Tag: interior design regulation

IDCC & CCIDC Seek Input on Adding “Commercial” to California’s CID Credential

Familiarize yourself here and take the survey if it applies;

http://shoutout.wix.com/so/cLrIy9Gz?cid=9ca151d3-acaa-46bf-acaa-85e558baccfe#/main

So if you do not practice Interior Design in California you probably are unaware of their voluntary certification system.  It is confusing….even if you do practice in California but why should we care?

As the most populous state in the Union California also has the largest number of Interior Designers of any state, territory, or province…..by far.

As an outlier to the practice and professional advancement via regulation that the other 49 states, 10 provinces, and 5 territories (3 Canadian/2 U.S.) generally follow, California’s defiance to follow the  accepted system presents many issues for the broader Interior Design profession to consider.

The first is sheer numbers.  While IIDA and ASID have robust participation in California the broader profession suffers from California’s insular approach to the code regulated practice of Interior Design.  At a minimum reciprocity is not, and can never be, an option. Also the CCIDC remains steadfast in its control of the regulatory gate via its own exam- the IDEX Examination.  Of course California is free to do what it wants with its pursuit of right to practice issues for its Interior Design professionals but its voluntary self-regulated system is such an anomaly to the rest of the profession’s pursuit of state regulated practice that it may as well be another sovereign nation.

The larger profession sure could benefit if California were to move from a self-regulated system to a state regulated/licensed practice system.  The inertia and legal precedents would be helpful.  BUT….That said there are positive aspects to the concept of voluntary self-regulation that PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER admires.  Maybe we can adopt a hybrid system that will make everybody happy……California dreaming…..I digress.

The main motivation behind the inclusion of “Commerical” in the CID credential is the suspect manner in which California’s Building/Code officials review CID stamped/signed permit documents.  There is no consistency and unless a CID has a long-standing relationship with building departments and has proven that they know their business the ability to obtain permits statewide is suspect at best.  It is believed that by adding the word “Commercial” to the CID credential (not sure in what manner) that building officials would understand that particular designer has proven ability to practice in the code regulated realm.

I commend both IDCC and CCIDC for even considering this seemingly subtle title nuance.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

In Defense of Interior Decoration?

https://www.stevenstolmaninc.com/single-post/2017/07/16/In-Defense-of-Decorators

 

MoltingOwl

On the surface the above blog post ruffled my PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER feathers….Mr. Stolman clearly blurs the line between interior decoration and Interior Design which is a particular sore point with moi……..but.

While I appreciate Mr. Stolman’s impassioned plea for relevance I wonder if interior decoration just might wither away.  Maybe interior decoration will become crushed under the weight of its inability to add anything resembling real value to our increasingly harried and techno-focused lives in which the quality of those lives is getting harder and harder to manage.  Certainly it has always been an elitist pursuit and with the redistribution of wealth in the world, eliminating the middle and upper middle class, the market for pure decoration-as-art services is getting narrower and narrower.

Case in point http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/business/interior-decorator-pascale-duwat-closes-showroom-palm-beach/SRcBfTX2WbuL3EpM8oMI1N/ 

As Mr. Stolman notes technology has actually lowered the standard for entry into the interior decoration occupational domain.  Why pay when you can do it yourself?

With no real technical skills or body of knowledge to master before proclaiming oneself an interior decorator the occupation of interior decoration has always been more of an art than a necessity.  I now see a bleak future for the occupation of decoration.  Maybe that is just me hoping…….

Now we, the professional Interior Designers, have to make sure we do not suffer the same fate as predicted in this article;

https://www.inc.com/alex-moazed/is-the-interior-design-industry-getting-disrupted.html

 

LEARNING FROM NORTH CAROLINA’S EFFORT TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF INTERIOR DESIGN

or

What is the AIA’s Beef?

The latest example of ID regulation to consider is occurring in North Carolina where H-590 is currently making its way through the NC Legislature.  As of July 6th the bill has been referred to the Committee On Rules and Operations of the Senate.  I am uncertain if this means the bill is dead or it will be sent back out for debate when the NC General Assembly reconvenes in August (stay tuned).

While I appreciate that discretion is sometimes needed in the early phases of these legislative efforts I also maintain that there is a lot to be learned from each state’s efforts to advance the profession via title and practice regulation. Let’s face it once a bill has hit the state house floor it is public knowledge and monitoring/assessing the effort should not be some big professional secret.  In my opinion we do an inadequate job of keeping the general profession abreast of these efforts, particularly those that are tabled/sent to committee or fail completely, if for no other reason than to learn from other’s mistakes….of which there have been many.  In addition not all registered/certified interior designers are dues paying members of our professional organizations which does not mean they do not have skin in the ID regulatory game. We are all in this together.  To my point.

The North Carolina chapter of the American Institute of Architects has mounted an effort to lobby against H-590 and their pushback is enlightening.  In addition to the general anti-regulation contingent and interior decorators who see ID legislation as an infringement on their rights the national AIA is our most vocal and forceful opponent.  If we are to achieve any success in regard to pursuing practice legislation we have to understand our opponents objections so we can address them head first.  Let’s look at their formal opposition letter.   To wit;

  • “The AIA believes that the level of education, the experience requirements and the NCIDQ testing for interior designers does not appropriately and competently address the full array of health and safety issues that impact the public for interior architecture.”

