Washington Votes

2008 House Bill 3223 (Addressing the practice of interior design)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Rep. Brendan Williams, (D-Olympia) on January 24, 2008, to establish a licensure program for the practice of interior design. This act, among other things, would require an applicant to have received a diploma from an accredited institution offering interior design programs. This act also creates administrative oversight and penalties for violations of this act. This bill is an update to HB 2895, removing subsection one under section seven, dealing with renewal dates.
    • Referred to the House Commerce & Labor Committee on January 24, 2008.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Brendan Williams, (D-Olympia) on January 24, 2008. New Comment

1) Interior Design Legislation Exposed in Wall Street Journal [by Anonymous Citizen on April 3, 2008]
Licensing Battle within the Interior Design Industry Heats Up!

(April 1st, 2008) Wall Street Journal Op-Ed article by Clark Neily of The Institute For Justice exposes ASID lobbying effort to pass Interior Design Legislation:

Read the Article:

Read the Article:

Watch Out for That Pillow

By CLARK NEILY

April 1, 2008; Page A17

Imagine you were a state legislator and some folks asked you to pass a law making it a crime to give advice about paint colors and throw pillows without a license. And imagine they told you that the only people qualified to place large pieces of furniture in a room are those who have gotten a college degree in interior design, completed a two-year apprenticeship, and passed a national licensing exam. And by the way, it is criminally misleading for people who practice interior design to use that term without government permission.

You might stare at them incredulously for a moment, then look down at your calendar and say, "Oh, I get it -- April Fool!" Right? Wrong.

These folks represent the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID), an industry group whose members have waged a 30-year, multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign to legislate their competitors out of business. And those absurd restrictions on advice about paint selection, throw pillows and furniture placement represent the actual fruits of lobbying in places like Alabama, Nevada and Illinois, where ASID and its local affiliates have peddled their snake-oil mantra that "Every decision an interior designer makes affects life safety and quality of life."

Legislative analysis by a half-dozen states that rebuffed ASID's attempts to cartelize interior design -- including Colorado, Washington and South Carolina -- has failed to support ASID's claim that the location of your couch or the color of your bedroom walls is literally a matter of life and death. As the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies put it, there is "no evidence of physical or financial harm being caused to . . . consumers by the unregulated practice of interior designers."

Lacking any factual support for its sweeping public welfare claims, ASID and its supporters often resort to fear-mongering. For example, licensing proponents frequently say the tragic fire at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas that killed 87 people in 1980 was the result of inappropriate fixtures and furnishings.

The fire was actually caused by an electrical fault and allowed to spread by a grossly inadequate sprinkler system. Investigators later identified 83 different building code violations. Another favorite is the 2003 fire at The Station nightclub in Rhode Island, in which 100 people perished. Again, that tragedy had nothing to with substandard interior design services. It was caused by an illegal indoor fireworks display and the absence of a code-mandated sprinkler system.
If there were any credible evidence that unregulated interior design presents a genuine risk to consumers, ASID would certainly have found it by now. They have had plenty of time (more than three decades), resources (dues for ASID's 40,000 members average several hundred dollars per year), and incentive. Furthermore, despite ASID's best efforts, only three states regulate the practice of interior design. That leaves 47 (including California and New York) where the ravages of unlicensed interior design could be easily documented -- if there were any.
So what is really behind ASID's relentless push for more regulation? Simple: naked economic protectionism.

It is no accident that the credentials required for licensure in ASID-backed occupational licensing bills are the same credentials required for membership in ASID itself. This includes a four-year degree from an accredited interior design college, a two-year apprenticeship, and a two-day, thousand-dollar licensing exam so irrelevant to the actual practice of interior design that many ASID members have never bothered to pass it themselves and simply get a waiver instead.
In vetoing interior design legislation last May, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels explained that the "principal effect" of the law would have been "to restrain competition and limit new entrants into the occupation." Mr. Daniels noted that interior designers were "hardly the only profession" seeking government protection from potential competitors.

The numbers certainly bear him out. Fifty years ago, only 5% of the American workforce was licensed; today it is nearly 30%. We're not talking about brain surgeons or airline pilots, either. Louisiana requires florists to be licensed (yes, florists), and in several states -- including Louisiana, Oklahoma and Virginia -- only licensed funeral directors may sell caskets, a state-sanctioned monopoly they use to jack up prices anywhere from 400% to 600%, a fact established in litigation by the Institute for Justice in Tennessee and Oklahoma.
Until it was struck down by the state supreme court last year, Alabama's interior design law made it a crime to offer advice about throw pillows and paint colors without a license. To anyone who thinks that law -- or others like it currently being pushed by interest groups like ASID in state capitols around the nation -- was motivated by a genuine concern for public health and welfare, I can only say this: It's going to be a rough day.

Mr. Neily is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) What to do? [by Anonymous Citizen on April 2, 2008]
A lot of griping going on here concernig all these laws, whether they passed or not.So "Just remember in November" to vote for THE only choice, Ron Paul. LESS GOVERNMENT, keeping our freedoms, and back to the Constitution. DON'T take down your signs, he is still in the running! GO RON PAUL !!
Reply New Comment

Line

3) California Interior Design Legislation [by Anonymous Citizen on March 25, 2008]
They lost in Washington State but the Interior Design Cartel of ASID/IIDA/NCIDQ is trying to pass an Interior Design Practic Act in CALIFORNIA.

If this passes, it will be used to justify legislation in Washington State next year.

If you have design industry friends in California the time is now to let them know about this DANGEROUS LEGISLATION.

-------------------------------

California Interior Design Legislation & Licensing-IDCC Launches Push for Restrictive Interior Design Practice Act in Califronia

We've just heard that the Interior Design Cartel ASID/IIDA/NCIDQ & the College Interior Design Schools are launching a campaign to pass a restrictive Interior Design Practice Act & Licensing bill in California. This bill will remove the voluntary system currenty in effect in California.

In California the "front group" for the Interior Design Cartel is called IDCC:
www-idc-ca-org

The Califronia Bill Number is Senate Bill 1312 (SB 1312).

Here's a statement from the IDCC website:

"The Interior Design Coalition of California Presents Practice Act Legislation"

The Interior Design Coalition of California (IDCC) announces that after three years of research and meetings throughout California that they are sponsoring Senate Bill 1312 which will be introduced in April. Senator Leland Lee, PhD, is the author, and the Coalition has been able to secure many co-authors to support this action."


Please contact your California State Legislator and California State Senator to voice your OPPOSITION to new Interior Design Legislation in California and the restrictive Interior Design Practice Act SB 1312 that is being pushed by the Interior Design Cartel and IDCC.



Reply New Comment

Line

4) Correlation between State Frog & Interior Design Legislation [by Anonymous Citizen on February 16, 2008]


What does the new "State Frog" and proposed interior design legislation have in common?


!!! Representative Brendan Williams !!!

Doesn't the legislature have any real issues to focus on?

Like Public health & Safety?
Bridges that could collapse?
Ferries that could sink?

???Inappropriate aesthetics???





Reply New Comment

Line

5) The New Unions-Forbes Magazine [by Anonymous Citizen on February 14, 2008]
Go to the Forbes Article that just came out called "The New Unions" by Suzanne Hoppough.

Register on Forbes and post your comments opposing interior design legislation.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) It's not just Brendan [by Anonymous Citizen on February 14, 2008]


You shouldn't just pick on Brendan Williams.

Representative Mary Lou Dickerson & Representative Sam Hunt also had their finger in this pie.

Who do they represent?





Reply New Comment

Line

7) But did the other sponsors even read the bill? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 14, 2008]
Probably not.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) Dumb legislation [by Anonymous Citizen on February 14, 2008]


Brendan,

Pick a target next time that benefits the public you represent.

Either stop wasting our money or move over and let somebody else do the job.





Reply New Comment

Line

9) Fiscal Priorities [by Anonymous Citizen on February 13, 2008]


Is there anyway we can get Brendan Williams to agree not to introduce this legislation again next year?

The basis for this bill has been soundly refuted.

How about we focus the legislative priorities somewhere else?
How about instead of State Frog, we try State Buffoon?



Reply New Comment

Line

10) Milton Freidman on Interior Design [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2008]


1) Milton Freidman on Interior Design Legislation [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2008]
Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, 1962

The overthrow of the medieval guild system was an indispensable early step in the rise of freedom in the Western world. It was a sign of the triumph of liberal ideas, and widely recognized as such, that by the mid-nineteenth century, in Britain, the United States, and to a lesser extent on the continent of Europe, men could pursue whatever trade or occupation they wished without the by-your-leave of any governmental or quasi-governmental authority. In more recent decades, there has been a retrogression, an increasing tendency for particular occupations to be restricted to individuals licensed to practice them by the state.

In the arguments that seek to persuade legislatures to enact such licensure provisions, the justification is always said to be the necessity of protecting the public interest. However, the pressure on the legislature to license an occupation rarely comes from the members of the public who have been mulcted or in other ways abused by members of the occupation. On the contrary, the pressure invariably comes from members of the occupation itself. Of course, they are more aware than others of how much they exploit the customer and so perhaps they can lay claim to expert knowledge. Similarly, the arrangements made for licensure almost invariably involve control by members of the occupation which is to be licensed.




Reply New Comment

Line

11) A million dollars????? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2008]


How can we trust Representative Williams with our money?





Reply New Comment

Line

12) Who foots the bill? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2008]
Representative Williams,

This bill is going to cost in excess of a million dollars!!!

Can we afford to spend money like we were drunk?

Doesn't the State of Washington have more pressing needs?

Like Ferries that are sinking?

What were you thinking?
Reply New Comment

Line

13) Fiscal Note from SB 6707 [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2008]


There is a similar bill proposed on the Senate side.

