The Interior Design Protection Council (IDPC) has been monitoring ASID’s national movement towards
practice acts, laws that would essentially,  put ASID Allied members out of business OR severely
limit their practice to picking paint colors and wallpaper.

IDPC writes:

“On March 4th, ASID sent a letter to their membership and an FAQ document in attempt to assuage their
members’ fears that the “ASID legislative strategy may be harmful to their businesses.”

IDPC says members  are not buying into the ASID party line any longer.

They report that yes,  “ASID-sponsored legislation is hurting its own members.”

Read BACKPEDDLING AS FAST AS THEY CAN and see why “Allied members are fleeing in droves”

CHRISTMAS EVE 2008

SENT  FROM A FRIEND OF A FRIENDLY ELF

IN TODAY’S ELECTRONIC AGE,

YOU BETTER WATCH OUT

YOU BETTER NOT CRY

YOU BETTER NOT POUT

I’M TELLIN’ YOU WHY

SANTA CLAUS IS COMIN’ TO ASID

AND HE LEFT THEM A RESIGNATION LETTER FROM LOTS OF THEIR MEMBERS!!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ASID RESIGNATIONS

-GROUP ONE-

December 19, 2008

Michael Alin, Executive Director

The American Society of Interior Designers

608 Massachusetts Ave., NE

Washington, D.C., 20002

Dear Mr. Alin:

Over the last several years, we have watched as ASID has recklessly spent our dues and MANDATORY legislative assessments on a failed policy falsely proclaiming to “raise the level of the profession” and to cull what you have decided are the “real designers” from those not following the path you dictate. The legislation you support has requirements so restrictive that most designers would not be able to comply and will therefore be denied the right to practice.

Over and over… we have watched as ASID’s president, members and board repeatedly mislead their own ASID colleagues about the EFFECT of legislation on our right to practice, while currying support from the very designers who would be put out of business by your legislative actions. And we have listened as Allied Members were described as the “Cash Cows” of the organization – too stupid to understand that we were being used to fund our own demise.

Over and over… we have watched as ASID betrayed its own ethics to push its own agenda – an ego-driven agenda that has the potential to destroy more than half of its own membership.

Over and over… we have listened as ASID members said sweetly, “We’re not trying to put you out of business.” [Subtext: as long as you forego your practice to go back to school for at least 2 years, do a supervised internship with an NCIDQ certified designer – if you can find one who also happens to be hiring – and intern from two to five years while being paid virtually nothing; then if you have any money left, pay about $2000 to take step workshops, purchase study materials, and take and pass the NCIDQ test (which is rarely passed on the first attempt), and then prove to the satisfaction of your own competitors that you actually are a designer, and comply with any regulations they happen to write.] But nobody’s trying to put you out of business; after all, there’s grandfathering. And from what we’ve seen of the way “grandfathering” is often written into the legislation, that’s just as bogus a claim as the rest of the pro-legislation argument.

Legislators have told us that representatives (either ASID and/or IIDA members) have misrepresented the content, objectives and design support for their legislation while governors of four states have clearly understood it to be anticompetitive and protective.

In states where practice acts have been enacted, designers have suffered terribly – persecuted for what they have done successfully for years, sustaining huge fines and legal fees for miniscule “infractions” and in some cases, bankrupted and driven out of the state in order to earn a living.

Florida designers bear witness to the travesty of your actions, and we hear more and more from them every day. The disgraceful behavior of Florida ASID members who deliberately work to expose and report their own members, as well as others, and help to put them out of business tells us what we need to know about ASID as an organization and about how legislation really works to

destroy designers’ rights to practice. And Florida is not the only state where this happens or has happened: try Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, Connecticut and others.

There are estimated to be between 200,000¹ and 400,000 interior designers in practice in the U.S. today. ASID claims membership of only about 20,000 practicing designers, the majority of

whom don’t even care about “raising the level of the profession”. Many are not even aware of your legislative agenda. They just want to practice design successfully as they always have.

We have personally spoken to Allied designers all across the country, and have found the vast majority to be opposed to your actions. As we’ve said before: the only designers who benefit from your tactics are the so-called professional designers who have passed the NCIDQ – and those are few and far between.