This is a common statement of opinion by the AIA….we (Certified Interior Design practitioners) need to provide factual evidence to the contrary.  Based on my experience the NCIDQ exam is a widely accepted baseline vetting of a designer’s ability to appropriately and competently address the full array of health and safety issues that impact the public for interior.  That is the NCIDQ Examination’s focus and those that pass the exam are entirely competent to practice certain aspects of code regulated interior design.

  • “HB 590 looks to sever interior elements of architecture in an attempt to carve out building segments for less qualified designers. Severing the regulation of building interiors could do serious harm to the integrated practice of architecture.”

Again “less qualified designers” is their opinion devoid of any factual evidence.  Furthermore it is not our objective to “sever the regulation of building interiors” of which the AIA has established a monopoly that infringes on the rights of educated/trained and vetted interior design professionals from practicing to the fullest potential of their knowledge and abilities.  We are not here to take over your work.  We simply want to be fairly considered for work that we well qualified to perform.  Simple.

The stranglehold that the AIA has instituted over the past 50+ years on the regulation of building interiors actually infringes our right practice to the fullest of our abilities. This is a classic example of simple turf protection on the AIA’s part.

  •  “As an illustration, we point you to the devastating fire less than a month ago just three blocks from the Legislative Building. An entire city block of apartments under construction went up in flames threatening hundreds of residents in the fully occupied Quorum Center and the Link Apartment Complex. In the dead of night those residents were awoken by emergency alarms, they were protected by fire rated building materials, and they were escorted through smoke filled corridors designed specifically for fire egress for such emergencies. All of these systems are interior architectural elements and because of the education, training and testing of licensed architects, we are happy to report that these structures performed as designed, giving the residents and first responders the level of protection needed to save their lives.”

NEWSFLASH!  All of the “systems” Mr. Crawford mentions above are part and parcel of a qualified Interior Designers education vetted by the NCIDQ examination.  Mr. Crawford goes on;

  • “In no way do we believe this level of life safety should be compromised by allowing less qualified designers to verify building design through stamp and sealing authority.”

There he goes again with conjecture…we can prove that we are as qualified.  Maybe Mr. Crawford would like to sit for the NCIDQ examination so he can back up his claims.

  • No Evidence of Need
    “There is really only one reason for the State to convey a license for any occupation or profession and that is to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare.” WE AGREE! “There is no body of evidence calling for interior designer licensing. The public is not clamoring for, or perishing as a result of unlicensed interior designers.”

Then why, for one instance, is there a chapter of the International Building Code dedicated solely to interior finishes?  And we all know that Architects don’t do finishes (okay I can play the rhetoric game too).  The vast majority of Certified Interior Designers are unable to accept liability and own their work when it is regulated by local building codes.  As stated above most ID’ers are obligated to surrender their work to licensed Architects simply to obtain a building permit.  Granted the licensed architect assumes liability for the work of that designers but that could be why evidence of litigation involving the work of interior designers is negligible.  They do not legally own their work.  Yes of course there are legal nuances that provide for designers and specification writers and CADD detailers to be held accountable for their work even when signed by a licensed designer (think Kansas City Hyatt bridge collapse) but in general the licensed designer assumes basic legal accountability for the safety of a permitted project. Qualified/certified Interior Designers can prove that they have the knowledge and skills to assume this liability.

  • Consumer Confusion and Limiting Choice
    For more than 100 years, building inspectors and consumers have turned to the three major licensed design professionals; architects, engineers and landscape architects to ensure that their buildings have been designed and constructed according to the stringent building codes that are regularly reviewed and updated for current science and construction practices to maintain the safety of the public.
    The addition of another class of licensee able to sign and seal building plans for acceptance by building officials adds an unnecessary level of confusion and regulation that the building industry does not need nor want.

Times have changed.  It is time that the AIA accepts that the built environment has become much more complex and there are many professions that are performing work that was traditionally owned, or claimed, by architects.  The addition of another class of licensee offers the public an option to what is currently an economic monopoly that infringes on our rights to perform that work..

  • “Barrier to Market Participation
    The real reason interior designers seek to institute a licensing law is to create a protected market for their services. As stated above the only legitimate reason for the state to entertain such market limitations is for the protection of the public’s health, safety and welfare.  Interior contractors, kitchen and bath specialists and traditional interior decorators would all be prohibited from performing their traditional services if HB 590 is passed. We’d like to point you to an excellent study, as mentioned above, done by the Institute for Justice, “Designing Cartels: How Industry Insiders Cut Out Competition,” by Dick Carpenter, III, PhD. 
    The report covers most of the arguments we have outlined in this letter but it pays particular attention to the idea that non-health and life safety professions that have obtained or seek to obtain state sponsored licensing protection are in effect creating barriers to market entry from other professionals in the market place.”

This is a tired old libertarian anti-regulation song that can be rendered irrelevant in one sentence…. Interior contractors, kitchen and bath specialists and traditional interior decorators do not perform code regulated interior design services and H-590 in no way limits their ability to continue performing their unregulated interior design, interior construction, kitchen and bath work and decoration. In other words if your work does not require a building permit then this argument is moot.