The fiscal note attached to SB 6707 indicates that the cost of this legislation over the next five years to be $1,141,798.00.

Who is going to pay for this?



Reply New Comment

Line

14) Research? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2008]
They never do any research. Sponsors also often sign on without doing research. It's a culture of you sponsor my bill, I'll sponsor yours.

Once opposition mounts the co-sponsors are often dismayed to find that the bill is highly controversial.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) How did this bill make it so far? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 9, 2008]


Did Brendan William's office ever do any research about the need for this legislation before the bill was introduced?

Was this just a favor for a relative?



Reply New Comment

Line

16) No silver bullet [by Anonymous Citizen on February 8, 2008]


It doesn't look like there is much legislative support for this bill.
The general consensus seems to be that "It's not prompted by any public outcry. It's called for by industry insiders to restrict entry into the profession."

Most of the legislators don't see a reason to antagonize so many constituents for the future support of very few (urban) designers.
It's a dead deal.

But like the dead, these zombies are going to be back again next year, or the next year or the year after that. You can't kill a zombie.

Maybe we should organize a proactive response.
If we had a standby phone tree we could possibly accomplish with a grass roots effort what they could not with a highly financed effort.

Maybe we just need a silver bullet, or daylight.
These types of people hate daylight.
They don't want anybody to see what they are up to.



Reply New Comment

Line

17) Committee Should Just Vote NO! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 8, 2008]
The best way to kill this nonsense is for the Committee to VOTE NO! and tell these Zombies to go away.

What usually happens is that they just let the bill sit in committee until it dies. This is OK, but somehow the proponents keep coming back year after year. The ASIDers are like children, somebody has to tell them NO! The problem is that the colleges keep pumping out new ASID zombies year after year.
Reply New Comment

Line

18) Michigan Interior Design Legislation [by Anonymous Citizen on February 8, 2008]
LEGISLATION
Writer assails proposed Michigan interior-design legislation.
In an opinion piece for Michigan's Lansing State Journal (2/7), Patti Morrow, executive director of Live Free and Design, a New Hampshire-based group opposed interior design regulation, wrote that Michigan House Bill 4772 "will harm interior designers and will harm the economy." According to Morrow, suggesting that "the purpose of legislation is to protect the health and safety of the public is simply wrong," because there is no "evidence that the unregulated practice of interior design places the public in any form of jeopardy." Noting that there is "no consumer outcry for interior design regulation," Morrow suggested that the "push for regulation comes from a small handful of industry insiders who want to eliminate their competition and enhance their businesses." Morrow concluded that 26 states not have the licensing laws, and Michigan "should not regulate occupations for the sole purpose of 'enhancing' the professional stature of some interior designers by putting others out of work."

Reply New Comment

Line

19) NC Designer [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2008]
Okay - Here is the real question for ASID, IIDA and the like.

I have a four year degree in interior design - from 1981. I chose not to join ASID, years ago, as my clients were not interested in appellations, behind my name, just my education and experience level. Now, years later, because of the requirements for the NCIDQ, I can't sit for the exam. Why - you ask? Because they say I need more class hours! The way it has been written, I'll need to go back to school and also work "under" another NCIDQ certified designer. Forget my previous education and 20-something years of experience.

I didn't and still don't have the desire to become involved in commercial design. I specialize in residential interiors. What is wrong with having different levels of certification for the design community? And . . . . why do you need to make folks go back to school, when they have the experience?!! Let people take the proficiency exams. If they know it, they know it, if they don't, they don't. There are study groups, held nationwide, to prepare for the NCIDQ exam. What is the big secret?

There have been comparisons of interior designers to physicians. First of all, don't flatter yourselves that much. Secondly, if you believe your own hype - Do you want a family specialist peforming heart surgery on you or a loved one? Don't you think, even within the medical community there are different levels of proficiency? Because you require your thoracic surgeon to know more than the family specialist, the family specialist needs to stop practice? Do you see how ridiculous it is to make one exam the "be-all" exam for licensing?

Our country is on the verge of a recession. If the "elitists" believe they can control the design industry, to their benefit, just wait and see how many vendors are pleased to loose customers. In times of economic downturns, they will be happy to gain all of the revenue they can. If they don't, they will go under and then you can see where you can go to offer your clients a variety of product. It all comes full circle.

I live in an NC city, at the state line of SC. The reintroduction of a bill - because some representative's girlfriend is an ASID member, impacts the area in which I live and practice. I hope this will be turned down, over and over again. Maybe the "cartel" will finally decide to put their funds to better use. Perhaps build a house for Habitat!

February 6, 2008 10:55 PM


Reply New Comment

Line

20) Interior Design Hearings [by Anonymous Citizen on February 6, 2008]
WA interior designers fight each other over license bill
By RACHEL LA CORTE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- The battle lines aren't over color swatches or accent walls, but interior designers are fighting over whether they should face greater oversight and be licensed by the state.

While groups like the Interior Design Coalition of Washington are pushing for more regulation, others argue that such requirements would put many designers out of business.

"What is the real purpose of this legislation?" Michael Bindas, staff attorney for the Institute for Justice, asked the Senate Labor, Commerce, Research & Development Committee on Tuesday. "It's not prompted by any public outcry. It's called for by industry insiders to restrict entry into the profession."

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle and chairwoman of the committee, said the measure wasn't likely to get out of committee this year.

Kohl-Welles said that while 22 states, plus Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, regulate interior designers to varying standards, there doesn't appear to be any consistency state-by-state.

"The bottom line is that there's too much controversy with this bill for us to adequately deal with it all in a short session," she said after the hearing was over.

Currently, interior design is not regulated at all in Washington state.

Under the measure, interior designers would have to be registered with the state, and interior designer firms could not use the words 'interior design' unless they were registered.

The measure would establish the Washington State Board of Interior Design, which would establish standards and procedures for registration, licensing and other guidelines.

Registered designers would be required to have a degree in interior design or 15 years experience, to have passed a qualification exam and to provide proof of two years of experience. The examination requirement would be waived for designers who are registered in another state and have a certificate from the National Council for Interior Design.

Registration would have to be renewed every two years.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and if convicted could be fined as much as $1,000 per offense per day they violated the law.

Marie Lail Blackburn of MLB Design Group, a certified master kitchen and bath designer with 20 years experience, told the committee that while she is a qualified design professional, she would not qualify under the measure as it was currently written.

"And there are thousands of other designers who don't qualify either," she said.

But supporters said that professional interior designers need to be held accountable for keeping people healthy and safe in the spaces they design.

"We need this bill because right now anyone can call themselves an interior designer, regardless of education or experience," said Stephanie Deshaies, president of the Interior Design Coalition of Washington.

Deshaies said that the bill wasn't about home design.

Instead, she said it was to ensure public safety and health in large buildings, where ergonomics, the use of nontoxic materials and other safety issues were at play.

Increased standards would benefit everyone, the bill's sponsor, Sen. Ken Jacobsen, told the committee.

"I really didn't realize there was a difference in training," said Jacobsen, D-Seattle. "Some people have extensive amounts of training and as a consumer, I want the market to work and I think I should be informed."

The bill would exempt licensed architects, retail employees giving advice on interior design or furnishings, or a person who gives decorative help in selecting things like window treatments, paint and furniture.

The Institute for Justice successfully challenged a similar measure in New Mexico last year, and is currently challenging a similar bill in Texas. Last year, the Alabama Supreme Court struck down a similar licensing law.

The high court ruled that the Alabama law was so broad that it requires people to be licensed as interior designers who simply offer advice on what color to paint a living room or what types of throw pillows to use.

Deshaies said that the Washington state measure was crafted differently.

----

The interior design licensing bill is Senate Bill 6707

---




Reply New Comment

Line

21) Retail Exemption? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2008]
You stated that employees of a retail establishment giving advice on materials would be exempt from this bill. What is the difference between a "retail employee" giving advice on a product vs. an interior designer giving advice? Oh, I know, it is the retailer from Big Name Industry like Home Depot & Lowes, that you don't want fighting this bill, so of course they are excempt...
Reply New Comment

Line

22) Standards? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 6, 2008]
Somehow the ASIDers think the longer their statements the more believable they are. This is the same old, same old coming out of ASID national as they try to force their will on the designers in Washington State.

Don't let them succeed.

The State of Florida has a practice act and they have hired an outside law firm to search the internet for any designer that uses the words interior, design, designer and Florida in the same paragraph on their website.

They then send out cease and desist orders and injunctions agains unsuspecting designers.

All this legislation does is legally allow one group of designers to use the government to put other designers out of business.

Reply New Comment

Line

23) Regulation [by Anonymous Citizen on February 6, 2008]
1) Regulation [by Anonymous Citizen on February 6, 2008]
There are currently no standards means for determining qualifications to practice interior design in Washington State: anyone can be an interior designer and perform the functions of the profession.

Those practicing interior design in Washington State are not required to have any formal education in interior design.

Those practicing interior design in Washington State are not required to pass a professional examination that ensures a minimum level of competency in interior design.

Those practicing interior design in Washington State are not required to belong to a professional organization which monitors ethics, professional standards, and continuing education.


It is possible for someone without education or experience in interior design to practice interior design. Anyone can currently design and specify materials and finishes for use in hospitals, high rise condominium buildings, office structures, and hotel tower. The only way to ensure that the public occupies interior spaces that are safe is to define and regulate those qualified to practice interior design.


While there are codes surrounding egress and interior finishes/materials, building and health code officials do not have the time or manpower to review construction documents to a level that guarantees 100% compliance: they rely on the credentials of the professionals working on the documents to comply.


All professionals involved in construction documents are licensed except interior designers. Architects, engineers, contractors, and landscape architects are all registered and all have specific areas of expertise: for interior designers to be excluded from regulation is an oversight that can affect the outcome of a project.