You do not represent independent designers as you have claimed, hence the title independent. They don’t want ASID’s interference in their right to practice, and have told us that they resent ASID’s efforts to dictate policy in which they have no say. Even ASID members are not welcome to disagree with your policies as the invitation to the Arkansas conference clearly shows, where attendees were carefully vetted to make sure that there would be no discordant voices.

ASID HAS NO RIGHT AND NO MANDATE TO DICTATE TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DESIGNERS ALL ACROSS THIS COUNTY WHO WILL BE ALLOWED TO PRACTICE AND WHO WILL NOT. YOUR LEGISLATION IS BEING DEFEATED BECAUSE DESIGNERS DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR OBJECTIVES.

It is clear to us that ASID no longer advocates for all of its members. This is illustrated in the make-up of the board which is ponderously commercial, in the membership of your pro-legislation coalitions across the country, where the majority are often commercial designers and in your undue influence in the schools, where students are pushed toward architectural/commercial design and where residential design gets short shrift. Students have told us that ASID has misled them, pushing them into commercial/architectural design on the premise that jobs at the commercial or architectural firms would be awaiting them when they graduate, and that ASID would help them get those jobs.

Even before the economic downturn, commercial jobs were very hard to come by – by ASID’s own statistics, only 15% of the market – and the few students who manage to land those jobs do so without ASID’s promised-but too often undelivered assistance. Many students, unable to secure those jobs have wound up selling commercial furniture and other commercial products. And most residential designers cannot hire them, as designers who have, have told us that they can draft, but cannot do other things that are crucial to residential design.

ASID’s preferential conduct is also apparent in the way Allied Members are treated on the national website’s “Find a Designer” page, where potential clients searching for referrals are offered a choice of “Show Professionals Only” (listed as the default) vs. “Show All Practitioners” which they have to search for [note: this appears to just have been changed]. This is insulting and clearly shows a bias toward “professional” members, which is especially unjustifiable considering that many so-called “Professional” designers have never passed the NCIDQ test and have just been allowed in. Allied Members pay the majority of dues and mandatory legislation fees, are no less professional in their work, and do not deserve a lesser marketing effort than any other members.

Additionally, by promoting its single-entry method as the one true path to design, ASID has created a rift between practicing designers and those who take ASID’s EEE path, with the younger designers evincing rudely worded disrespect for their more experienced elders – a situation which is not conducive to job creation.

Interior Design is a creative field. Yet ASID is determined to legislate creativity out of it by restricting the many paths of entry into the field that have nurtured that creativity and vision for years, producing brilliant designers – down to one path that is engineered to produce – engineers.

In a failing economy such as this, ASID should be using all its resources to support and market designers, not to destroy them through legislation. And make no mistake, we completely understand your actions and your intent.

We are ashamed and deeply disappointed by this organization. We can no longer support a Society that deliberately destroys its own membership and endangers the future of design and designers in its unending desire for power and dominance. And because of your exclusive policies, we know there is no hope of changing the trajectory of your actions.

ASID had a slogan: PROTECTING YOUR RIGHT TO PRACTICE. You are, in fact, subverting your own raison d’etre by deliberately trying to destroy our right to practice. And that is unethical, unconscionable and unacceptable.

And so we are resigning.

Jacqueline Bazaar, #1533586, Pennsylvania

Margaret H. Benson, #1504190, Texas

Gayle Beyer, #1519494, Colorado

Loraine Brown, #1250453, Georgia

Christine Colman, #1534167, Washington

Ellen Fernandez, #1239917, Maryland

Diane Foreman, #61436, Oregon

Debbie Gersh, #1485135, Texas

Noreen Dunn Gottfried, #1502827, Pennsylvania

Carol Gumpert, 1550669, California

Karen K. Hartley, #75601, Georgia

Continued below

Nancy Hartsing, #1559067, Arizona

Henrietta Heisler, #1859365, Pennsylvania

Elizabeth Kauermann, #97269, Pennsylvania

Nancy Phillips Leroy, #1231856, Pennsylvania

Christie Meehan, #1201627, Pennsylvania

Tonya Morrison, 1487732, Pennsylvania

Jayne Rosen, #78935, Pennsylvania

Rebecca Ruediger, #1250458, Missouri

Carly Sax, #1500172, Illinois

Anne-Marie H. Schimenti, #1504255, Florida

June Shea, #1486996, Virginia

Nadia T. Tanita, #1542001, Hawaii

Terri Temple, #18099, Connecticut

Mary Sue B. Wiedmer, #1215131, Pennsylvania

Resigned earlier this year for the above reasons:

