SEE 3/30/15 UPDATE BELOW
How about Registered Design Practitioner?
I know…..I know….PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER tends to get way hung up on titles and credentials and the semantic implications thereof. OCD? Maybe. Insane? Duh!
So it appears that the Illinois Interior Design Coalition (IIDC) has introduced a bill in which Illinois Registered Interior Designers, and other qualified Interior Designers, will be able to become licensed as Registered Design Practitioners. Let’s think about this.
Inform yourself here;
So with that we now have a 5th possible regulated title and credential to deal with…well 6 if you count the old school “Interior Designer”….but who’s counting?
1. Licensed Interior Designer
2. Certified Interior Designer & State Certified Interior Designer where such legislation applies. California CID’s have a private voluntary system that is unique from all other CID legislation…confused?
3. Registered Interior Designer
4. Commercial Interior Designer & now….
5. Registered Design Practitioner
Please note, if you have not already done so, the absence of the term “Interior”. And the shift from “Professional” to ‘Practitioner”. Curious solution to the anti-ID regulation backlash and possible conflict with the International Building Code I suspect. But wow are we ready to disavow the term “Interior” just to get a license?
While I am all for state coalitions doing what they have to to obtain right to practice/permitting privileges for the designers in their respective states I really wish we would all step back, take a breath and figure out what the implications for these semantic machinations really mean for our profession. Maybe it does not matter. Maybe it really should be up to each state to do what they can to earn a modicum of respect for our right to practice as peers with other licensed design professionals….er um…registered design practitioners. Should we care that we may end up with numerous iterations of our professional identity?
Does it really matter? Me thinks it does.
Seems the Illinois ID practice act is getting the requisite pushback from the usual suspects;
In reading the justifications for each organization to oppose the Illinois legislation I note the inclusion of a 5,000 square foot minimum on spaces in which one must be a Registered Design Professional (or previously licensed design professional) to practice in. This is one of those instances where the fine line between our work and the work of other licensed and non-licensed need not be drawn so finely. Why not simply parrot the Illinois Practice Act which clearly defines our scope. That should be the language we use in this bill folks…..the AIBD for one should oppose this bill just for that one definition. What a shame.
“The Architecture Practice Act does not apply to: A. Buildings or structures outside the corporate limits of any municipality used for farm purposes. B. Detached single family homes on a single lot. C. Wood-framed, two-family homes on a single lot not more than two stories and basement in height. D. Interior design services that do not involve life safety or structural changes.”