Defining Our Right to Work

Or in other words….what is our “work” and do we really have a “right” to it?

PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER stumbled across this missive from the recent American Institute of Architects State Government Network forum.

http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/AIAB106707.pdf

I can only assume that this presentation was not meant to be public knowledge and would not be surprised if the link dies…..none the less if you are quick you will note that the issue of interior designers seeking permitting rights and those who claim to be “Interior Architects” was a main topic of conversation.  See slides #9-#14

My take away is that the AIA is clearly drawing a line in the sand by defining what a Registered Architect can legally design and what a non-licensed Architect can design…or get built.

Actually anybody can “design” a building…..getting it permitted and constructed is the real key.  I won’t even touch the issue of “Interior Architecture”……. I digress.

Back to the SGN network document.  We, as a profession, have struggled with how to define what it is that we do, where we do it and how.  Ultimately much of what passes as the common definition of “Interior Design” is simply intended to distinguish us from interior decorators. When it comes to defining our actual scope of responsibility we are not quite sure.  We know we should be able to submit permit documents for our own work but what exactly is that “work”?  Is it anything less than 5,000 square feet as some practice legislation defines or is it interior work that does not affect base building life safety systems, building egress and tenant separation? There are several attempts to define the scope of our rightful work out there….this is not a good thing.  Well why we have been trying to figure that out the National Council of Architectural Registration Board (NCARB) has provided their own answer…. To wit;

“Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent: 1. The practice of architecture performed in connection with any of the following:

(a) A detached single- or two-family dwelling and any accessory buildings incidental thereto, unless an architect is otherwise required by law or by the building authority having jurisdiction over the project; or

(b) Farm buildings, including barns, silos, sheds, or housing for farm equipment and machinery, livestock, poultry, or storage, if such structures are designed to be occupied by no more than 10 persons; or

(c) Any construction of particular features of a building, if the construction of such features does not require the issuance of a permit under any applicable building code and does not affect structural or other life-safety aspects of the building. ”  ( http://www.ncarb.org/~/media/files/pdf/special-paper/legislative_guidelines.pdf ) 

So if your brain is not frozen at this point what this means is that NCARB has clearly defined our scope of practice to small scale residential, barns, silos or any construction that does not require the issuance of a permit.   “Duh.- I knew that!” you might say……

My point is…if we can’t define where the line of work truly lies then we need to accept that others are going to define it for us……and we are not going to like it.

Now does anybody know a good floorcovering material for a grain silo?

ANOTHER LOOK AT INTERIOR DESIGN LEGISLATION

OR  54% ≠ 17%

Ask any professional interior designer how many states have Interior Design laws on the books and you might get a range of puzzled looks to quasi-knowledgable swags at a number.  The common message touted by ID organizations is that a little more than 1/2 of the states legislate Interior Design or somewhere between 26 and 27 states or about 54% (more if you include D.C., Puerto Rico). And let’s not forget Canada since our practice is closely aligned due to similar building design regulations. One of our professional organizations cannot recognize our northern neighbors since they are an “American” only entity- fair enough.  Our other professional organizations do acknowledge Canadian ID laws but understandably it is hard to compare Canadian ID laws with American ID laws.  For instance Canadians can own the term “Interior Design” and redefine it to suit- we cannot.  None the less those ID’ers that work within code regulated design environments have that common bond regardless of national boundaries.  But back to the U.S.

So should you know an ID professional that claims to be knowledgable in this aspect of our professional identity try asking them the same question. PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER bets that few will be able to cite accurate numbers. That is because the issue of ID legislation is a constantly changing mind numbing mess of political processes, legal nuances and terminology that only a constitutional scholar (or anti-ID legislation lawyer) might appreciate.  We designers are not so inclined.  There are no pretty pictures, haute design or bright shiny finishes involved to attract our attention.  Which given legislation’s importance to our professional identity is a shame.  Apparently many ID’ers are comfortable that the profession is recognized in more than half of the U.S. and that somebody else is trying to pass a bill here and a law there.  All in all it looks like we are progressing very well….but are we?

Well let’s blow away some of the smoke and crack a few mirrors.

NCIDQ recently composed a  version of the Interior Design legislative map of the U.S. and Canada that takes a different tack;

QualifiedWork3

The defining distinction in NCIDQ’s map is whether or not existing ID laws allow qualified ID’ers to sign/seal and submit their own documents to obtain a building permit for their work. Period.