Janice Onsa, Pennsylvania, former Allied Member

Diane Plesset, Oregon CMKBD, CID #5818, C.A.P.S., former ASID

cc: Bruce J. Brigham, President

Board of Directors:

Bruce Goff

Charrisse Johnston

Doug Hartsell

Lisa Henry

Mary G. Knopf

Rachelle Schoessler Lynn

Stephanie Clemons

Sybil J.B. Van Dijs

I could write alot about this issue but it would be similar to what the Interior Design Protection Council had to say, so why bother?

Click on link above or  below, no matter, it takes you to the same IDPC newsletter on the veto of an interior design title act for New York state.

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs060/1102107213116/archive/1102183032390.html

Hey, ASID,  our nation’s economy is in the toilet.  Why not use your members money wisely and forget about trying to pass legislation that nobody wants, and nobody needs.

[read comments below]

I recently learned the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design contracts with the law firm of Smith, Thompson, Shaw & Manausa, P.A., to provide investigative and prosecutorial services to the Board.

The law firm provides these services for both licensed and unlicensed interior designers (and architects). So who have they “caught” practicing interior design lately? None other than Hirsch Bedner & Associates the internationally famous hotel design firm.

Yep, the Florida Board has caught themselves a pretty big fish…..Florida’s practice act is nasty…business owners and large corporations apparently are now being forced to hire only licensed Florida interior designers to design their hotels (or those designers will be breaking the law.) Someone needs to challenge this stupid law. This is America … anyone should be able to hire any interior designer they want to.

Hirsch Bedner & Associates

Howard Pharr

Case No. 2007-068978

Probable cause was found that Hirsch Bedner & Associates of Atlanta, Georgia, is not licensed to practice interior design in Florida and contracted to provide interior design services on a commercial project. Further, Hirsch Bedner & Associates is offering these services without a certificate of authorization. An Administrative Complaint seeking fines will be filed and a Notice and Order to Cease and Desist will be issued.

Scroll down this page to find the Hirsch Bedner entry

More disciplinary cases here

[read comments below]

There’s an article written by Rita Carson Guest, FASID called “A Goal of Licensure, not Limitation” in Interiors and Sources Magazine. It is a masterpiece of smoothly written nonsense masked to take in and win over unwitting practitioners.

For example – - -read it slowly . . .

“We are asking that those practitioners who can provide evidence that they meet the necessary requirements ­similar requirements demanded of other professionals ­be permitted to provide certain services, which they are trained and qualified to perform.”

I say: WHAT SERVICES are interior designers currently denied from providing? The answer is NONE. As long as they are actually providing interior design services and not architecture, engineering or building contracting, interior designers are free as birds to provide interior design services, no license needed.

Rita also wrote:

“To those who say to us, “Why do you need a law for interior designers?” we say, interior design is already regulated de facto. The law is there to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, and we support that. But those laws are preventing interior designers from fully practicing their profession. We simply want states to grant interior design professionals who meet the necessary qualifications to be permitted to offer their services. We want to loosen the restriction on interior design professionals, not add a new one.”

I say: WHAT LAWS say that interior designers cannot fully practice? WHAT RESTRICTIONS need loosening? Again, the answer is NONE. Unless Rita is referring to those restrictive interior designer laws that ASID has already supported that currently shuts out other designers !

Rita, you do not need a heavy handed state license scheme to make interior designers accountable and responsible. California interior designer law already proves this. If your argument was a canoe, it would be at the bottom of the lake, it’s so full of holes.

as always, COMMENTS WELCOME!

[read comments below]

I’m an independent interior designer. I could get qualified to belong to ASID and IIDA as I know I could pass the NCIDQ, I have the experience and education. But I choose to not belong, just as many thousands of doctors choose to not belong to the AMA, as many thousands of architects choose to not belong to the AIA.
Lets just say that I embrace my inner misfit. Its what I like best about myself and historically misfits have changed the course of the world.

I once asked a good friend who is Allied ASID: Why do you belong? She said for ASID’s insurance and the initials. I asked her why she never took the NCIDQ. She said “I’m successful already and clients have never asked me if I took an exam”.