  • “Monetized Conflict of Interest
    It is a long-held practice for interior designers to work closely with interior product manufactures in specifying their products for client projects. That’s not unusual in the design and construction industry as a whole; however, the difference within the practice of interior design is the lack of transparency and disclosure to the client about the monetary benefit the designer receives for the specification of those products. Interior Designers make commissions on the sale of product, other licensed design professions do not, and in the case of architects, they are specifically prohibited from this practice in performance of their duties to their clients under the following
    statute.

    G.S. 83A-15(3)(c) states:
    ‘It shall be unprofessional conduct including but not limited to:
    Knowingly undertaking any activity or having any significant financial or other
    interest, or accepting any compensation or reward except from registrant’s
    clients, any of which would reasonably appear to compromise registrant’s
    professional judgment in serving the best interest of clients or public.’

As interior designers have attempted to enact practice act legislation in other states, this issue has come up time and again. In all cases attempts to address the conflict of interest issue with some sort of transparency language has been rebuffed. We see this as a major consumer protection issue that cannot be overlooked.”

The impropriety alluded to above is common in the interior decoration realm where decorators maintain to the trade only alliances and yes…dubious pricing and procurement practices.  However, such practice rarely occurs at the higher level of code regulated commercial construction which is typically governed by legally binding contracts in which product specification and procurement practices are clearly spelled out or at least required to be transparent as part of the project budgeting. Professional/Certified Interior Designers are obligated by the same contractual requirements for product specification and procurement as architects.

Now if you want to complain about unethical business practices in the unregulated interior decoration realm we would be happy to join you.  But that is not your beef here is it and you should stop using it as evidence against code regulated Interior Designers.

Following is a list of talking points offered by the North Carolina AIA in the hopes that their members will use them to lobby their friends family and policy makers to act against the break up of their monopoly on the practice of regulated Interior Design…..I offer my rebuttal to their facts in red;

Interior Designer Claims Rebutted
IDs say: “NC Restricts IDs from obtaining building permits”
The Fact: NC requires qualified design professional to submit for building permits.

Well-hence the bill. 

THE TRUTH-North Carolina HB-590 seeks to expand opportunities for qualified interior design professionals thereby creating expanded job opportunities and consumer choice in what is now a very limited and restrictive aspect of the building design professions.

IDs say: “IDs must pay excessive fees to an architect”
The Fact: Categorically false and completely unsubstantiated. If unlicensed individuals choose to work in a regulated building environment, they must have a qualified design professional verify and assume responsibility for permitted plans.

THE TRUTH-While the adjective “excessive” is relative the issue is even for the most minor interior REMODEL/renovation or tenant fit up projects that require a building permit qualified interior designers must pay for an architect to sign and seal their documents.  The cost to pay an architect, or licensed engineer, to sign and seal the permit documents is seen as an added expense on the Interior Designers part.  If the interior designer were able to accept liability for their design by signing and sealing their own permit documents this would eliminate the added expense for the architects seal and signature.  Again, qualified Interior Designers who are trained and vetted by examination to perform limited scope regulated interior design projects should be able to act as their own “qualified design professional” on projects in which the scope of interior work is limited to non-structural and minimally affects the overall base building life safety systems and assemblies.

This will allow consumers to have more choices for their limited scope interior design projects and it will expand opportunities for qualified design professionals.

Interior Designers who are forced to pay premium fees for licensed Archtiects or Engineers to sign and seal their documents simply to pull a permit need to document those charges and quantify the added expense to their clients and their policy makers.  This can easily be substantiated.  Thanks for the suggestion.

IDs say: “Having to use architects to approve ID plans costs ID firms an additional 12%.”
The Fact: No basis of verification for this number.

THE TRUTH- Note to North Carolina ID’ers….you did not make up the 12% fee upcharge…..you should cite the source.  None the less this argument is redundant…see discussion above.  12% does not seem “excessive” but it is an added expense to North Carolina consumers that could be eliminated.   

IDs say: “Architect owned design firms will always be less in fee because design plan approval is free for them.”
The Fact: Plan approval is never “free.” The business costs associated with an architecture firm vs. an interior design firm would contradict this statement. The assumed liability associated with a professional license ensures that a licensed design professional assumes the high cost of liability insurance, something interior designers do not have in their overhead now.

THE TRUTH-Again this is another way to look at the issue of who should be able to sign and seal limited scope interior design projects and how the fees for signing and sealing permit documents is passed on to the client.  Interior Design professionals fully understand the legal ramifications for signing and sealing their documents.  Currently Architect owned firms that provide interior design services have a built-in process for the signing and sealing of permit documents which does provide for an unfair advantage over those Interior Designers who may not work within a licensed architect owned business.

IDs say: “The law restricts IDs from partnering with an architect to form a business partnership.”
The Fact: Not true. The NC Professional Corporations Code allows for 33% non-license ownership in a professional corporation. The Architects Practice Act is not the appropriate place to address professional corporation ownership issues.

THE TRUTH-So let’s say two professional designers, a licensed architect and a certified interior designer decide to form an equal partnership.  By law the Interior Designer can only own 33% of the company.  That is not at all a fair partnership. There should be no such limitations in a free market.  In many states the AIA lobby has managed to provide legalese both in practice bills and business/corporation regulations that limits or fully restricts the right of certified/qualified interior designers to own an equal share of the business entity. What are you so afraid of?

