Brent’s Blog

Putting it out there

Q. IDCC: Why are designers opposing SB 1312?

Moved up to May 20, 2008 as there are important on-going reader comments and discussion. [first published May 16, 2008]

[be sure to read comments below!, thanks for posting, Bruce...although I am still unclear about what the proposed law will do for us versus leaving things as they are.]

I’d like to know one thing.

If SB 1312 was such great legislation for designers, why isn’t everyone supporting it?

This is an open invitation for Bruce Goff (Director of Legislation /IDCC) to come back and tell us what the deal is and what you are trying to accomplish or anyone who understands this stuff is fine with me. But preferably I’d like to hear from someone directly from IDCC.

I mean, with all the exemptions, this bill now looks like old swiss cheese, full of holes and kind of smelly. And if not smelly, then at least someone over at IDCC needs to explain this thing.

[ also see CADAL "Eureka!..." posted elsewhere on this blog]

May 20, 2008 - Posted by brentwilliams | Stupid Legislation | , | 8 Comments

8 Comments »

  1. At your request I am back. You ask why many designers are against this law. Well first you have to consider that since anyone can use the title Interior Designer or Designer etc.. there is a huge spectrum of individuals. So one would expect differences of opinion. Second there is confusion about language in the bill, trust me its not easy to read law. Last but by no means least there continues confusion about what standards will be in place for NCIDQ in CA verses elsewhere.

    Comment by Bruce Goff | May 17, 2008 | Reply

  2. lets start with what it does not do..and other facts

    There is a lot of misinformation that is being promulgated, intentionally or not, by some who oppose our efforts to pass legislation to create a REGISTERED Interior Design professional designation. Our efforts, like our legislation, are simple – pass a law that allows interior design professionals who wish to pursue a “registered” designation the ability to do just that. It’s simple, straightforward, with no hidden agendas.

    Here are some quick facts and the fiction that is being circulated:

    Fiction: If you list what a Registered Interior Designer does, it makes all other Interior Design work illegal

    Fact: False. Similar to the laws affecting Registered Architects, SB 1312 has been written so that the services listed for “Registered Interior Designers” refer only to interior designers who pursue a “registered” designation. Following the scope of work definition in the bill are exemptions, just like in the Architect’s law, for everyone else.

    Fiction: I will be denied the right to practice my profession as an Interior Designer unless I become “registered”.

    Fact: False. The “registered” designation is voluntary. Interior Designers who wish to pursue the “registered” designation can. Those who do not register may still practice as an Interior Designer.

    Fiction: There are no restrictions on current interior designers submitting plans and drawings to local building officials. SB 1312 is a solution in search of a problem.

    Fact: False. A recent inquiry of 39 building departments in California, including cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Alameda and Santa Barbara found that 17 refuse to accept permit submittals from Interior Designers, with the remainder having severe (10 departments) or moderate (12 departments) restrictions when it comes to accepting permit submittals from Designers.

    Fiction: California has adopted its own version of the International Building Code that does not contain any restriction on submitting plans to local agencies.

    Fact: False. The International Building Code (IBC) was adopted by California and it now the California Building Code (CBC) which does not allow for a “certified” designation, only a “registered” designation for “design professionals. “Registered design professional” is defined in Chapter 2, page 41of the CBC as “an individual who is registered or licensed to practice their respective design profession…” This gives California’s Building Departments more leverage to refuse work performed by non-registered design professionals. SB 1312 will clarify the designation and allow “registered” Interior Designers to be consistent with the California codes.

    Fiction: The National Certified Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ) exam is discriminatory, ignores the experience of professionals, and can be changed at the whim of the NCIDQ at any time.

    Fact: The bill calls for the NCIDQ only to administer the test, NOT decide on entry standards. The criteria for an Interior Designer to apply to take the exam are decided by California not left to NCIDQ requirements. As a member of NCIDQ’s Council of Delegates, California has input on changes recommended, AND the ability to use the State’s application standards.

    Fiction: There is no demonstrated need for the bill, no public outcry or threat to public’s safety, health or welfare.

    Fact: To the contrary, there is a tremendous need for this bill. Our profession aside, the general public is unaware of the important health and safety issues Interior Designers do every day. Egress, ADA, exiting plans, and occupancy codes demand that standards be applied especially when it comes to the design of hotels, restaurants and other places of public gathering.