This is a legitimate inquiry: why do you belong to a design organization?

[read comments below]

Good reading from the IDPC (Interior Design Protection Council) , July 1, 2008 Newsletter
“PROJECT: DESIGNING FREEDOM as we defend our rights to occupational freedom and free speech!”

(Brent comment: ASID and IIDA may think this is bunk, that you better get in line to take their exam and become licensed or just prepare to fold up your tent, but as long as America is still a democracy, and citizens have rights, interior designers should not stand down and get trampled on. This is not to say that I am against design education, experience and being tested, if need be, but using the state to stomp out competition is DEAD WRONG and there are other ways to be MORE PROFESSIONAL without putting thousands of perfectly fine designers or decorators out of business. )

[be sure to read comments to this post]

Here’s proof that Practice Acts hurt interior designers and I’m not just talkin’ ’bout them housewife dekoraters with a reesale number.

Many designers are hired to work out of state. The Cote de Texas blog reveals how some very famous interior designers have been snared by The Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design.

With designers such as Juan Montoya (N.Y.) and Kelly Wearstler (L.A.) having cases filed against them, Florida is now THE STATE to watch regarding ASID: An Agency Out of Control

Be sure to check out the 83+ comments after you read the article.

The June 2008 issue of KITCHEN & BATH BUSINESS published an article by Edward S. Nagorsky esq, who is the general counsel and director of legislative affairs for the National Kitchen & Bath Association in Hackettstown, NJ. Entitled “Lawful Enterprise“, Mr. Nagorsky lays out a comprehensive and reasonable argument against ASID’s “campaign to convince its members of a desperate need for interior design licensing to “protect the public” from those designers who are deemed unqualified because they have not met standards arbitrarily set by the organization.”

A swift and contrary reaction was published in the June 26, 2008 DESIGN DAILY, the email newsletter for members of ASID:

ASID Responds to K+BB Op-Ed
The June 2008 issue of Kitchen and Bath Business magazine includes an opinion piece from Ed Nagorsky, director of legislative affairs and general counsel for NKBA, entitled “Lawful Enterprise,” that criticizes ASID for its position on interior design legislation and its support of legislative efforts in the states seeking adoption of interior design legislation. Among other accusations, Mr. Nagorsky contends that ASID “has made it very clear that it intends to be the sole gateway to the entire design profession.”

Many ASID members have written to the editor of K+BB about the article. ASID has written a response to the article which the editor has committed to publish in the August 2008 issue, along with the responses from the design community. (The July issue has already gone to press.)
If you have further questions or comments about the article or the ASID response, please direct them to Korenna Cline, PR manager for ASID, at kcline@asid.org.

The various interior design organizations need to find a way to peacefully co-exist with one another.  It is obvious that the entire profession does not want to be taken over by one national group that repeatedly ignores and excludes other qualified professionals.  ASID, get over yourself.

]]> http://brentwilliams.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/nkba-speaks-out-against-interior-design-licensing/feed/ 1 brentwilliams http://brentwilliams.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/alternative-to-sb-1312-has-been-requested/ http://brentwilliams.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/alternative-to-sb-1312-has-been-requested/#comments Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:06:21 +0000 brentwilliams http://brentwilliams.wordpress.com/?p=72 ]]>

[be sure to read comments to this post]

Here’s good news
I received a memo dated June 19, 2008 that has been given the go-ahead for public consumption.

The memo is addressed to the author of Senate Bill 1312, Senator Leland Yee from lobbyists Dave Ackerman and Jamie Khan, Subject: ” Alternative Approach to SB 1312 (Yee) – Registered Interior Design.

The gist of the memo is their clients, “the National Kitchen and Bath Association and the California Legislative Coalition for Interior Design are prepared to support an alternative to SB 1312″. The alternative “addresses the issue some interior designers claim is a difficulty in having plans and drawings accepted for review by local building officials.” This issue was presented by Senator Yee in Legislative Committees and ” as the principal reason” he carried SB 1312.

The memo goes on to say -

“The International Building Code (IBC) makes reference to a “registered design professional” as an individual who is “qualified” to submit plans and drawings to local building officials where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed (Sec. 106.1 IBC). The California Building Code (CBC) refers back to definitions of engineers and architects as the only individuals recognized as “registered design professionals”. However, there is no statutory requirement that local building officials accept plans only from a registered design professional – that decision is left up to the local building department official based upon their own requirements.”