IDs say: “Creates voluntary registration for IDs”
The Fact: All licensing and registration is voluntary.

THE TRUTH-Interior Designers must include this qualifier in their pursuit of title registration so as not to incite the ire of the unregulated Interior Design community that sees such legislation as an infringement on their right to the title “Interior Design”.  The AIA does not have a dog in this hunt but if you really believe that all licensing and registration is actually voluntary talk to our friends at the Institute for Justice about their well-funded campaigns to litigate regulatory infringement and discrimination.  

IDs say: “The bill does not restrict any individual from referencing themselves an interior designer or interior decorator.”
The Fact: If the State is carving out a scope of practice for interior designers, this will create complete confusion on the part of the consuming public and regulators.

THE TRUTH-There is a fine line between a “Registered Interior Designer” and an “Interior Designer” but such subtle title distinctions are common in professional regulations….think accountant vs. Certified Public Accountant or financial planner vs Certified Financial Planner. 

IDs say: “The bill does not restrict any individual or business from practicing interior design.”
The Fact: Then what is the NEED for the bill?

THE TRUTH-The bill actually seeks to open up a market that is currently restricted by, and for the benefit of, licensed architects.  As long as building permits are required to construct interior design projects…many of which most architects would not consider due to scale, scope or lack of fit, certified interior designers will pursue these right to work bills to open up the market for regulated interior design work.

IDs say: “Interior Designers focus on how an occupant and the space around them inside a building is going to interact and function together.”
The Fact: Interior architecture includes all of this plus the very important relationship of how the interiors’ relate to all the other building systems.
YOU CANNOT DIVORCE INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE FROM THE REST OF THE BUILDING!

THE-TRUTH- You assume that code qualified interior designers do not understand “building systems”  Again I refer you to the breakdown of subject areas in the NCIDQ Examination and the Professional Standards as defined by CIDA.  Furthermore we both know that there are millions of square feet of interior space that exists quite successfully that is devoid of any relationship (apart from structural) to the exterior architecture. In fact there is an entire typology of buildings that were intentionally designed with no regard to interior/exterior relationship…Spec. office buildings or big box retail for example.  You also presume that a building can be parsed into interior architecture and exterior architecture.  Did you consult with any Exterior Architects to confirm your assumption? 

I think we can all agree that most examples of textbook architecture from Andrea (Palladio) to Zaha (Hadid) are admired because they comprise a holistic solution. There is no distinction between the design of the inside and the outside -other than one offers protection from the elements.  But we can also agree that these projects are the exception and much to architect’s chagrin this ∇ is the norm for “architecture” in the public’s eyes.

1200px-Strip_Mall_Troy                                                                                   (https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/9/6/strip-malls)

Shall we continue?

IDs say: “Interior designers impact health safety & welfare.”
The Fact: Yes they do, but their education, training and testing is incomplete to address all the building systems that must work together to ensure complete building occupant safety.

Well thanks for acknowledging that our work does impact HS&W even though this conflicts with other claims you make later.  Unfortunately there is no easy, or clear, line of demarcation between the legitimate scope of Interior Design work and that of Architecture.  Interior Designers do not claim to have expertise in “all the building systems that must work together to ensure complete building occupant safety” and we never will so calm down. We are not coming for your jobs.

Maybe instead of a wasteful turf battle, which is what this argument really is, we can begin to appreciate, understand and respect our particular knowledge and skill sets.  I can assure that qualified Interior Designers have a deep respect for your body of knowledge- so the ball is in your court -so to speak.  With that understanding and respect maybe we can begin to work together to understand how we both can improve our professional domains in a manner that mutually benefits our bottom lines and our clients interior spaces. I digress.

IDs say: “The NCIDQ exam formalizes a structure and path to ensure an interior designer has an adequate amount of education and experience in order to uphold health, safety and welfare.”
The Fact: The NCIDQ and its education/experience requirements does not come close to the necessary training and testing required to meet the minimum life-safety benchmark for stamping and sealing authority. See chart below that highlights the standards for interior architecture.

Unfortunately based on your rhetoric posing as “facts” below you do not have a clue whether the NCIDQ comes close to necessary training and testing required to meet the minimum life-safety benchmark for stamping and sealing authority.  Your arguments are misinformed at best. 

Finally I wonder why the AIA is so defensive when it comes to protecting such a minor portion of its domain.  I know many registered architects (AIA members and not) who support the idea of licensure for qualified Interior Designers. They understand the concept that educated and vetted designers make for better teammates and ultimately add value to their projects and even their bottom lines.  Do you really care about 7,500 square foot cubicle re-shuffles or 1,500 square foot tenant fit-ups? Could the AIA be threatened by the fact that Interior Design is a female dominated profession?  Don’t make me play the gender card- oops sorry guess I just did.  Could it be that Architecture, as represented by the AIA, is suffering from loss of relevance due to other emerging professions such as Project Management and Design/Build Contractors?  It does seem like you have bigger issues to address.  