You may need to read that twice….it is a critical yet very subtle distinction.  What this means is that all of those laws that regulate the title “Interior Designer” in all of their numerous incarnations (as described ad infinitum in this blog) do not factor into the legislative equation.  Let’s look at this another way.

Once upon a time there was a concerted effort to redefine the term/title “Interior Design(er)” legally.  Hence the litany of title acts in this country.  But the paradigm has changed and the goal of our regulatory effort has evolved to create legislation that allows qualified and vetted professional ID’ers to sign/seal their documents and pull permits for their work.  You may have heard it framed as “practicing to the fullest of our potential” or “earning the right to work” or “parity with other licensed design professionals”- something to that effect.  This is now our collective goal.   Title acts do not achieve this goal. If you agree then we need to measure our progress on that front and in that light.

With that….if you really look at the map of the U.S. at least….there are only 7 states and 2 territories that provide for some form of permitting privilege. Mathematically that is only 14%.  Canada seems to be doing a better job as their map is almost all colored in (that has to be good right?) but they still have differences in what they can call themselves vs. how they actually practice.  I continue to include Canada in this discussion, as does NCIDQ, because they are our allies….but again to keep the math simple I focus on domestic U.S. regulations.

So in the U.S. at least some say the ID legislative math works out to 54+/-%…..I say it is only 14%.   That is a big delta.  If my math is wrong please correct me.

Now some will say that Title Acts are simply a first step in the process to gain the ability to sign/seal and submit for permit- and they should count.  Well that may be, and Minnesota and Georgia are examples of success in this regard*, but they are hard-won rather circuitous efforts and by far exceptions to the title act paradigm.  The California CID contingent will undoubtedly proclaim that they have a working sign and seal permitting process, the success of which is suspect (cue the CCIDC counter claims*).

If we agree that the objective is practice legislation that provides us a license to practice similar to any other licensed building design profession then that should be our goal and our collective focus.  We should not be wasting our valuable time trying to sort out the qualified and the not via potentially unconstitutional and exclusionary title laws- see Louisiana.  So what should all of these states with title acts do?   Well I can’t answer that one.  I guess either start over or try to move toward some form of practice licensure or permitting process that follows our model legislative language** more closely.  We are going to have to deal with this issue though.  We have to be on the same page if we are to be taken seriously on the legal front.

My main point in this post is that the picture, or the ID legislative map, is not entirely as rosy as we may believe.  This is how I see it.  Maybe it is time to start being honest with ourselves.

* To my knowledge there is no data that verifies the success of designers in those states being able to permit their own work (note to ID policy research wonks and/or ID legal advocates).

** Currently there is no model language for ID coalitions and their legislative efforts.

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS- MEANINGFUL ACRONYM OR JUST A BUNCH OF LETTERS

If you have visited PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER.COM before you know that I have a thing for titles and professional recognition…okay it’s an obsession….but if you are back maybe you understand the importance of this issue as it relates to “Interior Design” and our particular identity crisis. I have posted previously on the effort by the lighting design profession to establish a professional credential. Their effort is relevant in that they are a relatively young profession sprung from the rapid specialization, and relative dearth of design sensitivity, within the lighting engineering profession- much like interior design was cleaved from the well established profession of architecture…and its brief dalliance with interior decoration- I digress.

I see many parallels between Interior Design’s effort to establish professional credentials (note I did not say “licensure”) and members of the International Association of Lighting Design’s (IALD) effort to distinguish themselves as a self-regulated professional domain who deserves respect and a place at the proverbial building design profession’s table.  We can learn a lot from them.  Conversely there are also many things that the lighting designers are doing that are far different than interior designers and our alphabet soup of professional credentials (ASID, IIDA, NCIDQ, AAHID, IDS, CID, RID)…I think they have learned what not to do from us…..but I speculate.

Here is an update to the efforts of the IALD to establish the Certified Lighting Designer (CLD) credential;

http://www.archlighting.com/lighting-design/report-credentialing-update_o.aspx?dfpzone=home

Here is the link to the CLD website;

http://cld.global/

My take away from this effort is that a strategic approach that has a singular and inclusive mission is much more impactful than one that has multiple competing/conflicting interests who seek credentials, private, public, or otherwise, purely to distinguish themselves from each other.  Furthermore the CLD seeks to self-regulate in order to achieve professional respect as opposed to utilizing government regulation to gain professional respect. A subtle and oh so misunderstood nuance amongst us professional interior designers. In short theirs is an effort to “certify” and not “license”.  The distinction here is critical particularly as it pertains to regulated interior designers effort to validate themselves as a peer profession with other licensed design professionals.  As Elizabeth Donoff explains in her update;

“The most commonly mistakenly interchanged terms are the difference between licensure and credentialing, and the distinction is a very important one to make. A license allows someone to practice a profession in a particular state and is governed by health and safety issues. Credentialing, on the other hand, is a “method for maintaining quality standards of knowledge and performance, and in some cases, for stimulating continued self improvement. Credentialing confers occupational identity.”

