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 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
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
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner, Colleen Ann Kelly, is qualified for licensure without examination as an interior designer based upon her cumulative experience. If she possesses the required number of months experience in work which meets the definition of interior design, she will be able to be licensed as an interior designer without having to sit for the relevant examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted her application for licensure as an interior designer on November 8, 1989. The Petitioner predicates her experience in interior design, to the extent of at least 72 months, based upon her experience in that field in both Texas and Florida, working for various interior design and decorating firms. The Petitioner specifically applied for licensure in interior design under the provisions of Section 21, Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. (Prehearing Stipulation). The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with regulating, implementing and enforcing the licensure standards and practice standards for interior designers in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, and related statutes. The Petitioner has met all conditions precedent to obtaining licensure as an interior designer pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, except that the Respondent agency considers that the Petitioner has only 59 months of experience as an interior designer, rather than the required 72 months necessary for licensure without sitting for the examination, which is the category Petitioner maintains she occupies. The Petitioner was denied licensure as an interior designer by letter from the Respondent agency dated January 30, 1991. The sole basis for denial was that her previous employment experience at Westgate Fabrics was not accepted as interior-designer experience. The Petitioner graduated in May of 1981 from Stephen F. Austin University in Nacagdoches, Texas. She received a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in interior design and a minor in art. She has been a member of the American Society of Interior Designers since 1977. During her work experience, the Petitioner was identified with the title "interior designer" for at least six (6) years prior to January 1, 1990 and has had six (6) years of interior design experience prior to that date. From November of 1981 to August of 1982, the Petitioner was employed full-time at the Sanger Harris Company in Arlington, Texas, a period of nine (9) months. During her employment with Sanger Harris, she did "space planning" and planned furniture arrangements. She designed draperies, valances and window treatments, as well. She performed fabrication and design of fabrics, as well as the fabrication and design of accessories, lighting, wall coverings and carpeting. The Petitioner was the person responsible for insuring that the fabrics on furniture would be appropriate as an end-use fabric. Additionally, the Petitioner did sketches for interior design "layouts". The Petitioner's employment with Sanger Harris was proven to qualify as interior design experience for purposes of the "grandfather" provisions of the above-referenced statutes. The Petitioner was employed full-time by Westgate Fabrics from August of 1982 to June of 1983, a period of 11 months. During that employment, the Petitioner dealt with the fabric problems of the company. She took orders for fabrics and checked on back orders. The Petitioner was, again, employed full-time at Westgate Fabrics from December of 1983 to August of 1985, a period of 20 months. During this period of employment with Westgate, she held a different position from the one previously held during her employment with Westgate from August of 1982 to June of 1983. From December of 1983 to August of 1985, the Petitioner gave "consultations to customers". She assisted customers in finding the appropriate material needed for draperies, window coverings, or for specific fabrics. The Petitioner assisted customers with color schemes and textures for their rooms. The Petitioner "did sketches" for window treatments and also "did studies with the clients to make sure that we met the needs they had". She did custom designs and designed custom upholsteries and did "sketches as far as the style of window treatment that [the client] wanted to have". During her employment with Westgate from December of 1983 to August of 1985, the Petitioner performed one particular job involving a restaurant chain which illustrates interior design duties. The restaurant chain needed a fabric for indoor seating, outdoor seating, and for wall covering. The Petitioner gave consultation to the client regarding the fabric design and the color. The Petitioner prepared the specifications to prepare the fabric to suit the client's needs regarding resistance to mildew and suitability for commercial use. The Petitioner also provided specifications with regard to wall coverings which had the flammability code necessary for a commercial building and provided the proper installation procedures for the wall coverings. For this project, the Petitioner prepared sketches for planning the design of the fabric. In addition, the Petitioner gave consultation regarding the goods that were to be used in the project to make sure that the end use of the materials was appropriate (for instance, weather resistance and mildew resistance). Another project performed by the Petitioner during that employment period with Westgate involved assisting a homeowner with a window problem. The Petitioner consulted with that client as to the proper fabrics to solve the client's problem involving excess cold air entering through the window and involving direct sunlight during the day. The Petitioner prepared sketches on the design of the window treatment and depicting what the window treatment would look like after installation. John Stenger is the Vice President of Westgate Fabrics and was one of the Petitioner's supervisors during that second employment with that company. According to Mr. Stenger's Affidavit, in evidence, from December of 1983 to August of 1985, the Petitioner provided consultations and specifications to customers of Westgate Fabrics in connection with draperies, floor coverings, wall coverings, space utilization, furnishings and the fabrication of nonstructural elements within and surrounding interior spaces of buildings. Another one of the Petitioner's supervisors at Westgate, Midge Staller, supports those conclusions. This testimony, by Affidavit, stipulated into evidence, is consistent with the Petitioner's testimony as to her work experience during this period of time and is accepted. The Petitioner's employment with Westgate from December of 1983 to August of 1985 qualifies as interior design experience for purposes of the "grandfather" provisions