No one on the project team has the ability to ensure compliance expertise in interior design except those who have interior design education, those that have passed a professionally recognized examination (NCIDQ), and those that have appropriate interior design experience.


In projects involving only non-load bearing and non-seismic construction, no supervision from an architect or engineer is required: anyone can perform the functions of interior design. Regulation of interior designers would ensure that the public has a guide by which to gauge a level of qualification.


The selection of inappropriate interior materials can contribute to fires, including ignition, spread rate, deadly gases and smoke. Interior designers are knowledgeable of fire codes, and are often the only member of a project team responsible for interior finish material specifications.


Building owners are subject to claims made because of slip-and-fall injuries due to inappropriate flooring material selections and non-code compliant transitions between flooring materials. Interior designers know minimum specification standards that can minimize slip and fall injuries.


Special provisions must be made in public facilities to be in compliance with the ADA. Interior designers are aware of these provisions and are able to identify when current facilities do not meet code, to what extent building owners are responsible for changes to be made, and to facilitate those changes. Building owners can be subject to lawsuits and to personal injury and damage claims should their facility be constructed without regard to ADA.


The Department of Labor reported that over 2.5 million workdays were lost in a recent year due to injuries and illness. Many of these illnesses were reported as “Sick Building Syndrome” (SBS) and occurred for a variety of reasons, including inappropriate material specifications and adhesives used during installation of finishes. Individuals working in sick building environments for extended periods of time can develop flu-like symptoms. It is the responsibility of a professional interior designer to educate and assist clients in the promotion of healthy, safe work/living environments.


If inappropriate materials are selected for use within an interior space, they can fail and require replacement. Incompetent specifications can cause financial harm to project clients and the public.

Reply New Comment

Line

24) Show the supporters of this the door! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 5, 2008]
Once again, government doesn't need to be smart; it just needs to stop being stupid. I look forward to the day when we also license exterior designers, exclude interior designers and exterior designers from trespassing in each other's territory, and to the long debates in legislative committees over whether the front door is part of the interior or exterior of a house.
Reply New Comment

Line

25) More Confusion [by Anonymous Citizen on February 5, 2008]
You are right about the door. We also will have to define what is design and what is function. What is decor, what is structure. Its just a big mess. They are really going to regret this if it passes. They are so unpopular now, the public is going to despise them soon.
Reply New Comment

Line

26) Protect us from Interior Designers [by Anonymous Citizen on February 5, 2008]
What we need is a law to protect us "from" Interior Designers. The Supreme Court in Alabama declared their Interior Design act to be unconstitutional. Need more be said?
Reply New Comment

Line

27) Pick up the Phone! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 5, 2008]
Call the offices of your House Rep, your State Senator and every member on the Committee that will be hearing the Bill tomorrow.

It can make an impact! If you are opposed to this Bill tomorrow is the day to Pick up the Phone.

Reply New Comment

Line

28) Interior Design Hearing Tomorrow 2/5/08 [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
INTERIOR DESIGN HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW

New--> February 5th -- Senate Hearing Olympia, WA

1:30 PM in the John A Cherberg Building-Senate Hearing Room 4.


Reply New Comment

Line

29) Flammable marketing [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]


How come some designers on the IDCW board use photography of open flame candles next to flammable material in their marketing?

I thought these were professionals whose only aim is to protect us?
Reply New Comment

Line

30) Flammable [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
It must be a room smaller than 4000 sq feet. We don't care about people's safety until it involves more money.
Reply New Comment

Line

31) Focus: Just the Fact Please. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
Let's examine the facts first and diffuse the emotional driven responses from this site. It does not move the discussion of this Bill in a productive direction. It serves as a diservice to those who have legitimately come to this site to seek information or clarification regarding this Bill and to distinguish for themselves what this Bill really means to them. This is not an us vs them issue we are all part of the same group.

If you want to further the dialogue then please add only value added content and keep the irrational comments and emotions aside.

I am a part-time design student and have been an advocate for this Bill from the beginning. In the backdrop of this issue is what appears to be a general "misunderstanding of the legislative process, bill writing, and the law as it exists today".

The Bill as it is written is written in the langauge of how bills are written which does not take into account other current laws and statues, unless they relate directly in their affect on the new Bill including and not limited to jurisdictional, regional and fire codes) which are a part of the present law. The Bill will not recite current laws as they relate. So the interpretor must understand these provisions before one can understand the complexities of this Bill. Okay, having said that! I will get to the point.

We are all involved in the interior design process (the food chain) of this issue. The goal is to figure out where in the chain "you are" with respect to the potential impact. This Bill seeks to clarify just this issue based on the entire interior design process and the specific roles which inherently involve greater risks to capital assets, safety, health and general welfare issues at stake.

It does not seek to prevent fair competition or create a barrier to the equal rights of opportunity or employment, no one wins when this happens. This Bill simply seeks to protect where protection's do not exist and have been inadvertently overlooked in error. As the building industry has changed and evolved dramatically in the last two decades alone, so have the complexities of the laws, the rising costs of capital assets, the design and construction processes, and their regulations and codes, as well as the insurance underwriting for these types of capital projects. Let us not forget the lawsuits all of which have grown exponentially out of the matters changing and emerging needs.

The opponents arguments further evidence the fact that this Bill is important and is conservative approach to improve the interior design services (Bill's definition) and current practices in Washington State. The majority of the passionate, concered and significantly disenfranchised individuals appear to be individuals who do not currently have an understanding of their place and practice as it relates to the law and the regulatory codes which exist relative to the designing, and construction of residential, commercial and public spaces. I say this because if this were better understood then these individuals would realize this Bill doesn't affect them, nor would they be negatively impacted by its passing. If anything it would provide greater education and understanding for everyone who uses these services and would provide for more informed decisions on the part of the client, whether they are private or public.

If you are one of these individuals I am referring to as "them" then "you" would not be affected by this bill through the various exemptions, which by the way have been included to positively embrace all of those individuals who actively provide services which play a significant and important role in the "interior design services process" (the food chain) but who would not be negatively impacted as stated previously. The only individuals affected would be the unfortunatle few practitioners who are on the fringe of this bill (Reference the next paragraph to see if this is "you").

The bottom line is if you practice interior design services (based on the bills definition) for residential buildings up to 4,000 sq. ft. then you are not affected by this Bill. However if you do then you may be affected. (This is based on the assumption that there is an new ammendment clause which would quote the the 4,000 sq. ft. I have referenced as current law for architects (RCW 18.08.410).

Futhermore, if you practice interior design services (Bill's definition) for commercial and or public buildings where jurisdinctional, regulatory and fire codes apply you are definitely affected and rightfully so because this Bill is about providing better protections at its core. This Bill is designed to regulate a very specific aspect of the interior design practice which should be regulated and presently is not. Interestingly enough all other professions engaged in the design and construction process in Washington State are regulated but one, Interior Designer's (Bill's definitioin). This Bill seeks to distinguish just those individuals who commonly practice the profession of interior design and who make critical design decisions which affect the capital assets of the project as well as the health, safety and general welfare of people. As a responsible consumer and professional (because I am only a part-time design student) I would want to be assured that my investment (capital asset) was protected in all aspects relative to those inherent risks, ie. design, construct and executed within industry standards for safety, health and welfare for not only myself but for those individuals who would be at risk. The risk and recovery factor is relative to the protection against damage and the fair opportunity for recourse or recovery as well as protections against potential lawsuits if these standards were not adhered to.

This Bill gives you the consumer another layer of protection you currently don't have and frankly were not aware of was missing. As for the general public this Bill combined with current law provides assurances that these standards have been accounted for in a checks and balances method so that all the parties involved in the design and construction processes including and not limited to the interior design services (Bill's Definition) and decisions are executed in a manner which is consistent with industry standards for safety, health and welfare of it's users (people like you and me). This Bill is restriced to residential dwellings greater than 4,000 sq. ft, (based on new ammendment clause) commercial and public spaces where jurisdictional, regional and fire codes regulate the design and construction process.

True these protections I am referring to do not presently exist for residential dwellings under 4,0000 sq. ft. because presently the government has not found it necessary to regulate what would be considered the maximum square footage range cap for a basic, private residential, single family dwelling. (Above this range we may be discussing a multi-family dwelling where many more people could be affected and that is why the range is what it is presently by Law). There are naturally pros and cons to this but that is another issue and another day!

This isn't a conspiracy just a group, not a "special interest group" either but a group of professionals who are trying to improve the design and construction process in this state and who simply are trying to "do the right thing".

This issue has been blown way of proportion due to a lack of education and an awareness campaign for the interested parties and general public. Perhaps all the controvesy over this Bill has actually served just that purpose!

In the event this Bill does not pass we have clearly started a dialogue (passionate as it is)with all the parties in the design process (the food chain) that we can continue to build upon until we all have a better understanding of the issues at hand and can reach a concensus which would yield a positive result that all parties would be satisfied!



Reply New Comment

Line

32) Just a Group?? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
Some Group. This is a well funded campaign that has been going on for over 30 years funded by ASID/IIDA/NCIDQ and the college teachers of "interior design". Washington State is not the only state under attack by this "group".

Hopefully, our legislators will understand what is really going on and vote no.
Reply New Comment

Line

33) Blown out of proportion? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
The only people blowing things out of proportion are the sponsors of this idiotic legislation.

The government does a "Sunrise Report" only a few years ago stating that their is no need for this legislaton and IDCW tries to discredit the report on their website.