In my bumble opinion the profession of Interior Design has spent the last 35 years trying to confer its occupational identity with a license.  My hat’s off to the IALD task force for making this nuance clear and starting with establishing a clear identity based on performance and not the simply leaping for the brass ring of licensure.

Unfortunately it is too late for us (the regulated profession of interior design) to go back to our roots so to speak and rethink out path to societal respect and then pursual of licensure.  But it isn’t too late to think about how we proceed from this point forward.

Stay tuned.

 

THIS IS “INTERIOR DESIGN”…..All you need is an app and an iPad

http://www.tapglance.com/

TapGlance – Photo realistic interior design on your iPad

http://prmac.com/release-id-74151.htm

No Experience Needed-TapGlance does not require any prior experience with professional CAD (Computer Aided Design) or 3D software.”

……..silly me….thinking I needed an education, years of experience and a license.

sarchasm

The moral of this story….errr…the point of this post is that as long as “INTERIOR DESIGN” is perceived as nothing more than the mindless selection of furniture and finishes and randomly placing those elements in a space, real or imagined, then we will continue to be perceived as nothing more than furniture pickers with a flair for color. In that case we just may find ourselves displaced by an App.

OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS

PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER has previously posted about Architecture’s image problems.  Because Architecture is, for better or worse, our bastard step-father (metaphorical stretch for amusement only) we need to be mindful that not all is comfy cozy in their professional house.  Indirectly there are lessons to be learned and in this case I believe there is a big opportunity for the Interior Design profession.  But first refresh yourself as to the issues Architects are facing;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/justinshubow/2015/01/06/architecture-continues-to-implode-more-insiders-admit-the-profession-is-failing/

While I do not think the image problem that the Architectural profession currently finds itself is new I do think there is a widening polarity in that profession that will make it very difficult for them to overcome.  They may need to implode and start over.  As long as Aaron Betsky and the Starchitect/Artistes as provocateurs are allowed to set the tone, or have a voice in it, it will.  Let’s face it the 1%’ers are the only ones who generally can afford to hire “Starchitects”….we get what is left which is usually value driven and profit motivated.  At our level much of the built environment is managed not by designers but by ‘Project Managers” or “Builders”.  Much of common Architecture, as Mr. Gehry posits, is Shite. While I do not disagree I find it amusing that he is the one to call out the profession in that manner.

There is no question this is as much an economic issue as one of a conflicted and increasingly polarized profession, like society in general.

Back to my point.  Architects have failed on two levels in my opinion. First they have allowed the concept of great (or even good) design to be upended by the Starchitect as Artiste faction.  Yes mind-blowing innovation is important but just because you can afford to do it does not mean you should do it.  And obviously there is a great cost to these “designs”.  The stories of blown budgets on high level projects are legendary.  This Starchitect zeitgeist has lead society to believe that good (or even great) design comes with a high cost.  Consequently this has allowed the bean counters and profit motivated builders to drive the design discussion on the common level.

 Opportunity #1=  Good design should not equate to cost.

Professional/Regulated Interior Designers can help change this paradigm.

Second, and more intrinsically tied to the near interaction of the human inhabitants of architecture (read “Interior Design”), is a constant thread through all of the non-Starchitect’s laments (with the exception of Gehry) that “Architecture’s disconnect is both physical and spiritual” (Bingler & Pederson).  Ultimately much of modern Architecture as we commoners experience, lacks a soul, or as we Interior Design academics (and Germans) call it “Gemütlichkeit”.

Opportunity #2= Interior Designers who are trained to focus on the human interaction with the built environment should claim the mantle of the profession best suited to design interior spaces that improve the quality of the users lives.

How the Starchitectural zeitgeist plays out may take awhile. All I know is that in the meantime the metaphorical door is now wide open- Professional/Regulated Interior Designers need to walk in and make their presence known.

welcome mat

Don’t forget to put out the Welcome Mat though.

http://www.ibsglobalweb.com/2013/02/mr-wright-transforms-the-property-industry/close-up-of-a-welcome-mat-in-front-of-an-inviting-house/

WILL WE EVER GET THIS RIGHT?

