“…..a stunning victory for interior design and interior designers:….”
Well I guess it all depends how you define Interior Design and Interior Designer.
In the interest of fairness I want to offer the above link to Brad Powell’s (Office Insight http://www.officeinsight.com/ ) take on the recent opinion rendered by Judge Hinkle in the Locke v. Shore Florida Lawsuit. This is important because one, it is another perspective for all to consider and two, ASID feels that it is important enough to link it on their legislation page. Of course the glowing praise of ASID by Mr. Powell certainly could not have hurt….but anyway.
I find it amazing that both sides can, and quite vociferously, claim victory in the ruling. PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER has stated in other threads that he see’s the glass half empty on this one…at best. Mr. Powell knows who butters his bread and he is trying to spin Hinkles ruling as positively as possible for the office furniture dealers and manufacturers that he caters to.
I really do not get the accolades he is bestowing on ASID. It took them 37 years to figure out that they could not claim ownership of the title interior design. It has taken setbacks on several fronts to convince ASID that they cannot expect the government to sort out the qualified from the not. Hence, the angry interior decorators can still call themselves “interior designers”. Sure the practice legislation remains but barely. Not sure how this is a stunning victory…..unless Mr. Powell’s wit is dryer than PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER’s……nah couldn’t be…..could it?
The only point I fully agree with Mr. Powell on is that if the profession does not get its collective mind around this issue…regardless of what side you may stand on, we are going to lose far more than the title “interior design”. As he puts it;
Leave a Reply