This is a solution looking for a problem.
Reply New Comment

Line

34) The facts [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
1. Nobody has ever been hurt
2. The codes are already in place
3. The public can read a resume already. Your new title will confuse them more.
4. This is all about putting competition out of business.
5. The ASID is ALL about legislation. That is their mission.
6. A reputation is earned..not purchased. The public will reward you with their business based on your portfolio and experience, not by your title.
7. This bill is an elitist attempt to use the government to market for them.
Reply New Comment

Line

35) Flammable material [by Anonymous Citizen on February 3, 2008]

I thought they wanted to make this illegal.

How come they use these pictures in their own marketing?
Reply New Comment

Line

36) Conflict of Interest [by Anonymous Citizen on February 3, 2008]
The website for IDCW publicly lists the designers who are trying to eliminate their competition.

If you look at the websites of some of these firms you will see pictures of work they have done.

Many of these interiors are utilizing flammable material.

Why is this good for your marketing but not good for the public???
Reply New Comment

Line

37) Its sandra Romero [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
This is the lobbyist who is friends with Brendan. This is why he's sponsoring it, because she has given him money in the past and he gives her money and favors in return.
Reply New Comment

Line

38) What happens if there is a recession? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 3, 2008]


What happens if nobody hires you after you are done with school?

Are you going to get fined $1000 for every day you try to find work for yourself?



Reply New Comment

Line

39) The fines [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
I can't believe you want to fine people for using words. Soon, you will ruin the title interior designer with your snobbery and you'll be lobbying for a new name within 10 years. This is a trampling of the constitution.
Reply New Comment

Line

40) The fines [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
I can't believe you want to fine people for using words. Soon, you will ruin the title interior designer with your snobbery and you'll be lobbying for a new name within 10 years. This is a trampling of the constitution.
Reply New Comment

Line

41) Question for Sponsors [by Anonymous Citizen on February 3, 2008]


Which one of your relatives is an Interior Designer?




Reply New Comment

Line

42) Not Relatives, Its the money [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
Remember, he is sponsoring this because his friend is the lobbyist for the elitist asid. She pays him, he pays her. He supports her bill for her and she greases his palms. Its a dirty little game he's playing. She is a long time friend of their family. This is her ONLY bill that she is lobbying. Its just sick.
Reply New Comment

Line

43) Government Responsibility [by Anonymous Citizen on February 3, 2008]


It is not the government's responsibility to make sure
interior designers are fully employed.
Reply New Comment

Line

44) smokescreen [by Anonymous Citizen on February 3, 2008]


Can the IDCW name just one person who has been injured in the State of Washington due to bad interior design.

I'm not interested in the statistic.
Just the name.

Any takers IDCW?



Reply New Comment

Line

45) Business Rule 101 [by Anonymous Citizen on February 3, 2008]






The reason the Interior Design industry is struggling to make a living is that not enough of the public perceives value in what they bring to the table.

The purpose of this legislation is to eliminate competition.
It's a simple land grab.

If you are struggling to make a living, offer a better product.
This is the way it works for everybody else's business.




Reply New Comment

Line

46) Business [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
This bill really shows how desperate the ASID has become. I think that it is important to note that a design degree does not teach business, civics or ethics. That is why they are struggling so badly. A design degree isn't worth anything and they are mad and resentful. nothing more to it.
Reply New Comment

Line

47) ASID-Follow the money [by Anonymous Citizen on February 3, 2008]
ASID is the leading proponent and underwriter of efforts to pursue legislation to protect interior designers’ right to practice, and has been instrumental in every legislative victory to date. Over the last 30 years, ASID has
Established and trained over 30 interior design legislative coalitions to lead advocacy efforts at the state level
Led the initiative to develop model legislation for interior design registration.
Contributed over $15 million in direct financial aid and professional support to more than 30 interior design coalitions in the U.S.

Reply New Comment

Line

48) Health, Safety & Welfare [by Anonymous Citizen on February 2, 2008]
The ONLY reason to pass legislation is if there is compelling EVIDENCE that interior designers who do not meet the requirements in the bill are dangerous. There is no evidence of this. Although, if you listen to the proponents of legislation you would think that every tragic fire in America was caused by rogue HGTV Interior Decorators.

All the exemptions they are proposing (and they will propose more) are proof that the proponents of legislation don't care one bit about the health, safety and welfare of the public. If rogue decorators are a threat than why all the exemptions?

Elevating the profession of Interior Design is a good thing but it is not the government's responsiblity to elevate the profession. If trade groups such as ASID and IIDA want to spend their members money advertising how wonderful their members are because they have a four year degree and have passed NCIDQ they are free to do so. In fact, this is what they should be doing instead of wasting their members money on funding Political Action Committees, paying lobbyists and giving money to legislators.

It is also not the government's responsibility to prop up interior design programs at colleges and universities. Students should enroll in degree programs because they believe that the tuition they pay will be a good investment in their career. Unfortunately, many universities promote their interior design programs with the veiled threat that legislation is a done deal in all 50 states and if you don't have a degree you will not be able to find a job. On top of that, once students have enrolled in degree programs they are bombarded with endless propaganda about why it is their duty to march on state capitals to push for legislation.
Reply New Comment

Line

49) Interior Designers as Fire Marshalls [by Anonymous Citizen on February 2, 2008]
I found this quote on one of the coaltion sites promoting legislation!!!

Did you know that there are over 700 fires per month in buildings accessed by the public where interior finish materials and content were the first items ignited? Did you know that those 700 fires per month cause 23 civilian deaths, 330 civilian injuries and over $399 million in direct property damage?
Did you know that qualified interior designers can help reduce the damage?

Reply New Comment

Line

50) We should Save the People! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
Okay people, no more carpets drapes or fabrics. We shall live a barbie plastic world. Also, no more candles lighters or fire places. Its just too dangerous. Wait, what if I step out of my plastic house and get hit by a bus? Oh my, we should out law buses. Oh, what if i trip down the stairs? NO more stairs!! Let just a get a bubble and put all the designers in it. Or a jail, i bet these criminals would look good the jails that they are designing.
Reply New Comment

Line

51) Firestarter [by Tritium on February 3, 2008]
That would be a good point, however... Rather than limit the safety factor to those who are licensed as Interior Designers, why not require all Contractors (builders), Plumbers, Electricians, etc participate in a danger safety course. Being "Fire Hazard Aware" should be sufficient.
Reply New Comment

Line

52) Amendment? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 2, 2008]



Where is the amendment that exempts projects under 4000 sf?
Reply New Comment

Line

53) Students Beware [by Anonymous Citizen on February 2, 2008]


INTERIOR DESIGN STUDENTS

Interior Designers are having a hard time getting clients to hire them. Their business model is not working. This is why they need to lock out all competition.

Do NOT be fooled into thinking they will want to hire you.
They can hardly feed themselves.

With this legislation, how will you get your license if you can't get a job????

DO NOT BE FOOLED.
They will tell you whatever it takes.



Reply New Comment

Line

54) THIS BILL: NOT A BAD THING [by Anonymous Citizen on February 2, 2008]
I can completely understand the concern students have surrounding this bill. The legislative process in itself can be extremely confusing. There are some organizations out there that have been misinformed and are using scare tactics to frighten people into believing that this bill will hurt people. I encourage everyone to READ THE BILL FOR THEMSELVES. You will see that there are several exemptions in there that excluded a lot of these groups.

To address this student’s specific concerns, I will start by saying that it is NOT hard to get a beginning level position as an interior designer. A lot of people are hiring right now, and if you tap into the right resources, you can have any job you want. Take my case as an example. I moved here 2 years ago, right after graduating, from the Midwest without a job. I sent out a bunch of resumes blindly, not knowing a soul, and had a great job within the month. So please do not let anyone scare you into thinking you’re going to have a hard time. And please, if I can help you at all, let me know, and I’ll give you my contact info.

To answer your question about working under a certified designer or registered architect: REGISTERED ARCHITECTS AND DESIGNERS THAT HAVE PASSED THE NCIDQ ARE NOT HARD TO FIND. I am frightened that anyone would imply otherwise. Can you imagine our industry existing the way it does with this basic level of knowledge missing? People would get hurt! So the answer to this is, no, you will not have a hard time finding a registered interior designer to practice under. I have 3 in my place of employment, and 3 more studying to take the exam this spring. The fact of the matter is, MOST EMPLOYERS ENCOURGE IT, AND PAY FOR IT! Now why would our industry be leaning toward supporting this exam in such a drastic way if it didn’t see the necessity for all interior designers to have the basic level of knowledge the exam tests for?

This bill was not designed to harm people; it was designed to elevate the profession as a whole. Currently interior designers are the only ones contributing to the built environment that are not licensed. To the students, I would pose this question: Why are you in school? Why are you putting all your time, effort, and funds into a degree in interior design? It’s because you recognize the value of an educated designer. You value the knowledge that our profession needs in order to guarantee our services to the public.

From the NCIDQ website: "The National Council for Interior Design Qualification serves to identify to the public those interior designers who have met the MINIMUM standards for professional practice..." And my comment to this would be that every industry needs a set of standards that defines the practice, and a technical basis for exercising its authority and assuring the public that its services are trustworthy. By choosing to get an education, you have taken the first step in doing this.

The basic fact of the matter is the general public has a limited understanding of what we do. Currently there is no method of allowing the public to make an educated decision on who they should be getting their services from.

After you graduate, if you choose to peruse a career in kitchen and bath design (a perfectly needed and respected specialty within our industry), and this bill has passed, you will still be able to do so. That specialty will still exist. I rely on these talented people (both from kitchen and bath, and cabinetry facilities) to provide me with complicated shop drawings on almost every project I do….shops that I could never do myself. Why would I support something that would put them out of business? That would only make my life harder! There was recently an amendment to this bill the will exclude any projects under 4,000 sq ft, which is the exact same requirement that exists in the architectural law. No one is interested in regulating what people do in their own homes.

