On February 4th 2009 I attended a townhall meeting hosted by the Institute For Justice and the Interior Design Protection Council. The topic was the grassroots movement to get legislation regarding title and practice acts in the field of Interior Design currently in place in some states rescinded and stop it from spreading to other states. Like most of the general public, I was completely unaware of the in-depth training interior design students receive, the things that interior designers are in fact responsible for in an average project and the strict title and practice laws in place in my home state of Florida. I started learning about all of this when I enrolled at Palm Beach Community College in the Interior Design program. I had already decided that if I were to pursue a career in Interior Design I would like to do commercial work and was disappointed to learn that I would have to intern with a licensed designer for as many as four years after graduation before I was eligible to even take the exam necessary for licensing in the state of Florida. This was to be a second career for me and I would be 48 years old when I graduated. I wasn’t prepared to start at the bottom (again) nor was I interested in working for someone else. I spent a good deal of time looking for reasons that such strict regulation was necessary and never found anything substantial enough to warrant it. Many of the licensed designers currently practicing in Florida today were grandfathered in without having to take and pass the NCIDQ. Some of these Interior Designers were the biggest proponents of the legislation much to my surprise. I started suspecting that these laws were not put in place to protect the general public but to protect the industry from competition.
Interior Design Title and Practice Acts
Many states have a title act which is restrictive enough. This act says that anyone practicing interior design may not refer to themselves as an “Interior Designer” unless they have completed that states requirements for licensing and attained a license. A practice act prohibits unlicensed designers from doing any commercial work. If a state has a practice act in place than they also have a title act. This means that unlicensed designers who want only to do residential projects may not refer to themselves as an interior designer. I have noticed that there is a negative connotation associated with the term “Interior Decorator” among those in-the-know. The general public not only doesn’t know the difference they don’t really care. Most people are completely unaware of the education required to become an Interior Designer. Licensed or not, qualified individuals with that level of education don’t want to be called “Interior Decorators” even if the general public is unaware of the distinction. Besides minimizing their education it limits the unlicensed designers ability to advertise themselves properly.
If We Do Away with Title and Practice Acts How Will the Public be Protected?
All states have very strict building codes in effect. In addition, there are codes that individual counties might impose above and beyond the state codes. Anyone practicing interior design (licensed or not) must adhere to these codes. Commercial buildings must be inspected and pass inspection by law on a regular basis. If a designer (licensed or not) specifies furniture, fabric, finishes, equipment or installations that aren’t up to code, the inspection will discover it. Any designer (licensed or not) that continually makes mistakes in this area will soon find themselves not getting work.
Seeking Proof That an Unlicensed Designer is a Threat to Public Safety
Before I started this blog I set upon a quest to find documented proof that work performed by an unlicensed (or licensed designer) resulted in a public safety risk or worse. I have not been able to find anything on the internet nor anyone in the industry with stories they can share. Please share your story if you have one but be prepared to back it up with proof. Convince me and the rest of the world that strict licensing requirements are or are not necessary.
There is no legitimate argument supporting the need for states to license and/or regulate the practice of Interior Design. The anti-competitive laws regulating Interior Design in the state of Florida are in place due to the tireless efforts of ASID and their funded coalitions whose sole motivation is to limit competition and enhance the careers of those who are already members of their exclusive design cartel. The Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design employs a Tallahassee law firm to persecute and fine unlicensed designers. In many cases, the only complaint is that a designer has dared to use the term “interior designer” to describe themselves.
Three of the top arguments used by proponents of licensing are:
1. Health, safety, and welfare
2. Garnering respect for the profession
3. Consumer protection
ASID and its funded coalitions have spent the last 30 years advocating for regulation based on the canard that government regulation of the Interior Design profession is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. In all that time, however, they have not provided one verifiable example of anyone, anywhere being harmed by the unlicensed practice of Interior Design. (And, by the way, they never will because none exists.)
The idea that requiring government licensing of Interior Designers promotes respect for the profession, is another widely disseminated talking point of the pro-licensing crowd. Since when has it been the proper role of government to actively and aggressively promote and enable a small group of insiders to control an industry, thereby allowing them to limit their competition, and enhance their careers while putting others at a disadvantage?