Interior Designer Claims Rebutted;

Certified Interior Designers                         Licensed Architects

Education Requirement:

Minimum 2 Year Associates Degree                         Minimum 5 Year Accredited Degree

The facts.  In order to sit for the NCIDQ Examination an Associate Degree (60 hours of ID Coursework) is currently acceptable as long as the exam candidate has also logged 5,280 hours of monitored internship/apprenticeship (see Internship Requirements below).  The current pathway to sit for the NCIDQ Examination that allows Associates Degree with 40 hours of ID coursework & 7,040 hours of apprenticeship is being eliminated in 2018.  Needless to say that the work/internship threshold for the Associates Degree pathways provides for a higher threshold than simply stating “Minimum 2 Year Associates Degree.  This is an insurmountable hurdle for many AA degree holding designers to take on.   In states in which the practice or title of ID is regulated the minimum education threshold is far more stringent and none allow 2 year degrees. Of course if you care to really understand the facts for this important comparison you will have to read the ID acts in 27 states and thoroughly read the eligibility pathways for the NCIDQ Examination.  But why let facts stand in the way of your opinion.

Certified Interior Designers                         Licensed Architects

Examination Requirement:                                                                                         

2 tests 300 questions 7 hours total                           6 tests 605 questions 21 hours total

The facts. The NCIDQ Examination consists of 3 sections with 370 questions over a total of 11 hours.  Out of the gate Mr. Crawford’s comparison is moot.  Again if you care to know the facts please visit the NCIDQ Examination website.

Certified Interior Designers                             Licensed Architects

Testing for Code Related Issues:

Less than 15%                                                                               At least 22%

The facts. The NCIDQ Professional Examination (part 2 of 3) includes 18% of its content which is directly related to building codes and standards. The ID Practicum Examination (part 3 of 3)  includes 25% of its content which is directly related to building codes.  Again this is content that deals directly with building codes and does not include additional content that also tests for more indirect health, safety and welfare or “code related” knowledge.  Mr. Crawford’s numbers are not based on any factual evidence and therefore are moot. 

Certified Interior Designers                            Licensed Architects

Continuing Education:

0-6 undefined hours a year                                                     12 HSW hours a year

The facts. CEU’s are typically not measured in hours but in credits earned.   For those of you that prefer factual evidence over baseless claims here are the NCIDQ CEU requirements;

NCIDQ Certificate holders are expected to meet continuing education minimums set by CIDQ (0.6 CEU), a professional organization (ASID, IIDA, IDC) or a regulated jurisdiction.  CEUs must be tracked through the IDCEC System.  To ensure compliance, CIDQ reserves the right to conduct random audits of IDCEC accounts each year of those who signed the Appellation Agreement Form

In order to maintain professional membership in any of the North American Interior Design Associations there are strict requirements for CEU’s.  None allow “0 hours” of continuing education to suit their membership requirements.  Again in those states that regulate the title and/or practice of Interior Designers are held to CEU credits similar to licensed architects. 

Certified Interior Designers                          Licensed Architects

Education in Health Safety Welfare

None Required                                              Must graduate from accredited university                                                                                                                                                    

Wow that is misleading.  Here are the facts.  To be clear there is a difference in “Certified Interior Designers” that simply take the NCIDQ examination and those that actually practice in a state in which the title and/or practice of Interior Design is regulated.  But neither allow for a designer to become “certified” or maintain their certification without proving baseline competence and knowledge of Health Safety and Welfare issues that impact our work.  Most* certified interior designers have earned 4 year minimum degrees from an accredited institution that must offer students the opportunity exposure to and understanding of a multitude of HS&W content.  Again if you care to understand the facts in this regard, please visit the Council for Interior Design Accreditation website for professional standards and expectations for accredited Interior Design programs.

* While I do not have actual figures for this statement I am confident based on 30+ years of experience in Interior Design my generalization is sound.

Certified Interior Designers                             Licensed Architects

Internship Requirement:

3520 Hours                                                                                        3740 Hours

Given the much narrower scope of Interior Design work vs. Architecture this comparison seems reasonable.  Interesting observation to note here is that the NCARB is now allowing qualified candidates to take the exam based on experience and less stringent education requirements as explained here.  Furthermore, NCARB has created a “streamlined” pathway that allows certain Architecture degree students to sit for the examination prior to graduating and earning their work experience. Seems the numbers of ARE candidates has been declining for years due to the cost and effort to qualify for the Architectural Registration Examination in pursuit of licensure. Again I suggest that you have much bigger issues to concern yourself with than impeding Certified Interior Designer’s right to practice to the fullest of their potential.

So if anybody has taken the time to read this diatribe I commend you.

In closing I offer this;  The AIA and the Certified Interior Design profession have so much to gain by working toward a mutual understanding and respect for each other’s professional domain.  This petty turf war does really does nothing to benefit either of our professions.  I also know there are many Registered Architects that hire and rely on certified Interior Designers to help them create the best projects for their clients.  The AIA is out of step with the profession in this regard.

INTERIOR DESIGN OR INTERIOR DESIGN?