    Fiction: The Alabama Supreme Court recently found that [their] law achieved no valid purpose other than to benefit a few select designers who met their own self-imposed standards.

    Fact: As of March 12, 2008, the Alabama Attorney General stated: “The Alabama State Board of Registration for Interior Design continues to function pursuant to the Act….” The Alabama law is still in effect and there is no sign it will be repealed in the near future. Our bill, SB 1312, has carefully defined the role of “Registered Interior Designers” and includes exemptions that allow Interior Designers to practice without being “Registered”.

    Comment by Bruce Goff | May 17, 2008 | Reply

  3. OK, so Bruce you chose to write what it does not do. You might as well have said, “It won’t make coffee or iron my shirts either.” Heh heh (just a joke :)

    I’ll try this question again, for anyone who can answer it: I’d like to know what the proposed law will do for me (and my readers) versus leaving things as they are. That’s what I’m talkin’ about!

    Comment by brentwilliams | May 17, 2008 | Reply

  4. Brent

    It makes sense to begin the discussion about what it does not do as the focus from those that fear it, focus on things that are not there.. like bumps in the night that could be evil doers. So here is what it does do first from a practical matter.

    1. Gives rights to designers in the the completion of their word that they do not have now. Everyone but Architects and Engineers have their work submitted for reivew at building departments via an exemption to the practice of architecture. Designers have used this exemption for years. In other words we exist because Architects ‘allow’ us. Read the definition of Architecture the non architecture community needs to understand what is included in that and they may begin to understand that everything we do is in one way or the other listed there… if for no other reason than the work we do much of the time is code impacting.

    2. Again non architects can only have their work reviewed by the building departments under ‘exceptions’. I can be the ’single family exemption’ the contractor exemption, the ‘non structural’ exemption… but exemptions never the less.

    What this bill does is gives those designers actual rights to produce and submit plans as Registered Design Professionals. All within the scope that can be given based on the 65 schools of Design in CA, the experience we get in the real world and the examination that is benchmarked though out the United States.

    Comment by Bruce Goff | May 18, 2008 | Reply

  5. Dude, in so many words you keep saying this legislation will not stop anyone from practicing interior design but this bill IS A PRACTICE ACT, that covers interior design services, so, I don’t care how many confusing exemptions your group settled for, I don’t care if you say it’s “voluntary”, I don’t care what you even THINK it might be or not be, when push comes to shove, a designer could be “caught” doing registered interior designer work and have a fine slapped on em.

    Comment by brentwilliams | May 19, 2008 | Reply

  6. Can you answer a question for me? Why do we not violate the Architecture practice law? Can you go to that statute, which written as a broad and general law, and tell everyone why what they do is not in conflict with that? Lets start with that. Then we should move on to what is in the bill that keeps non registrants of the RID ‘law’ out of conflict. The method is the same. Its exemptions. So take a look and let us all know.

    Comment by Bruce Goff | May 20, 2008 | Reply

  7. I don’t know when I’ll have time to search and find what you are talking about and I’m not a lawyer. When I read laws, it just ticks me off this stuff isn’;t written in plain English.
    Can you be more specific about the Architecture practice law? Also, if we’re violating that law, how come the CAB isn’t cracking down on us?

    Comment by brentwilliams | May 20, 2008 | Reply

  8. >> Can you go to that statute, which written as a broad and general law, and tell everyone why what they do is not in conflict with that? Lets start with that. <<

    Oh, come on, that one’s easy, Bruce!

    The reality is that *anyone* can design and build almost anything they want, at least within certain parameters, and do so perfectly legally – and entirely without *any* sort of design *or* architecture training – and even without a contractor’s license.

    Yes, even Joe Q. Public is allowed to submit plans to building departments all over the state under this very same architectural law’s exemptions.

    And what’s more, he’s allowed to go around calling himself a “building designer”, quite legally. Without one iota of any kind of formal training, apprenticeship, etc.

    Yes, there are limitations (Joe Q. Public cannot submit plans for residences greater than 2 stories, for example, or for most kinds of public spaces), but if a freaking layperson is allowed to design and submit plans to build an entire house for anyone they want, well, that obviously covers interior designers who are not certified/registered/licensed or whatever, too.

    So now we have optional, entirely voluntary certification in CA, and that lets designers do commercial work and work in highrises, which covers the rest of the bases of what designers generally do in this state just fine.

    Next question?

    Comment by Wendy Hoechstetter | May 26, 2008 | Reply


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »