Room For a View

Interior Design Legislation

Designer licensing is probably the most debated and controversial topic in the business today. Industry support and opposition groups across the country are planning strategies to advance their licensing goals while state legislators struggle to make decisions that are beneficial to the health and welfare of their constituents. Here are two diverging opinions from design professionals in our region.

PRO: The Case For Interior Design Legislation

by Bruce Goff, ASID

Over the past few decades interior design has grown considerably, both in what we are asked to do and what we are educated to do. New innovations in building systems and design as well as codes, green design and the ADA are transforming the interior design industry and changing the face of the profession. To date, 24 states have enacted some form of interior design legislation. Much of this legislation was enacted to codify the services interior designers can provide and to ensure that the public continues to have access to the services they find valuable. As with any evolving profession the last part of the puzzle is the legal recognition.

The American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) supports legal recognition of the profession through state registration.

• Interior design laws benefit the public in many ways:
  
• Ensures that they are able to utilize the services of interior design professionals to the full extent of their education, training and experience.
  
• Establishes a clear understanding of the education and training that the state requires to become registered or certified.
  
• Creates a method for consumer redress.
  

The mark of an interior designer is not only seen in the way a space looks but how the space is planned. Interior designers make decisions that affect indoor air quality, efficiency, space flow, accessibility, sustainability, ingress and egress, and safety. They also can ensure compliance with local building codes. Designers are trained to analyze the specific needs of the people who occupy the space and create homes that are livable, hospitals that reduce recovery times, schools that promote learning and offices that maximize productivity while maintaining safety.

All professions, including interior design, are regulated at the state level, so each state determines its own qualifications. Typically, for interior designers, it is a combination of education and experience, and passage of the NCIDQ. There are generally two types of interior design laws—title acts and practice acts.

A title act allows qualified interior designers to register with a state board to use a specific title. Typically it is registered interior designer. A title act does not prevent non-registered interior designers from performing design services. It only regulates who may use the designated title.

A practice act allows individuals to become licensed with a state board in order to practice a scope of work previously not allowed to non-licensed individuals. These design services vary by state but typically include code-affecting work. Most architecture and engineering laws have been written without regard to the capabilities and training of interior designers. This is where legal recognition becomes necessary.

There are various types of interior design laws in the western United States. In every instance, states in the West have either granted a title to recognize education, experience and examination without lessening the ability of non-titleholders and/or have opened up areas of the built environment where interior designers are educated to practice, but were previously not allowed.

Colorado has a permitting statute. This law, passed in 2001, allows interior designers who have met state standards of education, experience and examination are allowed to prepare and submit interior design documents that require building permits.

New Mexico has a title act passed in 1989, as modified in 2008, regulates the title of licensed interior designer and allows some additional scope of work. Nevada has a practice act that allows registered interior designers to work in all areas of design and includes permitting privileges. Non-registered interior designers have an unchanged title and ability to work.

ASID advocates for legislation that enables all interior designers to practice to the full extent of their capabilities. ASID supports acts that recognize state-qualified (registered, certified) or licensed interior designers. The society seeks to create more opportunities for designers to run their businesses successfully and efficiently—as well as to ensure the protection of the health safety and welfare of the public. ASID does not support laws that restrict the use of the title “interior designer” or prevent anyone from offering interior design services that are not otherwise already regulated. The goal is to open doors for the profession and to give opportunities where current law does not recognize the capabilities of interior designers.

Legal recognition through state acts gives the public another choice—a choice they might not have had.

Bruce Goff is the founder of Domus Design Group, a residential/commercial interior design and space-planning firm with offices in Nevada and California. A member of the 2009 national ASID Board of Directors, Goff has been president of his local ASID chapter and led the Nevada Interior Design Coalition, which crafted plans to pass that state’s interior design law.

