisal of art work for clients. In addition, she consulted with clients and gave them advice regarding the display and placement of their art work. This involved the drawing of elevations and floor plans. Prior to attending the Institute, Petitioner worked at Pierre Deux, the Norton Art Gallery (Norton) and the James Hunt Barker Art Gallery (Barker). Pierre Deux is a boutique that sells specialized fabrics and antiques. Petitioner worked there on a full-time basis for 16 months as designer/sales person. In discharging her duties, she regularly met with clients and ascertained their needs. If they wanted window treatments, table skirts, bedspreads or other soft furnishings, Petitioner went to their homes to take the appropriate measurements and, based upon these measurements, prepared specifications and the design to be used in making these items. While employed at Norton and Barker, Petitioner assisted the curator in deciding where exhibits should be located. 6/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a final order finding that Petitioner is qualified for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer pursuant to Section 21(1)(b) of Chapter 88- 383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of September, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 September, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On October 3, 1989, Maureen Timm filed with the Department of Professional Regulation ("DPR"), her application for licensure without examination as an interior designer. By letter dated December 18, 1991, Ms. Timm was informed that her application was being denied and that she was entitled to request a formal hearing to challenge the decision. Ms. Timm thereafter filed a request for formal hearing. During the period between October 3, 1989 and December 18, 1989, Ms. Timm filed supplemental information in support of her application. For the purposes of this Recommended Order, all information submitted by Ms. Timm has been considered without regard to the date of submission. Although there is evidence that Ms. Timm is currently capable of providing interior design services, the greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that, for the six year period prior to December 31, 1989, Ms. Timm's services met the statutory definition of "interior design". To the contrary, the evidence establishes that services provided by Ms. Timm during the referenced six year period, especially prior to the November of 1987, consisted primarily of interior decorating services provided first through a paint and decorating store and then through department store furniture sales. Ms. Timm's application states that she worked for Havco Paint and Decorating from July, 1979 to July 1980 as a "designer in wallcovering and window treatment department." During this time, Ms. Timm primarily assisted customers in selection of wallcoverings, window treatments and floor coverings. The evidence fails to establish that such services meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from July 1981 to December 1984, Ms. Timm was employed as a "designer in the furniture department" of an Ivey's department store unit. During this period, Ms. Timm assisted customers in selection and placement of furniture, window treatments and wall coverings. The evidence fails to establish that such services as were related to the sale of furniture and related decorating services meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from January 1985 to January 1986, Ms. Timm was employed as a "designer in the furniture department" of a Robinson's department store unit. During this period, Ms. Timm assisted customers in selection and placement of furniture, window treatments and wall coverings. The evidence fails to establish that such services as were related to the sale of furniture and related decorating services meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from September 1986 to April 1987, Ms. Timm was employed as a "floral designer" for World Bazaar, during which time she designed flower arrangements for the store and individual customers. The services provided by Ms. Timm to World Bazaar customers clearly fail to meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from November 1987 to September 1988, Ms. Timm was employed as an "interior designer for "Midge Wright, The Wright Place." As set forth in the application, Ms. Timm "designed customer's homes, estimated cost of jobs, placed orders, followed through on completion of jobs." The evidence fails to establish that Ms. Timm's services to Ms. Wright's customers meet the definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from September 1988 to the present, Ms. Timm has worked as a "self-employed interior designer" during which time she has "designed U. S. Home models and customers homes and condos". Ms. Timm's file includes references from a number of customers who have utilized her services during this period. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the services provided by Ms. Timm during this period meet the statutory definition of "interior design". Services such as color coordination, flooring, wallpaper, window treatments and furniture selection are interior decorating services. During the hearing, Ms. Timm asserted that her work during the six year period prior to December 31, 1989 met the definition of "interior design". Beyond the evidence addressed herein, there is no documentary support for Ms. Timm's testimony. Although Ms. Timm appears to be capable of providing some interior design services, the evidence is insufficient to establish that she has done so for the six year period ending December 31, 1989. Accordingly, she does not qualify for licensure without examination as an interior designer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a Final Order denying the application of Maureen Timm for licensure as an interior designer under the "grandfather" provisions cited herein. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1992 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0948 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed recommended order consisted of five unnumbered paragraphs which are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Paragraph #1, Rejected, cumulative. Paragraph #2, Accepted, however, preparation of window treatments and wallcovering does not meet the statutory definition of interior design. Paragraph #3, Rejected, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Paragraph #4, Accepted as to submission of additional material. Rejected as to discussions with DPR representative, irrelevant. Paragraph #5, Rejected, conclusion not supported by evidence. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2-5. Rejected, unnecessary, subordinate. 13. Rejected, irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Maureen Timm 12950 Iona Road Fort Myers, FL 33908 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Esq. Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
Findings Of Fact On December 27, 1989, Petitioner applied for registration as an interior designer under the exemption provisions of the licensure law. Upon review, the application was deemed incomplete because references were missing and documentation of 6 years experience in the field was not included. Petitioner was notified of these deficiencies on January 25, 1990. Her application was placed in abeyance until the necessary documents were received by the Board Although Petitioner did submit some additional information, a second notice regarding an incomplete application was sent to her on June 12, 1990. This notice explained additional design detail was required for the 1985 client K. Gillman. More client verification forms were needed because the forms sent did not span the 6 year period. Employment verification forms from Joanne James Interiors and Burdines were still missing. Petitioner was asked to submit this additional information to the Board by a July 31, 1990 deadline. By September 10, 1990, the employment verification form from Joanne James Interiors was still missing. In addition, the employment verification form from Alan Greene, Inc., Interior Space Design, stated her job title was Interior Designer/Bookkeeper/Secretary. Based upon these notations, the Interior Design Committee responsible for application reviews felt that this job was not full-scale, full-time interior design. Further, the committee was not pleased with the level of interior design work submitted with the application. As a result, the pending application was denied on September 19, 1990. The denial letter advised Petitioner she could seek reconsideration by making such a request in writing. By doing do, she would be able to submit supplemental information for review along with her current application. Petitioner took advantage of the opportunity to seek reconsideration. She wrote the Board a letter explaining the work she did in Alan Greene's firm. In spite of this additional submission, the committee remained unconvinced that Petitioner did design work while in Alan Greene's firm or that she had any design experience in the early years of her career. Additional information from someone other than Petitioner was requested to show full-scale design work occurred between September 1982 and November 1983. Prior to the written issuance of the Board's denial of the Petitioner's application as an incomplete file, Petitioner was verbally notified of the decision. In response, she requested a formal hearing before the Board formally issued its letter stating the application was considered to be abandoned by the Board on July 23, 1991. During hearing, the parties jointly submitted a letter from Darcy White, a client who corroborated Petitioner's testimony that she did full-scale design work on Sun Bay Realty in Tampa, Florida, while working for Alan Greene's firm. Petitioner's testimony and the corroborative information were given greater weight by the Hearing Officer than Alan Greene's Employment Verification Form which minimized Petitioner's design responsibilities. A client reference form for the time period between November 1982 to February 1983 which described Petitioner's direct involvement in lighting and space planning on a project was given greater weight than the written job description from Bass & Bass where Petitioner interned during college. The Employment Verification Form represented Petitioner was never given such opportunities. Petitioner's testimony corroborated the client reference document and reasonably explained that the firm member who completed the verification form did not supervise her work with clients during this part-time job. At hearing, Petitioner presented a letter from Joanne James Interiors, where she worked from March 1987 through June 1988. Although the letter verified employment, it did not reveal whether Petitioner's work was 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. The letter, which is dated May 24, 1988, appears to reflect on skills of an interior decorator. Examples of design work completed during this period of employment or client reference forms would resolve the ambiguity. Petitioner's work at Below Decks, Inc. may have been in the nature of "interior design" in that the ceiling and lighting of the main salon within the Murphy yacht was designed by Petitioner, according to her testimony. Contrary to the opinion of the expert witness presented by the Department at hearing, a marine architect is employed to certify the hull of a boat. It is not his or her responsibility to deal with lighting and ceiling design below deck beyond a determination as to how such redesign would affect the vessel's seaworthiness. Client verification or employer verification of the interior design decisions made by Petitioner on the Murphy yacht could resolve the pending controversy regarding whether work at Below Decks, Inc. between August 1984 and July 1985 involved interior design as opposed to interior decorating services.
