Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was given a score of 74 percent on the Division B-Site Design I portion of the written examination administered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, on or about June 14, 1993. 75 percent was passing. He challenged two of the questions on the exam. First Challenge On the first multiple-choice question the Petitioner challenged (the first question on Petitioner's Exhibit 1), the correct answer was required to depict both a "defined entrance facing south" and "a sense of mystery and surprise defined by the buildings." The Petitioner's answer clearly was incorrect. The entrance it depicted was not "defined," and there was little "sense of mystery and surprise defined by the buildings." The correct choice depicted both. (So did another choice, but it is not necessary to attempt to distinguish between the two--on the basis of whether the correct answer also was required to depict a small plaza--since the Petitioner chose neither.) 1224 of the 1430 examinees chose the answer for which credit was given. Only 30 chose the Petitioner's answer. These results validate the Petitioner's score on this question. The Petitioner did not prove either that the answer he chose was correct, that he should have been given credit for his answer or that the question should have been discarded. Second Challenge On the second multiple-choice question challenged (the second question on Petitioner's Exhibit 1), the Petitioner's choice did not describe the plan he had in mind. It omitted one element of the plan--a building in the center. Without the missing element, the plan chosen by the Petitioner clearly was incorrect. Even with the missing element, the the plan chosen by the Petitioner was impractical and would not be found in actual practice. The examination was designed to be taken by persons having practical as well as academic experience, and the examinees were expected to draw on both aspects of their experience. 949 of the 1430 examinees chose the answer for which credit was given. 341 chose the Petitioner's answer. These results do not invalidate the Petitioner's score on this question. The Petitioner did not prove either that the answer he chose was correct, that he should have been given credit for his answer or that the question should have been discarded.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, enter a final order denying the Petitioner's exam challenge. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 8th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6511 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the Department's proposed findings of fact (the Petitioner not having filed any: 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First two sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Third sentences, rejected as contrary to the facts found and as contrary to the evidence. Fourth sentence, rejected as to "B," as contrary to the facts found and as contrary to the evidence; as to "C," accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Fifth sentence, accepted but irrelevant, subordinate and unnecessary. Sixth sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. Last sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First two sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Middle sentences, accepted but largely subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected in part as not proven (the reasons why other candidates chose the answer for which credit was given is speculation); otherwise, accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: Alcides Santiesteban 1224 East Palifox Tampa, Florida 33603 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0751 Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 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
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