CON: The Case Against Interior Design Legislation

By Lynne Forde Breyer and Robert Lashua

Efforts by ASID to institute interior design legislation around the country have been going on since 1978, with the first law enacted in 1979. Until the early 2000s, it was done surreptitiously and under the radar. In Arizona in 2003, Interior Design Coalition of Arizona was formed at the direction of ASID to get legislation passed in Arizona. Fortunately for Arizona designers, two designers—one an Allied ASID member—had done their research, knew the problems legislation had caused in other states and went to bat assuring legislation would not become law in Arizona.

And thus, the education of designers on legislation began in earnest. With the help of National Federation for Independent Business, an organization advocating for small businesses, and the Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit law firm that fights unfair government regulations, these Arizona designers were able to show lawmakers that the opposition was on the right side of the licensing issue.

Licensing that favors certain designers to the detriment of other design practitioners, as this licensing scheme does, violates the Constitutional right to economic liberty for all. ASID, through licensing, intends on forcing designers into a pre-determined box in order to control the industry by stipulating which schools designers must attend, mandating indentured servitude through a required two-year internship, requires passing the NCIDQ despite there being better tests that meet psychometric criteria, and refusing to count prior experience or design business ownership toward educational requirements.

NCIDQ requirements have been changing frequently to exclude more and more applicants. To take the NCIDQ, one must have graduated from a four-year Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA)-accredited school. Since there are few of these schools available, and they can only graduate a limited number of designers, this excludes the majority of potential designers. Fewer designers means less support for vendors, meaning vendors will not be able to build a solid designer customer base in order to stay in business. Everyone loses with licensing.

ASID hid in the shadows for years, refusing to admit they were behind legislative efforts. The question must be asked, “why?” if they believe licensing is good for the industry, a question repeatedly asked but never answered. However, after reviewing both sides of the issue, not one other industry organization is in favor of licensing except IIDA. ASID and IIDA make up fewer than 20 percent of practicing designers across the country.

The issue of health, safety and welfare of the consumer is often stated as the need for licensing. ASID claims unlicensed designers are a plague on the industry. We say, prove it! The Institute for Justice had the health, safety and welfare issue studied extensively and it is available at www.ij.org. The conclusion was that dating back to 1905, no serious harm has come to consumers as a result of unlicensed designers. After 30 years and more than $6 million, ASID has never been able to substantiate their position.

Recently, ASID-sanctioned schools have been trying to turn interior design students into quasi-architects, as can be seen on the “NCIDQ&A” section on www.plinthandchintz.com. This is a sure fire way to put consumers in jeopardy. If students want to act as architects, they should go to architecture school. Interior designers are not substitutes for architects.

However, the opposition understands fully, despite the insipid stated position by ASID hierarchy that unlicensed designers are nothing more than “housewife decorators,” that interior design has become increasingly complex as new technology takes hold in the industry. We believe a solid education in interior design principles, codes, ethics, product standards and their proper use are a requirement to properly serve the industry and the consumer.

Further, continuing education is also necessary to remain current on changing trends, products and techniques. Licensing will require designers to take CEUs, but it can’t make designers embrace these practices or be more professional. It is up to the individual how they choose to perform. Otherwise, the courts would not be flooded with lawsuits against real estate agents, lawyers, CPAs, architects and doctors, all of whom must be licensed.

Licensing is being legally challenged in many states, and, in most cases, the states are reversing or radically watering down their licensing laws, rendering them feckless with little more than a vanity designation. Currently, Arizona designers are required by state law to have a Specialty Contractors C-5 license if they do anything remotely close to what designers do in their daily course of business. That license will read “Licensed Interior Designer” if you request that designation. This makes additional licensing redundant and unnecessary. ASID knows that. Their attempt at licensing across the country is a power grab designed to funnel designer’s hard-earned dollars into ASID pockets. That’s a poor reason for licensing.

Lynne Forde Breyer, principal of Lynne Forde Breyer Interior Design, has been a full-service interior designer based in Scottsdale, Arizona since 1983. She has spent the last seven years involved in anti-interior design legislative endeavors in Arizona and around the country.

Robert Lashua, a licensed interior designer and general contractor, is principle of Phoenix-based r.a. Lashua Interiors, which offers interior design and remodeling services. He has been involved in opposing interior design legislation in Arizona and other states.