“Since California already certifies interior designers under Section 5800 through 5812 of the Business and Professions Code, we propose to amend Section 5805 stating that for purposes of definitions in the California Building Code, an individual who is certified as a “Certified Interior Designer” under the provisions of Business and Professions Code Sections 5800 through 5812, would also be recognized as a “registered design professional”.

“This proposal would avoid the controversial provisions of SB 1312 that create a restrictive practice act and create a new licensing entity.”

“We believe this approach will not interfere with the separate certification and membership approaches existing interior design organizations take with their members and will not discriminate against anyone currently in the industry. Achieving certification as a “Certified Interior Designer (CID)” under Business and Profession Code Section 5800 is appropriate for certification in California because the exam requirements to be granted CID status focus on California law and California Building Codes.”

A separate document came with the memo -

“PROPOSED CHANGE TO Section 5805 of the Business and Professions Code shall be amended as follows:”

“5805. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude certified interior designers or any other person from submitting interior design plans to local building officials, except as provided in Section 5538. In exercising discretion with respect to the acceptance of interior design plans, the local building official shall reference the Uniform California Building Code. For purposes of definitions referenced in the California Building Code, an individual certified pursuant to this chapter shall be deemed a registered design professional.”

THIS ALTERNATE APPROACH IS A FINE SOLUTION as SB 1312 was poorly crafted, yet in light of the new California Building Code, this would help building officials accept design plans from those who are certified in California. In one neat package, the California Architects won’t have to share their board with interior designers, the state won’t have to pay out a cent, consumers will still be protected, as will all those interior design students and designers who are not certified. No one will be put out of business by this, and the supporters of SB 1312 who felt the title Registered Interior Designer would give them the ability to submit plans should also be pleased.

When trying to understand what SB 1312 was about and why it failed, interior designers should not rely on hearsay, whether or not that information was for or against the legislation. Here (below), in its entirety is the Legislative Analysis of SB 1312 from leginfo.ca.gov

For designers who have no interest in reading the entire bill, here is the list of support and opposition and the arguments for and against the bill. SB 1312 failed because the legislation was poorly written, restrictive even to practicing designers, did not fill a need and therefore, did not receive support.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/27/08)
Interior Design Coalition of California (source)
American Society of Interior Designers
International Interior Design Association

OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/28/08)

American Institute of Architects – AIA California Council
American Lighting Association
Building Owners and Managers Association
California Architects Board
California Building Officials
California Legislative Coalition for Interior Design
California Retailers Association
Canada College
College of the Canyons
Community College League of California
Fullerton College
International Furnishings and Design Association -
Northern California Chapter
Long Beach City College
Los Rios Community College District
Lumber Association of California and Nevada
Merced College
Modesto Junior College
Monterey Peninsula College
National Association of the Remodeling Industry
National Federation of Independent Business
National Kitchen and Bath Association – California Chapters
Ohlone College
Palomar College
Santa Barbara City College
Santa Monica College
Santa Rosa Community College
Shasta College
The Interior Design Society
West Valley Mission Community College
Western Home Furnishings Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the bill’s sponsor,
the Interior Design Coalition of California:

“In the interest and for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare, SB 1312 creates a Practice
Act for Registered Interior Designers in California. The
measure amends the current California Architects Board
into the California Architects and Registered Interior
Designers Board. It further defines a scope of practice,
and establishes education, experience and examination
requirements, and provides a voluntary registration
process and regulation for interior designers who provide
specific code-affecting services.

“This bill ensures that interior designers that do not
provide code-affecting services may continue to use the
title ‘interior designer.’”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Legislative
Coalition for Interior Design believes the bill
discriminates against many current professional interior
designers in California by “requiring us to become licensed
through an out of state organization that will not
recognize our qualifications.” They argue the bill does
not protect the consumer and adds an unjustified layer of
bureaucracy to the already overburdened state budget. This
bill raises exam and licensing costs which will result in
higher prices passed on to the consumer and only adds
additional cost to the services that an interior designer
provides making it more exclusive and out of reach for many
consumers. The Coalition states that the current
certification process in California already requires an
interior designer to follow a code of ethics and pass an
exam covering California codes and regulations. They argue
that this bill will exclude many designers from becoming
registered because of hard-to-meet requirements and will
criminalize certain acts subjecting them to severe
penalties.