 Or “A Tale of Two Professions”

One of which has nice fingernails and one that understands the International Building Code

And we wonder why our policy makers are confused…………

Sure this is just one misguided policy maker but he is standing on the floor of the capitol building in Springfield, Illinois and he has a microphone (he also has a website ).  Yes his tirade was countered (by the bill’s sponsor I assume) but he was probably successful in sowing doubt among those who were listening in Springfield and many of his constituents back home.  Unfortunately if you listen carefully there was not a whole lot of attention given to Mr. Reick which means that his cohorts had either made up their minds or they simply did not care about him or his message.  Fortunately it seems that it was the former as the effort by Illinois ID’ers to create a Registered ID act passed. While not a practice act it does validate the importance of CODE REGULATED Interior Design being much more than interior decoration and worthy of official recognition.

Now if we can just figure out how to distinguish our right to practice at the highest levels of the code regulated building design professions as peers with, or independent of, our allied licensed design professionals before we get to the floors of our state capitols.

I know the answer is out there…….

Time for my daily manicure.

P.S.  (6/18/2107) So while waiting for my favorite manicurist to finish his previous customer PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER decided to check messages and notices from his numerous peeps….when this article popped up on the ID press radar…..

Martha Stewart says millennials are driving the the biggest change in interior design today — and it has nothing to do with millennial pink… 

Silly me I assumed professional interior designers were driving the biggest change in interior design……   Can’t say you never read anything of value here.

 

 

THE IMPORTANCE OF SELF-REGULATION & THE DECORATOR vs. DESIGNER TITLE MATCH

WWE-Triple-Threat-Tag-Title-Match,-RLA-Melb-10.11.2007

I have spent a lot of bytes on this blog pointing out the drawbacks of relying on Uncle Sam to validate our professional status via title and practice legislation.  Unfortunately we tend to lump our decorator vs. designer identity crisis in with the massive effort to gain regulation that codifies our right to work in code regulated building design environments.  This broad objective for legislation causes confusion among our policy makers and raises the ire of those who feel that we are infringing on their rights to practice as interior designers.

While some see the effort to advance the profession using government regulation as the only path to distinguishing the qualified, ( earned credentials from “NCIDQ Certified” to “Licensed” to “State Registered Interior Designer/RID” to “State Certified/CID” to “ASID/IIDA/IDC/ARIDO etc”) from those who are unqualified (“Hmmm my Mom tells me I have a flair for color and I feel like being an Interior Designer today!”), I maintain that it is our responsibility to enforce the distinction.

We have to prove to Uncle Sam that we are serious about our right to work in code regulated design environments with other licensed design professionals before we can expect his full attention and respect.

In other words, it is not Uncle Sam’s (or Mother Canada’s- for our Northern neighbors) job to distinguish Interior Designers from interior decorators.  Unfortunately this common perception that interior decoration and Interior Design are interchangeable is the bane of our effort to advance the code regulated aspect of the profession. How much time have you spent trying to explain the difference between interior decoration and Interior Design?  Frankly the differences are so subtle that it is virtually impossible to educate the uninformed in an elevator pitch.  Hell I have been doing this 35+ years and I have trouble defining the nuances in way that succinctly defines our differences.  We need to stop with the academic and abstract explanations and start citing tangible and justifiable examples.

Regrettably,  for the vetted design professional, anybody can call themselves an “Interior Designer” and no amount of legislation and regulation will change that. So how do we earn respect as regulated design professionals whose primary focus is the health, safety and well-being of our clients, if others continue to blur the distinction between vetted design professionals and those who decorate and claim to be “professional” or “certified” when they are not?

Whose job is it to make sure the code regulated Interior Design professional domain is clearly defined and defended?

The answer is that it is up to us to make sure those who claim to be “qualified”, “certified”, “registered”, “professional” and most definitely “credentialed” are in fact what they claim.  While it may seem elitist or protectionist to police such claims it is essential if we want to add value to our conflicted and contested profession.

We have to ask ourselves “can the general public understand and respect the difference between someone who claims to be an “Interior Designer” and someone who claims to be a “Certified Interior Designer”…particularly when they are practicing in a state that does not have title legislation in place?

I find the efforts of the Certified Financial Planners to promote their message of qualification to the general public extremely relatable.  The CFP board seems to be focused and proactive in this regard.  The CFP enforcement of professional standards is admirable. Their national campaign to help the general public understand the nuances between a financial planner and a Certified Financial Planner are quite effective in my humble opinion;

 

Keep in mind  that it is a violation of professional ethics (ASID, IIDA, NCIDQ) to claim you have achieved professional status, or earned professional certification, within those organizations, when you have not.  That line is typically very clear and inarguable.  Of course there are many other forms of “certification” and many ways to define “professional” but to claim you are a member of the profession it is easy to confirm- or should be.

We need to do more of this self-policing and we need to start calling out the violators wherever and whenever we can.  We failed to take ownership of the title “Interior Design” in the courts but it is not illegal to begin a campaign to redefine Interior Design by shifting public perception…..or helping people understand what it is not.

Case in point.  We have all witnessed the evolution of on-line design service providers…much to our chagrin.  Laurel and Wolf Interior Design seems to be one site that has gained traction in the competitive dotcom decorator posing as designer foray.  I appreciate the convenience for those who have the money to spend on interior decorator services and I appreciate the fact that many interior designers and decorators can earn income from this site.  We should not denigrate them but we certainly can differentiate by countering their claims.