SEE 10/14/14 UPDATE BELOW

At first I was concerned by the misinformation posited by the September 17th Huffington Post article “Arbitrary Interior Design Regulations Hurt Entrepreneurs, Consumers”. Much to our chagrin the Huff post has a pretty broad reach. Hats off to the Institute for Justice and their continued ringing of this bell.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-gowins/arbitrary-interiordesign-_b_5830782.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business
At this point posting comments to this anti-regulatory rhetoric is just pissing in the wind….makes me feel better though. Then there were rumors of an impending rebuttal from ID professional organization ‘A’ -the International Interior Design Association (IIDA). Finally 12 days later came
IIDA’s rebuttal issued via their own blog;
http://designmatters.iida.org/2014/09/29/interior-design-vs-interior-decorating/
Unfortunately IIDA was suckered into the unwinnable debate- what is decoration and what is design. Fortunately their response was issued to its members and not the wider press. Had it been issued as a press release (which it to my knowledge wasn’t) and picked up by the wider press I am not sure any non-designer would have any interest much less be able to grasp the nuances. Hell I know many informed interior designers that can’t explain the difference.
Then ID professional organization ‘1’ the American Society of Interior Designers issue this memorandum to I don’t know who one day later;
http://asid.org/sites/default/files/u34215/ASID-HuffingtonPost-Response-FINALdocx.pdf
While the ASID does a better job dancing around the designer vs. decorator issue there is one closing statement that just does not make any sense to PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER;
“Interior design laws allow designers to sell more products and hire employees as their businesses grow.”
Really…this is why we have been beating our collective heads against the legal/political wall for 30+ years?……So we can sell more product?……
Actually maybe it is a good thing these rebuttals are for a limited audience.

Here is John Czarnecki and Contract Magazine’s take on the issue;

http://www.contractdesign.com/contract/design/The-Need-for-a-Respo-11669.shtml

IIDA STEPS UP ADVOCACY EFFORT

SEE 10/01/14 Update below

In case you missed it the Huffington Post, bastion of the highest journalism standards, posted a commercial rant by an Institute for Justice blogbot that denounced the value of regulating Interior Designers;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-gowins/arbitrary-interiordesign-_b_5830782.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business

Which of course prompted the obligatory defense on several LinkedIn groups…..

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Message-from-IIDA-HQ-Advocacy-103871.S.5920610210409365508?trk=groups_items_see_more-0-b-ttl

https://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=956917&type=member&item=5918065460737232897&trk=groups_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=.gmp_956917

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Should-interior-designers-be-licensed-4361021.S.5918475262357446656?trk=groups_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=.gmp_4361021

Many of which devolved into convoluted descriptions, or arguments, of the differences between interior decorators and interior designers……unfortunately.  The IIDA thread is most compelling as IIDA HQ has threatened to issue a response to Gowin’s bloviation of IJ screeching points.  So in my search for this response (now 9 days from the date of the offending Huff post- an eon in internet time) I discovered a new video on the IIDA website promoting the importance of regulation for Interior Designers;

Hmmmm….well it’s about time.  Well done….but as usual there are a few points that stick out from these testimonials.  IIDA continues to spin itself as the advocacy arm for “Commercial” Interior Designers.  Does that imply by default that ASID is the advocacy arm for “Residential” interior designers?  Not to sure that will fly to well through the halls at 7th Street N.W. in D.C.

And rising ID star Sascha Wagner indirectly, but clearly (at 1:30), ignores the state of California Certified Interior Designer credential.  He is correct.  Something others are unwilling to acknowledge.  A California CID is not a licensed design professional (cue the CID hornets)

While it is short much of the information is current.  It does seem to be geared to the choir (other designers) and not the congregation (general public) which in my opinion is really what is needed to counter the Institute for Justice misinformation campaign.

Until that happens we as a profession will be doomed to bear a never ending barrage of anti-regulatory rhetoric and over-reaction by those who see ID regulation as a threat.  That includes the entire spectrum from the innately qualified self-proclaimed interior decorators to the turf-protecting American Institute of Architects.  And on it goes.

HERE IS IIDA’S RESPONSE  http://designmatters.iida.org/2014/09/29/interior-design-vs-interior-decorating/