Recommendation Based upon 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 13th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: LISA FORD IRION 2346 LAKESHORE DR CLEARWATER FL 34619 JOHN J RIMES III ESQ ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1050 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 13th day of January, 1992. ANGEL GONZALEZ/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE & INTERIOR DESIGN NORTHWOOD CENTRE, SUITE 60 1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 JACK MCRAY ESQ/GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0792
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as an interior designer under the criteria which allow licensure without examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner, Ruth J. Stieren, is an applicant for licensure without examination seeking to be registered as an interior designer in the State of Florida. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing applications to verify that applicants meet the statutory criteria for licensure without examination. To date, the Petitioner has not passed the examination administered by the National Council for Interior Design Qualifications or its predecessor, the American Institute of Interior Design. Petitioner is married to Charles F. Stieren, Jr., a licensed general contractor in the State of Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Stieren own and operate Stieren Construction, Inc. Mr. Stieren has been licensed, continuously performing contracting services, for the last eighteen years. For the last fourteen years Petitioner has identified herself out as an interior designer and has performed services for Stieren Construction, Inc. and others. Individually, Petitioner has held occupational licenses and has been registered for sales tax purposes with the Department of Revenue since 1981. Petitioner's Seminole County occupational license for 1987 indicates she was licensed during that year as a designer. Over the course of her work, Petitioner has successfully consulted with clients regarding their project needs. She has offered options or solutions to project requirements such as floor plans (including elevation information), furniture suggestions together with proposed placements shown, fabric and finish recommendations, and lighting. With regard to lighting, Petitioner has recommended wiring configurations e.g. the placement and type of switches, as well as recommending the fixture choices for the proposed use. In connection with her work, Petitioner has made drawings and sketches depicting her proposals as well as color boards. Petitioner's residential and commercial designs have considered space utilization, client preferences, and budget constraints. Petitioner has not submitted samples of work showing reflected ceiling plans. Michael Cavanaugh, an architect licensed in Indiana who has worked with Petitioner on projects in Florida, described Petitioner's work as that of an "interior designer" and not the more limited "interior decorator".
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure without examination. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-6691 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraph 1 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 2 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as comment, recitation of testimony or argument. The first sentence of paragraph 3 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as comment, recitation of testimony or argument. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Petitioner has shown that she had held herself out as an interior designer for at least six years. Petitioner has not established that her work experience covers all aspects within the definition of interior design. Paragraph 5 is rejected as argument or comment. Moreover, Petitioner bears the burden in this proceeding to establish she meets the criteria for licensure without examination. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. To the extent that paragraphs 2 and 3 indicate Mr. Cavanaugh is a licensed architect and has reviewed some of Petitioner's work they are accepted; otherwise, rejected as argument, recitation of testimony, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. To the extent that Petitioner documented at least six years of business experience the exhibits have been accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as comment. Paragraph 7 is accepted to the extent that it states that Petitioner consulted with and prepared a floor plan for Mrs. Norman. Otherwise rejected as argument. Paragraph 8 is rejected as recitation of testimony and argument. Paragraph 9 is rejected as comment. Paragraph 10 is rejected as comment. Paragraph 11 is rejected a recitation of testimony and argument. Paragraphs 12 through 22 are rejected as recitation of testimony, comment, argument, conclusions of law, or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603--The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Patricia Ard, Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William H. Morrison BALDWIN & MORRISON, P.A. 7100 S. Highway 17-92 Fern Park, Florida 32730
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as an interior designer under the criteria set forth in Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida.