So is this really “Interior Design“?  And are Laurel and Wolf’s “top designers” actually “certified” Interior Designers?

Well in my not so humble opinion NO- it is not “Interior Design”. This site is clearly about “Interior Decoration”  and is in fact the epitome of decoration (not that there is anything wrong with that).

Let’s start calling it what it is…a website that promotes residential interior decoration. Again not that there is anything wrong with that.

To the more important question of certification or qualification…… Let’s just say that Laurel and Wolf plays fast and loose with the idea of “Certified” designers.  Many of the designer profiles do not have any certification at all and several list unaccredited degree and academic certificates of dubious origin as confirmation of being “certified” Interior Designers.  A degree is not the same as being “certified”…that is a big stretch.

Let’s start reporting those individuals who may be bending the truth about their real “certifications”.  ASID/IIDA/NCIDQ should all have easily accessible rosters of current/active dues paying members so we can confirm false claims of professional or associate membership where that applies.  With that they should also be able to enforce their membership rules.

Other cases in point. Here are a few more examples of individuals, companies and trade practices that need to be continually called out for dubious if not deceptive portrayal of professional code regulated Interior Design services and/or interior decoration presented as Interior Design.  Again I appreciate the fact that companies and people need to earn a living but to claim you are doing something you are not is unacceptable and compromises my ability to gain respect for my skills and for accredited Interior Design students to justify their significant tuition investment.

Ethan Allen’s “Free Design Services”   Our design knowledge should not be free.  Don’t even get me started on trade only pricing practices.  Ethan Allen is free to run their business however they see fit.  However, we are also free to use their questionable ethics as an example of who we are not and what we refuse to do.

“Designer” Showhouses…they are decorator showhouses…period. Let’s start calling them what they are.

Kwikie design diploma or certificate courses promising successful careers as certified “Interior Designers”.  They aren’t and they don’t!  We have to have the collective fortitude to defend the term and title of interior design particularly when an on-line decorator certificate mill makes the following claim;

‘This online interior design course is a comprehensive program that will teach you everything you need to know to become a professional interior designer.’

Again it isn’t and it will not.  If nothing else we can help unsuspecting decorator wannabe’s understand that they are being mislead.  If we do not set their record straight, these decorator mills will simply continue to produce interior decorators who are empowered to misrepresent the profession of “Interior Design”.

Finally our professional membership organizations must do a better job of holding their professional members to the highest standards.  Again I fully respect a designer/decorator’s right to make a living and their freedom to self promote..but if you are going to sell pillows please understand that your message has broader implications for our effort to combat certain stereotypes.  I am sure this will tick a few folks off….I accept that…cue the criticisms.

We have to stop being concerned who we are upsetting….if they are clearly in the wrong then let’s diplomatically help them understand the errors of their ways.  We have to stop trying to be everything to everybody.  We have to accept being offensive so we can stop being defensive.

Or maybe…..just maybe I need to heed the advice of drag star and renown interior designer Ru Paul and stop taking this stuff so seriously;

AD: Would you say that drag influences your interior design sense?

RuPaul: Absolutely! Yes! Drag is all about reminding people to not take life too seriously. Our goal, our mission, is to say: This body you’re in is temporary. Have fun with it. Dress it up. Use all the colors in the rainbow. It’s there to enhance your experience. You are God, for lack of a better term, experiencing humanity. Have fun with it. Don’t hurt anybody else. Don’t take it too seriously.

(image: By jjron (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons )

 

 

HOW DO WE REMOVE INTERIOR DESIGN FROM THE DEREGULATION HIT LIST?

Deregulation is the current trend in State Houses across the nation.  There are many arguments for and against this effort.  I am not here to argue the merits of government regulation or the deregulation thereof.  Full disclosure- I support a common sense approach to government regulations and yes some regulation is clearly unnecessary but my specific bone to pick is…….

Why does the regulation of Interior Design continue to be equated with other questionable licensed/regulated occupations and professions?

In case you are unsure what my problem (among many) is let’s look at Florida House Bill #7047 which began working its way through the approval process in Tallahassee this spring.  This broad brush anti-regulation bill lumps the practice of state registered Interior Design with hair & body wrappers, auctioneers, and boxing timekeepers among other “why the heck do you need a license to do that?” laws.

To wit;

HB 7047: Deregulation of Professions and Occupations

GENERAL BILL by Careers and Competition Subcommittee ; Beshears

Deregulation of Professions and Occupations; Removes regulations on specified DBPR professions, including labor organizations, auctioneers & auction businesses, talent agencies, hair braiders, hair wrappers & body wrappers, interior designers, & boxing timekeepers & announcers;

 

Licensed boxing announcers?  Really? Hair braiders…………Whaaaat?

If you have been following how the profession of Interior Design has been attempting to advance itself by pursuing title and practice legislation for the past 45+/- years you know that the current deregulation effort in Florida is not the first such effort to “free up the market” by singling out those occupations, the regulation of which, might just be prime examples of government over-reach.

But licensed body wrappers?  Really? I don’t even know what that is…..

Licensed yacht brokers…..seriously?  If you are rich enough to afford a yacht you are rich enough to hire an attorney….that is if you are not already one.  I digress.