As far as consumer protection is concerned, there are codes, inspections, etc. that are already in place that must be followed regardless of whether a designer is licensed or not. There has been no outcry from consumers that they have been harmed in anyway by the unlicensed practice of Interior Design. Furthermore, the Federal Trade Commission concluded that regulation would only serve to escalate costs and limit consumer choices.
In 2007, the Supreme Court of the state of Alabama struck down their Interior Design Practice Act. In his opinion, Justice Parker stated: “Nor should this Court embrace the paternalistic notion that the average citizen is incapable of choosing a competent interior designer without the State’s help. The economic liberty of contract remains a protected right in Alabama, especially in a field like interior design that involves expressive activity.”
“Convince me and the rest of the world that strict licensing requirements are or are not necessary.”
The effort to validate the profession of interior design via legislation is not the best way for the profession to advance itself. I am not a member of ASID/IIDA and I do not support Interior Design practice or title legislation. So no it is not necessary.
What is necessary however is that as a member of the profession of interior design (I do consider myself a professional interior designer) that you accept certain obligations to your profession and that you do everything in your ability to define, advance and promote the professional society. That means that you accept that one of the prerequisites for professional status is a strictly defined education and supervised experience leading to a test of one’s knowledge of, and skillset in, the profession.
You are free to criticize the effort to legislate interior design based on our supposed responsiblity to protect the health safety and welfare of the public. But if you are also going to eschew education, experience and examination as some grand conspiracy to exclude you from the profession then maybe you are not really serious about interior design and the professional society that it is.
In other words there are really 2 distinct issues at play here.
1. The advancement of the profession via government legislation and
2. The advancement of the profession via education, experience and examination amongst other less tangible measurements.
You should not confuse them. To do so indicates that you really are not serious about maintaining professional status and that maybe you would be better off calling yourself an interior decorator. No harm. No foul.
Great article, and great response from Concerned in Delray.
And Mike, I disagree with your stated requirements for defining professional status. “Professionalism” is, first and foremost, a state of mind an approach to things. It can’t be legislated, and it most especially has nothing to do with supporting professional organizations.
While I do agree that education and experience are important, there are many ways to obtain the requisite knowledge. I don’t see what role examination has at all in this (at least in the form of tests such as the NCIDQ) - unless it *is* to be used for practice or title act purposes.
So, I don’t understand the distinction you are making when you claim you are opposed to legislation and yet in favor of the very same process that the pro-legislation people are trying to set up as *the* path to being able to become licensed and to be able to practice.
To say that a professional society is nothing but a state of mind is patently ignorant. Being a lawyer is a state of mind? Being an architect is a state of mind. Being a R.N. is a state of mind? Come on now- you need to do just a smidge of research before you denigrate the entire act of earning status in any professional society. Unless of course you do not believe in holding yourself to a professional standard. I agree professional status cannot be legislated. But it can be confirmed in many different ways that have been proven and academically vetted over literally hundreds of years. So if you maintain that you are a professional interior designer I ask by what standards do you measure your professional status? (HINT: You cannot just make up the standards by which you deem yourself a professional). This is not a rhetorical question. I would like to know if you consider yourself a professional interior designer.
Now to clarify my position on legislating the practice of interior design based on our supposed ability to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public: It is stupid.
Is that clear?
So let me reiterate. There is a clear distinction between advancing the profession of interior design via education, experience and examination (amongst several other measurement tools) and legislating the practice, or terminology, of interior design. So for you to claim that education, experience and examination (as defined by NCIDQ/CIDA/IDEC) is part and parcel of the legislation effort is actually shooting yourself squarely in the foot by de-professionalizing the entire domain of interior design.
Be careful what you wish for.
P.S.
I appreciate the fact that you are willing to discuss the anti-ID regulation effort. You do not have to convince me that regulating or legislating interior design based on our ability to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public is wrong. It is. But what is wrong with your effort is that you have bought into the fallacy that you and every joe blow has an inalienable right to call themselves a professional interior designer regardless of actual skills, knowledge and abilities. Times have changed. You have to earn your right to call yourself a professional interior designer. I would be glad to explain how.
Hi, cool post. I have been wondering about this topic,so thanks for writing.
superdrupermegapuper54321…
Very usefull info. Thanks!…