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, M. Sharma Bryant McAlwee, is an applicant for licensure as a registered interior designer. Petitioner sought licensure without examination based upon the procedure described in Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida. The Department does not dispute that Petitioner timely filed the licensure application pursuant to that section but has alleged that Petitioner failed to establish she meets the relevant criteria for licensure without examination. More specifically, the Department denied the Petitioner's application based upon a purported failure to show at least six years of interior design experience as a principal of a firm offering interior design services. Whether or not Petitioner has passed the examination administered by the National Council for Interior Design Qualifications is unknown. That qualification has not been stated to be at issue in these proceedings. The Petitioner received a master of arts degree from Western Michigan University in December, 1980. The course work undertaken by Petitioner while at that university included a number of interior design studies. Petitioner's B.S. degree was conferred by Grand Valley State Colleges in 1978. In March, 1980, Petitioner was employed by Altered Spaces, an interior design company. At that time, Petitioner represented herself to be an interior designer on business cards utilized in her work for that company. While employed by Altered Spaces, Petitioner prepared several kitchen remodeling designs for Mr. and Mrs. Tammer. Those designs considered the structural support of the existing room together with the windows, doorways and arch. After conferring with the client, Petitioner prepared drawings and sketches to demonstrate her suggestions for the proposed project. Those drawings considered such items as lighting, location of appliances, flooring, and the relocation of counters and sink. During her employment with Altered Spaces, Petitioner designed several projects where wiring, duct work, and plumbing had to be considered. Additionally, Petitioner proposed color, fabric, and lighting plans for that company's projects. Petitioner presented copies of bank records from the years 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984 wherein the account was entitled in Petitioner's name with the designation "Interior Designer." Petitioner presented copies of occupational license records issued by the City of Indian Harbour Beach, Florida, which indicate Petitioner has been doing business in that community as an interior designer for the years 1989-90 and 1990- 91. The first of those licenses was issued on September 8, 1989. In 1984-85, Petitioner was associated with a company known as Bizarre Bazaar. The business card for that company indicated "Antiques-Uniques." Petitioner may have engaged in a limited amount of design work while with that company but not to the extent as with her prior association, Altered Spaces. In 1981, Petitioner worked with the builder of Chinatown Restaurant in Grand Rapids, Michigan. She made adjustments in the floor plans, reworked certain structural elements to facilitate the traffic plan, planned the arrangement of tables, designed a space divider, drew a reflected ceiling plan and designed certain decorative elements. In 1981, Petitioner designed a wall graphic for Wolverine Tractor Company. Sometime in 1980 or 1981, Petitioner did a feasibility study for a Middle Eastern restaurant and grocery store in Kalamazoo, Michigan. This project involved the redesign of the floor plan to accommodate the restaurant and store. Sometime in 1981-1982, Petitioner prepared plans for a basement T.V. room for Mr. Paccari in Michigan. In doing so, she prepared drawings and a color board with samples of carpet, formica and wallpaper. Petitioner worked on a kitchen project in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In that project, Petitioner drew plans for installing new cabinets, painting, wallpaper and designed some decorative rails. Petitioner's exhibit concerning this project did not include a date but it was probably performed in 1983. Petitioner's work in 1986 included graphics for a driveway design in Miami. In 1987, Petitioner drew a space plan for Layton Financial Enterprises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, enter a final order approving Petitioner's application as it meets the criteria set forth in subparagraph (1)(b)1. of the licensure without examination section. DONE and ENTERED this 12 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 12th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 91-0906 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are accepted. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 12 are rejected as recitation of testimony, comment, argument or irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 2 is accepted. The balance is rejected as recitation of testimony. The first three sentences of paragraph 8 are accepted. The balance is rejected as comment, argument or irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant; otherwise the paragraph is accepted. The following paragraphs are rejected as argumentative, contrary to the weight of the evidence, a conclusion of law, or irrelevant: 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27. Paragraphs 13, 19 and 22 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: M. Sharma Bryant McAlwee 417 Entrance Way Melbourne, Florida 32940-1853 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