Again this is not the first time ID has been used as a prime example of government regulation run amok.  In fact I would say that the Institute for Justice has made regulated Interior Design the poster child for government regulation as an impediment to their free market/free trade ideals.

CASE IN POINT (posted 4/26/17- how timely) https://spectator.org/patent-trolls-dont-care-about-the-law/ 

This is not to say that the profession has not attempted to counter the anti-regulationist campaign to slander our profession.  There have been numerous attempts by the Interior Design academy to correct the record, most notably Caren Martin’s tit for tat debates with the Institute for Justice and our professional membership organizations have also stepped up their advocacy efforts on behalf of the profession.  IIDA recently addressed the issue of deregulation here and I know that ASID is investing numerous resources to extinguish deregulation fires across the nation, not to mention assisting newly introduced bills aiming to codify the practice of Interior Design.

But on goes the campaign to malign and deregulate Interior Design -apparently unabated.

Before I continue with my rant it is important to note that on the positive news front, as of April 20th, and due to a great amount of lobbying and education on the part of a lot of dedicated advocates for the profession of Interior Design in Florida, Interior Design has been removed from the list of targeted occupations to be summarily deregulated….for now ( http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/7047/ByVersion)

So what is my gripe?………Did you read the heading to the original bill above?

WHY THE HELL CAN’T WE MUSTER ENOUGH SOCIETAL RESPECT AND UNDERSTANDING TO AVOID THE CONTINUAL STEREOTYPICAL CATEGORIZATION OF THE PROFESSION OF CODE REGULATED INTERIOR DESIGN AS AN “OCCUPATION” NOT WORTHY OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION?

Now if you are still here….you may be saying “give it time-interior design is a young profession” or “we need to help educate our friends, relatives, and clients as to the true value we can bring to the table”.  Come on!  We have been a legitimate profession for about 40 years. We improve the lives and livelihoods of people everyday.  Our work has significant impact on the health, safety and welfare of the public 24/7/365…..ask any Architect who has signed and sealed our drawings for permit.

So I think the above question is legitimate.  I do hope you ask it with a bit more discretion but you need to ask it….ask the leaders of your professional organizations, ask your teachers, ask your mothers….after all she should know right?

P.S. EDIT 4/27:  I am going to answer my own question here;

http://www.delaware1059.com/lifestyles/entertainment/caitlyn-jenner-praises-kris-jenner-s-eye-for-interior-design/article_f82e7220-9a1b-51a3-8e34-d2b059cf0771.html

…….her eye for interior design….her eye…for interior design………..Good grief.

Well heck if all it takes is an eye…then no wonder we cannot convince policy makers we are serious about being granted a license to practice interior design……do you see where I am going with this?

P.P.S. EDIT 4/28: Warmed my heart to see this ray of hope…an Interior Designer takes lead on a major historic adaptive reuse project…

http://www.fox4news.com/news/248120334-story

If only we, the profession of regulated Interior Design, could get this kind of exposure everyday on every channel….maybe….just maybe…we could overcome our identity crisis….some call me a dreamer.

P.P.P.S. EDIT 4/28: Just when I thought things were looking up for the perception of “Interior Design” we get relegated to “on call shopper status”…… 

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/sponsor-content/bdc-designer-on-call-service-offers-personal-shopping-interior-design-help/

the brief moment of hope was nice….back to my regularly scheduled program of disrespect and typecasting.

PENNSYLVANIA PURSUES CODE REGULATED INTERIOR DESIGN AND REGISTRATION ACT

While much of the profession is watching the current effort in Florida to deregulate that state’s Interior Design practice legislation, Pennsylvania Interior Designers, as represented by the Interior Design Legislative Coalition of Pennsylvania, have submitted an Interior Design Registration Bill.  As of April 7th,  Pennsylvania House Bill #1102 has been referred to the Professional License Committee and as of April 19th is not scheduled for further action.  At this point no news is good news given the debacle in Florida.

PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER appreciates IDLCP’s efforts to distinguish “Code Regulated” Interior Design(ers) from those Interior Designers who do not practice in code regulated building design environments.  The inclusion of the term”Code Regulated” provides policy makers with a defacto distinction between those Interior Designers whose work is primarily decoration, thereby avoiding the building permit process, and those whose work truly impacts the Health Safety and Wellbeing of the public.  Previous attempts at framing this distinction have devolved into designer vs. decorator hissy fits prompting some coalition lobbyists to include terms such as “Commercial” Interior Design in their bill language.  But even then it is possible to perform interior design services in a commercial setting without triggering the necessity to obtain a building permit.  Semantics!

It’s all about that damn building permit and who is truly qualified to submit the required documents to obtain local jurisdictional approval to assume ownership and liability for one’s own design work.  More on that point later.

Good luck Pennsylvania…..we need a win.  If you are interested in helping or getting involved with the effort in Pennsylvania contact;

Angela Leigh Novalski, NCIDQ, LEED AP
Interior Design Legislative Coalition of Pennsylvania
Executive Board Secretary
609-820-5977
angela.leigh@cbre.com

MORE INFORMATION HERE: http://mailchi.mp/132c72276d1f/pa-hb1102-know-the-facts?e=[UNIQID]