of the interior design laws of the State of Florida. From August of 1985 to February of 1986, the Petitioner was employed full-time at Diane Flack Interiors in San Antonio, Texas, a period of six (6) months. During her employment with that firm, the Petitioner "did consultations regarding fabrics, regarding window treatment, regarding wallpaper". The Petitioner "did carpeting" and "did sketches for window treatments". The Petitioner "made sure the specifications on the fabrics were appropriate for the end use". The employment period with Diane Flack Interiors was from August of 1985 to February of 1986, and it was shown to qualify as interior design experience for purposes of the above- statutory authority. From February 1986 to August of 1986, the Petitioner was employed full-time at Inside Story in San Antonio, Texas, a period of six (6) months. During that employment, the Petitioner "did space planning.. .did, selecting fabrics, wall coverings, wallpaper". She "worked with window treatments and had them fabricated". The Petitioner "did sketches of the window treatments to make sure that they were what the client needed". The Petitioner "handled installation, all purchasing". The Petitioner, during this employment period, also assisted customers regarding reflected ceiling plans. She provided specifications as to floor coverings, as well. The Petitioner's employment with Inside Story qualifies as interior design experience for purposes of the above-mentioned grandfather provisions. From October of 1986 to the present, the Petitioner has been employed full-time at Oldfield Interiors in Tallahassee, Florida. She has worked a total of 38 months at Oldfield Interiors prior to January 1, 1990, as an interior designer. During her employment at Oldfield Interiors, the Petitioner has done consultations, sketches, floor plans, and space planning. The Petitioner worked with the customer "from their floor plan to the finished product, furnishing as far as furniture, wallpaper, carpet, tile, lighting, lighting plans, reflective ceiling plans, window treatment, sketches". The Petitioner's employment with Oldfield Interiors from October of 1986 to January 1, 1990 qualifies as interior design experience for purposes of the above-mentioned grandfather provisions of the Florida interior design laws. The Petitioner's activities at each of the interior design employments mentioned above were not identical to one another and did vary somewhat. During her employment with Sanger Harris, Westgate Fabrics, Diane Flack Interiors, Inside Story and Oldfield Interiors, the Petitioner's employers considered her work to be interior design work. Jill Dzurik Smith is licensed as an interior designer in the State of Florida and qualified to testify as an expert in interior design. Ms. Smith was present at the hearing during all of the testimony, including the testimony of the Petitioner. Ms. Smith's expert opinion is that the Petitioner's work experience at Westgate Fabrics, from December of 1983 to August of 1985, qualifies as interior design experience. The basis for Ms. Smith's opinion is that the Petitioner gave consultations, performed studies, and prepared sketches. "Basically from everything she said, she carried out almost all of the duties that are listed in the statutes. Well, she did carry out all the duties that were listed." That opinion is accepted as fact. The term "interior design" covers a broad range of activities. Every interior designer does not perform identically the same activities as every other interior designer. Some interior designers specialize in one particular area. Some interior designers do nothing but space planning. Some do nothing but arrive at specifications, while others do nothing but lighting and lighting plans. Some interior designers only design and produce furniture. Just because an interior designer specializes in any one field does not mean that person is not actually performing interior design work and services. An interior designer performs the duties of arriving at specifications, doing consultations, the fabrication of nonstructural elements, sketches, drawings, and space planning. Nonstructural elements are the finishing processes, including window treatments, non-load bearing walls, floor coverings, draperies, furniture, and lighting. The selection of furniture itself is part of interior designing. An interior decorator can perform some interior design duties, and there is some overlap between interior decorating and interior designing. Interior decorators mostly handle the selection of fabrics, wallpaper, and floor covering and do not prepare drawings or perform space planning nor do they plan and design lighting. Jobs that interior designers perform that interior decorators do not perform involve use of floor plans, drawings, reflective ceiling plans, and space planning. In Ms. Smith's expert opinion, the Petitioner's experience at Westgate Fabrics from December of 1983 to August of 1985 was interior design work because the Petitioner performed the following duties: consultations, sketches, drawings and specifications. The term "specification" covers the actual items being used and all of the information about that particular item. Specification includes how an item is to be installed, the manner in which it should be installed, the materials which should be used in installation, and the preparation required beforehand. While the Petitioner's previous work experiences are not identical and do vary somewhat, her employment with Westgate Fabrics from December of 1983 to August of 1985 is similar in nature to her work experience at Sanger Harris, Diane Flack Interiors, Inside Story, and Oldfield Interiors. At each of these employments, the Petitioner performed interior designer services with variations in the types of services provided.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the competent evidence of record, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent agency finding the Petitioner to be entitled to licensure as an interior designer pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, without the Petitioner being required to take the written examination and that the Petitioner be licensed as an interior designer. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-2708 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-37. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-6. Accepted. 7-9. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 10-11. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted, but it does not necessarily include all of her duties. 15-16. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture & Interior Design Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 William M. Furlow, Esq. KATZ, KUTTER, ET AL. First Florida Bank Building Suite 400 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esq. Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
Findings Of Fact On December 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