If you want to go work for a showroom, those would still exist as well (and I know some fantastic reps I could give you contact info for!). Think about this: this bill is designed to mirror the architectural law already in place. All vendors/ showrooms that supply materials that architects use to build their designs are still doing so with no problems. Again I ask, why would anyone want to make their job harder by making the resources they use daily unavailable to them?

So my message to the students is this: Do not be frightened by this bill. Shame on those of you out there that are trying to frighten these people at an already scary time in their lives…. You call yourselves professionals? I thought it was our job to encourage students, to help them, not scare them?

Reply New Comment

Line

55) To the voice of REASON! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
This is lengthy so stay with me for a moment! I am an advocate for all the parties involved.

Thank you for your "voice of reason". I am a part-time design student and have been an advocate for this Bill from the beginning. In the backdrop of this issue is what appears to be a general "misunderstanding of the legislative process, bill writing, and the law as it exists today".

The Bill as it is written is written in the langauge of how bills are written which does not take into account other current laws and statues, unless they relate directly in their affect on the new Bill including and not limited to jurisdictional, regional and fire codes) which are a part of the present law. The Bill will not recite current laws as they relate. So the interpretor must understand these provisions before one can understand the complexities of this Bill. Okay, having said that! I will get to the point.

We are all involved in the interior design process (the food chain) of this issue. The goal is to figure out where in the chain "you are" with respect to the potential impact. This Bill seeks to clarify just this issue based on the entire interior design process and the specific roles which inherently involve greater risks to capital assets, safety, health and general welfare issues at stake.

It does not seek to prevent fair competition or create a barrier to the equal rights of opportunity or employment, no one wins when this happens. This Bill simply seeks to protect where protection's do not exist and have been inadvertently overlooked in error. As the building industry has changed and evolved dramatically in the last two decades alone, so have the complexities of the laws, the rising costs of capital assets, the design and construction processes, and their regulations and codes, as well as the insurance underwriting for these types of capital projects. Let us not forget the lawsuits all of which have grown exponentially out of the matters changing and emerging needs.

The opponents arguments further evidence the fact that this Bill is important and is conservative approach to improve the interior design services (Bill's definition) and current practices in Washington State. The majority of the passionate, concered and significantly disenfranchised individuals appear to be individuals who do not currently have an understanding of their place and practice as it relates to the law and the regulatory codes which exist relative to the designing, and construction of residential, commercial and public spaces. I say this because if this were better understood then these individuals would realize this Bill doesn't affect them, nor would they be negatively impacted by its passing. If anything it would provide greater education and understanding for everyone who uses these services and would provide for more informed decisions on the part of the client, whether they are private or public.

If you are one of these individuals I am referring to as "them" then "you" would not be affected by this bill through the various exemptions, which by the way have been included to positively embrace all of those individuals who actively provide services which play a significant and important role in the "interior design services process" (the food chain) but who would not be negatively impacted as stated previously. The only individuals affected would be the unfortunatle few practitioners who are on the fringe of this bill (Reference the next paragraph to see if this is "you").

The bottom line is if you practice interior design services (based on the bills definition) for residential buildings up to 4,000 sq. ft. then you are not affected by this Bill. However if you do then you may be affected. (This is based on the assumption that there is an new ammendment clause which would quote the the 4,000 sq. ft. I have referenced as current law for architects (RCW 18.08.410).

Futhermore, if you practice interior design services (Bill's definition) for commercial and or public buildings where jurisdinctional, regulatory and fire codes apply you are definitely affected and rightfully so because this Bill is about providing better protections at its core. This Bill is designed to regulate a very specific aspect of the interior design practice which should be regulated and presently is not. Interestingly enough all other professions engaged in the design and construction process in Washington State are regulated but one, Interior Designer's (Bill's definitioin). This Bill seeks to distinguish just those individuals who commonly practice the profession of interior design and who make critical design decisions which affect the capital assets of the project as well as the health, safety and general welfare of people. As a responsible consumer and professional (because I am only a part-time design student) I would want to be assured that my investment (capital asset) was protected in all aspects relative to those inherent risks, ie. design, construct and executed within industry standards for safety, health and welfare for not only myself but for those individuals who would be at risk. The risk and recovery factor is relative to the protection against damage and the fair opportunity for recourse or recovery as well as protections against potential lawsuits if these standards were not adhered to.

This Bill gives you the consumer another layer of protection you currently don't have and frankly were not aware of was missing. As for the general public this Bill combined with current law provides assurances that these standards have been accounted for in a checks and balances method so that all the parties involved in the design and construction processes including and not limited to the interior design services (Bill's Definition) and decisions are executed in a manner which is consistent with industry standards for safety, health and welfare of it's users (people like you and me). This Bill is restriced to residential dwellings greater than 4,000 sq. ft, (based on new ammendment clause) commercial and public spaces where jurisdictional, regional and fire codes regulate the design and construction process.

True these protections I am referring to do not presently exist for residential dwellings under 4,0000 sq. ft. because presently the government has not found it necessary to regulate what would be considered the maximum square footage range cap for a basic, private residential, single family dwelling. (Above this range we may be discussing a multi-family dwelling where many more people could be affected and that is why the range is what it is presently by Law). There are naturally pros and cons to this but that is another issue and another day!

This isn't a conspiracy just a group, not a "special interest group" either but a group of professionals who are trying to improve the design and construction process in this state and who simply are trying to "do the right thing".

This issue has been blown way of proportion due to a lack of education and an awareness campaign for the interested parties and general public. Perhaps all the controvesy over this Bill has actually served just that purpose!

In the event this Bill does not pass we have clearly started a dialogue (passionate as it is)with all the parties in the design process (the food chain) that we can continue to build upon until we all have a better understanding of the issues at hand and can reach a concensus which would yield a positive result that all parties would be satisfied!



Reply New Comment

Line

56) To the voice of Reason [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
That was a really long way to say that you want to protect health and safety and elevate your title. We've been over it. NOBODY, has been hurt. Your title is just a title. Sorry, no matter what you do it will still just be a title.
Portfolios, experience, results. Those are the only things that should matter.
Thanks for your summary of how legislature is supposed to work. I think most of the 'designers' out there don't understand it b/c their degree does not teach business or government. But, for most of us, we realize exactly what this is, and why it is NOT what our founding fathers had in mind for our government.
Reply New Comment

Line

57) Are you sure this bill is not bad? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
So what happens if....after I graduate I get a job working retail as a designer (like at Seldens), or for a kitchen and bath design company....I spend 10 years there. Gaining industry experience. I build a professional portfolio, and I decide I want to start my own design company. It looks to me like that wouldn't be an option. I would have to go work for another designer or architect for two years before that would even be an option... because even after 10 years design experience, a four year design degree, a great portfolio, lots of client referrals and a good salary, I wouldn't be qualified to SIT for the NCIDQ to enable registration....? RIGHT???

Am I missing something here? ASID/NCIDQ would still FORCE me to take another route... Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Oh, and what about the 2012 accredited degree thing....my school isn't accredited, and its 2008 now. I am supposed to graduate in 2012. What if by chance my school never gets the accreditation...like the Art Institute in Portland? Will my four year degree and thousands of dollars of debt be worthless on my path to starting my own design company in Washington State someday? Will I really be force to work for an NCIDQ designer or an Architect? What if I don't want to?

Reply New Comment

Line

58) From a University Interior Design Brochure [by Anonymous Citizen on February 2, 2008]
They are obsessed with HGTV.

As for the growth of Interior Design as a profession, the U.S. Department of Labor expects it to grow “about as fast as average for all occupations through 2004,” and that prognosis appears to be holding in 2006. In 2004 there were about 65,000 employed Interior Designers with approximately 3% of them self-employed, 2% working in specialized design services, e.g. hospitality, healthcare, government, in-house design departments, etc.; and 1% in architectural and landscape architectural services. The remaining 94% “provided design services in furniture and home-furnishings stores, building material and supplies dealers, and residential building construction companies.” Contrary to popular belief, the rash of television programs showcasing design advice has not helped the profession grow; it has spurred the do-it-yourself market and made Interior Design appear that a designer or homeowner can completely solve a problem in less than 30 minutes.


Reply New Comment

Line

59) Where is this amendment? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 2, 2008]




"There was recently an amendment to this bill the will exclude any projects under 4,000 sq ft,..... "
Reply New Comment

Line

60) Amendments?? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 2, 2008]
There are no amendments. What the proponents of legislation do is offer up "possible amendments" after they introduce the bill to try to buy off the opposition.

These amendments never make it into the bill.

Any why are they exempting the residential market? If there is threat to health, safety and welfare don't residential consumers of interior design services deserve the same protection as commercial consumers?
Reply New Comment

Line

61) Amendments... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 3, 2008]
...have to pass through many hands before they get put into the bill as it exists online for public access.

They are not used to “buy off the opposition” but instead to improve the original proposal. What’s perfect the first time around? Our own Constitution has amendments to it for the exact reason.

I think the fact that they are including amendments shows that they are willing to work with people, to encompass as many people as they can.

Reply New Comment

Line

62) Amendments? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 3, 2008]
Same old story. The minute the ASIDers get any opposition they start changing the bill.

Then they will claim that the new language makes everyone happy. They say this without actually talking to any of the opponents.

The only good amendments are ones that kill this bill once and for all.
Reply New Comment

Line

63) Where is this amendment? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 2, 2008]




"There was recently an amendment to this bill the will exclude any projects under 4,000 sq ft,..... "
Reply New Comment

Line

64) How do you get your customers? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 2, 2008]

You said:

"Currently there is no method of allowing the public to make an educated decision on who they should be getting their services from."

I thought this industry thrived from personal references.
If you do a good job for one client you get to have another one.
Isn't customer satisfaction the best source of new business?



Reply New Comment

Line

65) Read the paper [by Anonymous Citizen on February 2, 2008]


Do you not read the newspaper?

The housing industry is sinking fast.

Every one of us that is hired help (sheetrockers, interior designers etc) is impacted by this.

For you to say that there's lots of jobs is just plain smokescreen.
You may be working but for every 30 graduates from interior design school, only 3 of them got a job.
Reply New Comment

Line

66) Really? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 3, 2008]
Hmmm, really, that's funny, my university has a 90% placement rate upon graduation....

If those people aren't getting jobs, I question their education.
Reply New Comment

Line

67) Placement [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
Yes, they get placed as stock help at IKEA. Great!
Reply New Comment

Line

68) So what's the problem? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 3, 2008]
It's great that they are all getting jobs.

So what's the problem? Why the push for legislation? Let consumers and business people do their own due diligence so they can decide who they want to hire.

Keep the government out of it.
Reply New Comment

Line

69) Licensing will not improve your wife's business!?? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 1, 2008]
Consumer's don't care about these silly licenses and letters after people's names.

This bill is meant to help justify dues to organizations like ASID, to keep NCIDQ in business and to help colleges market their interior design degrees to potential students. All of the college brochures for interior design programs aggressively perpetuate the myth that you must have a degree or you will not be allowed to practice.

Consumers want to see your portfolio and talk to a few references.

Clients hire your wife in her initial interview because she makes a good impression and she is able to "connect" with the potential client in a way that makes both her and the potential client comfortable.

All this bill will do is drive up the costs of doing business for your wife. In addition, potential competitors (probably less qualified competitors) will criticize designers like your wife implying that they are unqualified and incompetent.

All you have to do is read their propaganda about the definition of an interior designer or the "difference" between a highly educated inteior designer and an ignorant "interior decorator".

Reply New Comment

Line

70) Tell me how this will improve business? [by dquigley on February 1, 2008]
My wife is a well-known and respected Interior Designer, with 30 years of experience, four years of education, two degrees (one from an accredited university, one from an non-accredited design school). During her 18-year practice in the Seattle area, she has built a strong and successful residential practice and has personally generated well over $300,000 in state sales tax revenue. She is an allied member of ASID, though she has not actively participated in that organization. We have read the proposed bill and discussed its content. Setting aside some of the more passionate and political concerns expressed in this forum for the moment, our question is more business related. Other than defining a process to reclaim her legal right to title, as an “Interior Designer”, how will this bill improve or protect her business and related revenues?
Reply New Comment

Line

71) Remodeling Contractor [by Anonymous Citizen on February 1, 2008]
Good question! Answer: This bill only serves a small cartel trying to manipulate the marketplace thru legislation.

Simple question, simple answer.


Follow the money trail.
Reply New Comment

Line

72) Remodeling Contractor [by Anonymous Citizen on January 31, 2008]
I don't design. I build. Actually, I build what you design. After reading the legislation and all of these comments pro & con regarding this legislation, Interior Designers need to ask themselves the following question: Would I or any of my fellow remodelers, want to hire any designer that supports legislation like this? Answer; NO

This legislation only attempts to utilize state government to munipulate the market for a very small cartel.

I'm not sure that the ASID ever gave any thought to the political repercussions of proposing such elitest legislation. Thats unfortunate.
Reply New Comment

Line

73) Viable career choice? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 31, 2008]
I just wanted to emphasize on the new bill number, this exchange on the original bill thread. This is very disheartening to those of us still in school for this career. I'm thinking of changing my career path because of this legislation and what it will mean for my future career/business choices.

3) Question from a student [by Anonymous Citizen on January 30, 2008]
I have a question… I am currently enrolled in a non-CIDA accredited interior design program. According to the NCIDQ website, I will be eligible to sit for my certification exam upon completion of my studies with additional 3 years of work experience under a certified designer or architect (all the Routes require some work experience). Does this legislation allow me to work in this capacity? I have always had every intention of sitting for the NCIDQ, but I worry that this legislation will prevent me from getting the work experience needed for me to qualify. I read the bill, and it does not seem to have allowance for this, unless I am interpreting something incorrectly. Also, how do I get work experience if Architectural firms only hire NCIDQ certified designers? How the heck do I break into the field if this passes?
Reply New Comment


4) Answer to a student [by Anonymous Citizen on January 31, 2008]
......getting a job in the industry out right out of school is challenging. An entry level design position at an architecture firm or for a Registered Interior Designer will no doubt be even more difficult. If you are limiting yourself to Washington State, and this legislation passes, the serious truth of the matter is that it will most likely take longer than three years to complete the required work experience to be able to sit for the NCIDQ. But listen, here's the weird part...as of January 1st 2008---work experienced is required to be "supervised" to sit for the NCIDQ period. In ANY state. SO basically what ASID is saying to you is NO OTHER TYPE OF INDUSTRY EXERIENCE MATTERS!! Does this sound absurd or what? I work with SEVERAL successful EXPERIENCED interior designers who have been practicing for decades, and have never accumulated this type of "supervised" experience. I am not trying to freak you out. But this is a HUGE reason why you should oppose this legislation! There are so many wonderful routes to professionalism in the interior design industry....to name a few...working for a design build firm, working for a kitchen and bath design company, working in a showroom...furniture, finishes etc. All of these types of jobs will help you immensely! You will learn SO much and you would be helping "real life" clients with their interior design needs! But if this legislation passes, and all of the places I listed above can't seem to find a RID to work for them, or don't already have one on staff....NONE----ABSOLUTELY NONE of that experience would help enable you to sit for the NCIDQ! Which you could probably pass in a month if you studied for it!!!
ASID is really making a horrible name for itself in the interior design industry. Members are abandoning them every day once they realize what they are doing to our industry. My advice to you is to oppose this legislation! Help keep your options OPEN! So that you aren't REQUIRED to take the NCIDQ some day in order to work in the industry of your dreams!!!
www-protectdesignfreedom-com This legislation is bad for students, professionals, suppliers, contractors, architects…the list goes on! Legislation will not secure your profession…opposing legislation will!


Reply New Comment


5) Interior Design Students should oppose this bill [by Anonymous Citizen on January 30, 2008]
Lot's of good questions.

Interior Design Students should seriously question the motive of their professors when they tell them to support legislation. Their motivation to fill up their classrooms is a serious conflict of interest.

Who knows what path your career will take and these laws give you absolutely no flexibility or options.

Research has shown that most interior design graduates actually end up working in retail and good luck finding a NCIDQ holder in a furnitute store.


Reply New Comment

Line

74) Question for Interior Design Professors [by Anonymous Citizen on January 29, 2008]


How many of your students do you think have enough core competency (or just innate talent) to actually be in control of somebody else's home remodel?


How many of your students would you willingly hire for your own house?
Reply New Comment

Line

75) Question for Interior Designers [by Anonymous Citizen on January 29, 2008]


Would you really want one of your "peers" to be in charge of construction documents if it was your house under construction?

I can understand you wanting to keep competition out of your industry, but would you really want these people in charge of how much your remodel project cost?


Reply New Comment

Line

76) Question for Legislators [by Anonymous Citizen on January 29, 2008]



Would you really want one of these designers to be in charge of your house remodel?


I suggest you have a private conversation with your builder.

He/she will tell you whether or not these people are of real value
or whether they just gum it up and make it cost more.
Reply New Comment

Line

77) What happens to the homeowner if...... [by Anonymous Citizen on January 29, 2008]
What happens if the mailman or neighbor makes a recommendation that has bearing on "aesthetically appropriate"?

Is that person considered a "decorator" under this bill?
Will they be fined $1000 for providing this advice?

What happens if a remodel customer inadvertently hires one of these "rogue" decorators and the interior designers become aware of this?

Does the remodel project get shut down?

Does the homeowner have to now select from a "List" of acceptable arbiters of "aesthetically appropriate"?

What happens if it turns out that getting a certification is really based upon politics (such as this bill)? What happens if they make a mistake and their errors & omission insurance is not adequate to make the customer whole? (Certification does not necessarily really mean credentials)

Does the IDCW have a balloon insurance policy to indemnify a customer against bad judgement by a 23 year old designer? (The presumable age of early certified designers)

If these designers provided such a compellingly useful and necessary service, why does the public not already beat a path to their door?

If they are this competent, why do they need to lock out competition?
Reply New Comment

Line

78) Let them have it. [by Anonymous Citizen on January 28, 2008]
I think I've decided I do not want to use a title that these "designers" use. They are such an unpopular and disliked group. Perhaps this is for the better. I am always proud when my clients tell me how much they like working with me because I am not snotty, mean and self conceited. I think I'd like to claim the title of "Non Interior Designer" Just so my clients know that I'm not affiliated with these people. But, we have to make sure that its only for us. If a "designer" uses that title then they have pay fines and go out of business.
Reply New Comment

Line

79) To the Special Educated Designers [by Anonymous Citizen on January 28, 2008]
My dear design friends. You have a BA in design and you think this makes you better than other people. Most of us have degrees. I in fact have several. As such, I do not need to join a club to make myself feel good. Please enjoy your small accomplishment. Most people understand that a trained rat could do the same thing. Most of us have a degree, a successful business and happy clients. Since your special degrees likely did not cover business, ethics or government. You should take some time to ask one of us who do understand this stuff why what you are doing is unethical and probably will be found to be illegal.
Reply New Comment

Line

80) Brendan, Did you change the bill number to dodge this input? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 27, 2008]
2008 House Bill 2895 (Establishing a license program for the practice of interior design)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Brendan Williams on January 17, 2008, to establish a licensure program for the practice of interior design. This act, among other things, would require an applicant to have received a diploma from an accredited institution offering interior design programs. This act also creates administrative oversight and penalties for violations of this act.
Referred to the House Commerce & Labor Committee on January 17, 2008.


Comments

Introduced by Rep. Brendan Williams on January 17, 2008. New Comment

1) Are you going to close my business down? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 27, 2008]
I'm an interior designer.
I have many satisfied customers.
My work is all based on referral.

Are you going to close my business down?
Reply New Comment


2) Shut your business down [by Anonymous Citizen on January 27, 2008]
They will if you don't speak up and call your state rep and state senator, or better yet, pay them a visit in Olympia.
Reply New Comment


3) Are you going to close my business down? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 27, 2008]
I'm an interior designer.
I have many satisfied customers.
My work is all based on referral.

Are you going to close my business down?
Reply New Comment


4) Forcing us to join their club [by Anonymous Citizen on January 26, 2008]
That is all this is. More revenue by force to the ASID. That is like forcing us to join a religion. Most normal designers do NOT want to associate with this group. They have serious ethical issues and wreak with elitism. I qualify for this group, but I'd rather go out of business than join this cartel. I can't see how it legal to make me do this!
Reply New Comment


5) Investigate [by Anonymous Citizen on January 26, 2008]
It sounds like this bill is all about Brendan's family and corruption. Why does he want us out of business? I think some investigation into this is called for.
Reply New Comment


6) Boycott Starbucks [by Anonymous Citizen on January 26, 2008]
I know it's difficult to do but guess who one of the advocates for this licensing scheme is:

Jackie Hanson, ASID | Past PresidentStarbucks Coffee Company | email“I’m so happy to have been given the opportunity to pursue a career in interior design. I’ve had the opportunity to work on many wonderful projects, which have introduced me to so many talented individuals. The industry has come a long way in the twenty years that I’ve been practicing, but I know it can go farther: legislation is a tool that will elevate the profession and protect the general public. When I look back in another twenty years, I’m confident that the best “project” I’ll ever have is fighting for interior design legislation.”
Reply New Comment


7) What? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 26, 2008]
The state frog, bigger bottles of malt liquor now this. Where do you pull these from Brendon? Obviously you can be bought at any price. I'm sure glad you aren't in my district.
Reply New Comment


8) New Bill Number-Interior Design [by Anonymous Citizen on January 26, 2008]
They just lost 4 of the 7 sponsors in the House. They remaining 3 are Williams, Hunt & Dickerson. I guess that's why they changed the bill number. Keep in mind that an identical bill has been sponsored in the Senate. (I'm sure the sponsors have never even read the bill).

They must have taken some big bucks $$ from ASID or they wouldn't continue to sponsor this nonsense.

This is politics 101. Pick up the phone and call their offices.

Tell them that you are an interior designer and you are "mad as hell and you aren't going to take it anymore".
Reply New Comment


9) It's 3223 Now [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
They changed the number of the bill. So make sure you follow that one now. I don't know why? Brendan, can you please tell us why?
You can look the bill up on this site and I guess post your comments there now. Do we have to RE-Email our legislators now too??
Reply New Comment


10) Updated, new bill# [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
FYI - this bill has been updated as HB 3223!
Reply New Comment


11) lobbyist [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
I think the lobbyist for the IDCW is a friend of the WIlliam's family. hmmm?
Reply New Comment


12) Lobbyist Sandra Romero [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
Yes, She is a very very good friend of Brendan's Family. They give her money, she gives them money. This gives me a sick feeling in my stomach. Why would Brendan take on such a sick cause like this? If it is legal, it shouldn't be! Check the public records. His step mother: Melanie Stewart is a lobbyist and good friend of Sandra. So, in kind Brendan has been giving her money and she in return gives Brendan money. Now she is the NCID's lobbyist and got him to introduce the bill. Like someone said earlier, Brendan could be bought with $20.00 and drink.
Reply New Comment


13) The Lobbyist [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
Look at her website. Brendan Williams is on her steering committee and his father is a major supporter. This is sounds messy? This is why Brendan is taking on her ASID cartel cause.
Reply New Comment


14) Re: Lobbyist [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
His step mother who lives in Olympia near him is a major lobbyist. So yes, the lobbyist is a friend of hers and the family!
Reply New Comment


15) Lobbying for dollars [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
Yes, she contributed to his campaign and now he is contributing to her campaign for a local race. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Both of his parents and his wife are friends of hers. Easy money if you can get it.
Reply New Comment


16) Lobbyist [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
Actually, He contributed to her campaign too. Years ago. They have all been family friends for a long time. They give and take favors. Its old Olympia Corrupt Politics.
Reply New Comment


17) not surprising [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
this bill is a travesty. it's not surprising that they are all old pals. Looks like IDCW didn't do their research.... All of this info is SO easy to find online! OR perhaps they did do their research! I guess this is the only game they have. Playing with people’s lives, careers, and educations.... Do you think their having fun...? It's sinister. Disgusting.
Reply New Comment


18) Does this make Brendan Corrupt? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
I think we deserve an answer Brendan! What is going on here. Politicians always go down when they cover things up. Tell the truth now! This has nothing to do with safety does it? To the average gal, it sounds like you are trying to please your step mama!
Reply New Comment


19) Lobbyist Sandra Romero [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
She was active in donating to his campaign. Nice how this all works isn't it! Now she is working for ASID and her friend Brendan is pushing her bill for her. What a tangled web.
Reply New Comment


20) Sheep!!! BAhhh BAhhh! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
baaah baaah IDCW sheep have you any ideas of your own?....no sir no sir....just a bunch of ideas shoved down our throat by ASID....IDCW is....made up of "ladies" who need some recognition... maybe it was the architects who made you feel so stupid...made you feel the need to latch on to something...important? FIGHT FOR..... INTERIOR DESIGN!!!! YEY!!!! You're important now!!! YEY! YOU HAVE A PORPOSE IN LIFE!!! YEY!!! YOU’RE ACTING LIKE REAL MEN NOW!!! Good job soldiers!

Reply New Comment


21) Re Sheep [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
Ladies, let's not turn to ugly insults. What did a sheep ever do to you?
Reply New Comment


22) RE RE Sheep [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
Well as many of you know...sheep are led...in herds.... by a shepherd… The duty of a shepherd is to keep their flock intact and protect it from wolves and other predators. The shepherd is also used to supervise the migration of the flock and ensured they made it to market areas in time for shearing....so when I say sheep....it’s not necessarily an insult… it’s a factual analogy.

ASID is the Shepherd, IDCW supporters are the sheep. ASID is trying to protect you from the wolves….guiding you, supervising you and your actions. The predators might just be the designers…with all the talent…getting the business! Can’t you see it IDCW? ASID is leading you to the free market….and exposing you! You’re true colors…you’ve been sheered! Remember IDCW, your shepherd can’t protect you forever…someday you will be forced to stand on your own, vulnerable and humbled.
We’d like to see your portfolios, client testimonials and referrals, not your shepherd’s initials!

Reply New Comment


23) Re Sheep [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
I see. That make sense, the ASID is much like cult. Its kind of like trying to force us all to believe in the same religion. Their Mantra is basically: "If you don't conform, we will smash you all."
Reply New Comment


24) Life Safety [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
Please remember, fabric specification is only a small concern in regards to life safety. Anyone who actually abides by the codes would know the main issue does not lie within finishes, but space planning. This is something only learned through education and the appropriate experience. Please don't be fooled by designers who claim this bill is useless because "pretty design" isn't a public safety issue.
Reply New Comment


25) Clarify [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
Please give an example of when space planning injured someone. The codes that already exist protect people from this already. That is why nobody has been hurt by space planning. The law is already there. This is again, only about titles.
Reply New Comment


26) Mr. Anonymous Critic (Again) [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
BACKGROUND PAPER FOR HEARING

CALIFORNIA COUNCIL FOR INTERIOR DESIGN CERTIFICATION

IDENTIFIED ISSUES, QUESTIONS FOR CCIDC, BACKGROUND CONCERNING ISSUES, AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS


PRIOR SUNSET REVIEW:

In 1990, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 153 (Craven) (Chapter 396, Statutes of 1990), which provided for a voluntary system whereby an interior designer could become certified and obtain a stamp from an interior design organization by demonstrating their competency by means of education, experience and examination (B&P Code Section 5800 - 5810). The California Council for Interior Design Certification (CCIDC) was established in January 1992, with the intent of being the organization responsible for determining whether interior designers met the education, experience and examination requirements.

The Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee (JLSRC) last reviewed CCIDC five (5) years ago (1995-96). The JLSRC identified a number of issues and problem areas concerning the voluntary certification system. For example, the JLSRC noted that concerns have been raised that the interior design law provides for a state-sanctioned cartel, which can raise fees and revenues without any oversight, where only a select few are allowed to become certified and any requirement of stamp certification by governmental agencies may restrict competition for a large number of otherwise qualified interior designers. The JLSRC also noted that there is no evidence that eliminating the voluntary certification would endanger the health, safety or welfare of the public or cause significant public harm nor does there appear to be any significant public demand for the regulation of interior designers.

That is what was said about similar attempts to control the marketplace by the same cartel in California. Where's the beef? It is apparently been proven time and again that there is no need for this legislation Mr. Williams! What is the ASID promising you for proposing this kind of legislation? Because what you're getting is a serious dose of a lack of credibility from the communities that you claim to be protecting.

The opposition to this legislation shall be overwhelming, Mr. Williams. HB 2895 is D.O.A.
Reply New Comment


27) California [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
California actually has an unusual law with voluntary registration that accepts tests from several other trade groups including NKBA (National Kitchen & Bath Association).

Of course the ASIDers are hard at work in California to overturn the voluntary system and implement a NCIDQ ONLY licensing scheme.

The best licensing scheme is none at all.
Reply New Comment


28) No Conumer Outcry....NONE [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
Has anyone noticed that it is NOT the consumer crying out for protection from interior designers/decorators/home beautification specialists/people who make things pretty or whatever vernacular you prefer? Have you noticed that is is NOT any other industry organization other than ASID and IIDA (who so desperately wants to merge with ASID) crying out for legislation? Have you noticed that legislators as a body are NOT crying out for legislation. Wouldn't any reasonable person take that to mean that there is no problem with unlicensed whoevers (I'm loath to use the term interior designers so as not to upset folks)? If not, wouldn't the records kept since 1907 showing only 4 suits against designers by consumers on issues other than contractural issues be sufficient? And has anyone noticed that since the first Practice Act was established in 1982, most of the claims are designers turning each other in? Do these coalitions and proponents who have been hoodwinked not want to confuse the issue with the facts?
Reply New Comment


29) State Reps: Read No Conumer Outcry....NONE [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
This is best summary of this discussion so far. Yes I am a designer with a degree. But this legislation just goes too far and is unclear. As a designer, I find ASID's move to monopolize their club elitist and wasteful. The law suits and problems that this bill will create make my head spin. We know you are reasonable, lets keep decorating/design/creating legal for all. The codes already exist to keep our citizens safe. No designer puts in her own flooring/plumbing/fixtures. She uses contractors and plumbers etc whom are already regulated enough. This bill would not add any safety measure.
Reply New Comment


30) elitist [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
This bill is elitist and unfair. Mr. Williams tell us what you were thinking when you came up with this one. There is a huge difference between interior design and interior decorating, and this bill will eliminate all the creative, artistic people working as decorators.
Reply New Comment


31) Elitist Brendan [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
Yes please Brendan, tell us what you were thinking. Is your goal to put thousands of people out of work? Is your goal to raise the costs of creating a nice home for the middle class? Is it because you come from such a rich family that you don't care about the middle class anymore? Did you even read the bill? It does nothing to protect public safety because of the retail exemptions. Not to mention the fact that NOBODY as ever been hurt from a decorator/designer/artist before. All it does is allow the ASID to eliminate competition and create a monopoly. Please, re read the bill and vote no. Doing otherwise will only show your lack of caring for our community and your constituents.
Reply New Comment


32) Grand parenting and the NCIDQ exam [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
All of those applicants who meet the qualifications for the grand parenting provision in the bill would still need to pass the NCIDQ exam. They would be put on a list by the regulatory board, which would be given to NCIDQ to administer the exam. There would be no application to NCIDQ, but you would still have to pass the exam to be a "Registered Interior Designer".
Reply New Comment


33) Grandparenting? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
Nice choice of words. What these people really want to do is put all of their competitors "out to pasture".

They hope if they parade a bunch of letters after their name that potential clients won't ask to see their portfolio.
Reply New Comment


34) Retail Excemption [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
This part says it all. It is so clear that public safety is NOT the issue. Losing in home design business is the only issue here. If it was really about public safety, we would simply create codes about what fabrics can be used where etc. Why in the world would you exempt retail fabric suppliers but not in home fabric suppliers? You really should be ashamed. This is elitist biggotry and snobbery. Usually you try and hide this side of our industry, but here you are showing your ugly side for all the world to see. This is why you are struggling. Kharma gets you in the end.
Reply New Comment


35) Regulatory Board? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
Give us a break with this regulatory board staffed by ASID/IIDA cronies.

If you passed NCIDQ you are free to say you did in your marketing materials. Nobody cares.

Any designer that's any good competes with their portfolio and references.

Keep the government out of this.
Reply New Comment


36) Regulatory Board [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
This board makes it sound like we're living in the Soviet Union in 80's. SCARY!
Please feel free to put all your letters and all your exams that you passed in your portfolio and marketing materials. Put in bold letters. Scream it from the streets. Have a badge made that you can wear to all your appointments. I am sure it will help you close the sale with your clients. Tell them all about fire concerns you have and how you have memorized the ADA codes. Let your education and exams work for you. That is great!! Just leave the rest of us to let our creativity, knowledge, experience, portfolio and referrals work for us. None of us want to design a hotel, a hospital, a mall or even a dentists office. I go to homes and help the homeowner create a warm, beautiful and yes even safe environment for her family.
Reply New Comment


37) Regulatory Board... [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
If you "go to homes and help the homeowner create a warm, beautiful and yes even safe environment for her family", great! This bill DOES NOT CONCERN YOU. READ THE BILL! Read the exemption. Don't just listen to whatever mantra this super-hero "justice league" (talk about giving someone a break!) has to say. Read before you make all this fuss.

But if you decide to work on a project that effects the public, then you should be able to prove you are competent professional, just like everyone else on the team from contractor, to plumber, architect to engineer. All of these TRADES and professions need certification. Not being certified is doing a disservice to your client and the public's safety.
Reply New Comment


38) Re: Regulatory Board [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
With all due respect, you are wrong. Look, as a group we can all agree that this bill is causing hurt and strife and difficulty in our industry if nothing else. On one hand it says you can decorate, on the other hand you can't draw anything or pick out materials. It contradicts itself. Draft a new bill that says only ASID members can design public places and I think we'll all be okay with that. This one, just hurts so many people and really benefits no one. If you really have public safety in mind, God bless you. But this bill does not accomplish your goal.
Reply New Comment


39) This isn't Texas. [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
The bill language in Washington State would protect the title "Registered Interior Designer" anyone could still use the title "interior designer" when providing design services to clients under the exemption clause.
Reply New Comment


40) anonymous citizen [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
I'm pretty sure that the bill states you can not use the title Interior Designer unless you have satisfied all of the requirements.
Reply New Comment


41) Titles [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
No matter what title is put in place they are always manipulated by the title holders to criticize and bash competitors who don't have the title.

The claim that 25 states (or whatever the number is) have interior design legislation is just one example of this marketing manipulation. Most states only have modified title acts with the words "certified", "registered" or "licensed" interior designer.

What are these titles? Nothing more than state sanctioned "feel good" merit badges that are manipulated to create the impression that you have to have one of these titles to practice interior design. You don't, but they won't tell you that if you ask them.

Compete with your portofolio (if you even have one).
Reply New Comment


42) design services [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
You say you would allow us to still use the title "Interior Designer" while providing design services BUT your bill won't allow us to provide the design services our clients need!
Reply New Comment


43) Anonymous Critic [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
The famous Irish author Oscar Wilde upon his deathbed in Paris was quoted as saying "The wallpaper is killing me. One of us has to go". This is the last time I can remember Safety and Health in Interior Design actually being an issue.


Reply New Comment


44) Texas Interior Design Lawsuit [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2008]
MELANIE SPENCER: INTERIOR DIALOGUE
Austin American Statesman

Texas decorators sue to use title 'interior designer'
4 sue state board members over law that limits unlicensed decorators.

Thursday, January 24, 2008
On Jan. 15, Courtroom 4 at the historic, 1930s-era U.S. Courthouse at 200 W. Eighth St. was the meeting space for several Austin interior designers, decorators, members of the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners and the Texas Association of Interior Design and several other interior design and decorator professional organizations.

And although the room, with its startling cerulean blue carpet, archaic wood paneling, Aggie maroon curtains and harsh metal miniblinds could use an extreme makeover that better celebrates the building's late art deco architecture, this group wasn't meeting to discuss cutting-edge courtroom design or historic restoration. Instead, they were talking through their lawyers about a case related to the 1991 Texas interior designer title act.

According to the act, to use the title of interior designer, a person must have a two- or four-year degree in interior design from a school accredited by the Foundation for Interior Design Education Research and two years of work experience and must pass the National Council for Interior Design Qualification exam. Interior designers must also take eight hours of continuing education and renew their licenses yearly.

The case is a civil rights lawsuit by Austin decorators Vickee Byrum, Joel Mozersky and Veronica Koltuniak and Nancy Pell of Houston against Gordon Landreth, chairman of the architectural examiners board, and nine other members. The suit challenges the title act, which prohibits unlicensed decorators from referring to themselves as interior designers, lest they be fined up to $5,000. The suit was filed in 2007, on the same day a bill to limit interior design practice in commercial spaces was defeated in the Texas House.

This preliminary hearing, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Robert Pitman, was in advance of the pretrial hearing. None of the parties involved wished to make comments at the Jan. 15 hearing, but in an earlier news release, Pell, owner of Beautiful Things, a design center outside Houston, said the title act has hurt her business.

"When people come into our office and ask if we're interior designers, it's not fair for the state to keep me from honestly telling them what I am," said Pell, who has an associate's degree in interior design but is not a licensed and certified interior designer. "I am an interior designer, but the state won't allow me to say so. That's censorship."

In a statement issued by the Texas Association of Interior Design, executive director Donna Vining said that because of the title act, "The citizens of Texas know that when they hire an 'interior designer' in Texas, that person meets the professional standards of education, examination and experience."

During the hearing, Clark Neily, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va., and a University of Texas alumnus, argued that the law is a violation of the First Amendment right to free expression. He said that the title act forbids the plaintiffs from describing what they do for a living and that the law is also contradictory, because although one has to have the education, training and testing required to use the interior designer title, he or she can still practice interior design without the title.

Marina Grayson, lawyer for the architectural examiners board defendants and assistant attorney general in the general litigation division, said the plaintiffs' desire to use "interior designer" and "interior design" when advertising their services is misleading, because they aren't certified and Texas law gives specific meaning to the designations "interior designer" and "interior design." Grayson further asserts that commercial speech isn't as protected as other forms of speech.

Also discussed is the professional organization the American Society of Interior Designers, which, according to its Web site, has "a full-time government and public affairs staff that includes three lobbyists registered with the U.S. House of Representat