JJA:mw 5/28/08 Senate Floor Analyses

SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE

**** END **** BILL ANALYSIS 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

————————————————————
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1312|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
————————————————————


THIRD READING

Bill No: SB 1312
Author: Yee (D), et al
Amended: 5/27/08
Vote: 21

SENATE BUSINESS, PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE : 5-3,
4/14/08
AYES: Ridley-Thomas, Calderon, Corbett, Florez, Yee
NOES: Aanestad, Denham, Harman
NO VOTE RECORDED: Simitian

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-3, 5/22/08
AYES: Torlakson, Cedillo, Corbett, Florez, Kuehl, Oropeza,
Simitian, Yee
NOES: Cox, Aanestad, Dutton
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ashburn, Ridley-Thomas, Runner, Wyland

SUBJECT : Registered interior designers

SOURCE : Interior Design Coalition of California

DIGEST : This bill creates, within the California
Architects Board, the Registered Interior Design Committee
for the registration of registered interior designers.”
The Registered Interior Design Committee will review the
qualifications of candidates for examination as a
registered interior designer. This bill makes it unlawful
for a person to hold him or herself out to the public or
solicit business as a registered interior designer without
holding a certificate of registration, unless the person is
CONTINUED

SB 1312
Page
2

exempt, as specified.

ANALYSIS :

Existing law:

1. Provides for a state sanctioned private certification
program for interior designers, whereby only
practitioners who meet specified education and
experience standards, and who pass a privately
administered examination, may use the title “certified
interior designer,” but does not otherwise limit any
person from practicing interior design.

2. Provides for the licensure and regulation of some 22,000
architects by the California Architects Board (CAB)
within the Department of Consumer Affairs and imposes
various related fees that are deposited in the
California Architects Board Fund, a continuously
appropriated fund.

3. Provides that CAB consists of 10 members, including:

A. Five architects (appointed by the Governor).

B. Five public members (three appointed by the
Governor, one appointed by the Senate Rules
Committee, and one appointed by the Speaker of the
Assembly).

This bill:

1. Increases the membership of the CAB by two members, one
who shall be a registered interior designer who has been
registered and in practice in this state for at least
four years, and one public member.

2. Creates, within the CAB, a Registered Interior Design
Committee (Committee).

3. Specifies the Committee shall consist of seven members,
three of whom shall be registered to practice registered
interior design in this state and four of whom shall be
public members. The Governor shall appoint two of the

CONTINUED

SB 1312
Page
3

public members and three registered members. The Senate
Rules Committee and the Speaker of the Assembly shall
each appoint one public member. The public members of
the Committee shall not be licensees of the board of
registrants of the Committee.

4. Specifies the initial members to be appointed by the
Governor are as follows: one member for a term of one
year, two members for a term of two years, and two
members for a term of three years. The Senate Rules
Committee and the Speaker of the Assembly shall
initially each appoint one member for a term of four
years. Thereafter, appointments shall be made for
four-year terms, expiring on June 1 of the fourth year
and until the appointment and qualification of his or
her successor or until one year shall have elapsed
whichever first occurs. Vacancies shall be filled for
the unexpired term.

5. Specifies that no person shall serve as a member of the
Committee for more than two consecutive terms.

6. Requires the Committee to review the qualifications of
candidates for examination for registration as a
registered interior designer and, after investigation,
evaluate and make recommendations regarding potential
violations of this act.

7. Allows the Committee to investigate, assist, and make
recommendations to the CAB regarding the regulation of
registered interior designers in this state.

8. Requires the CAB to prosecute all persons guilty of
violating the provisions of this bill, and allows the
CAB to employ inspectors, special agents, investigators,
and clerical assistance as it deems necessary to carry
out the provisions of this bill.

9. Allows the CAB to select and contract with necessary
interior design consultants who are registered interior
designers to assist in its enforcement program on an
intermittent basis.

10.Allows the Committee, in accordance with the

CONTINUED

SB 1312
Page
4

Administrative Procedure Act, to adopt, amend, or repeal
the rules and regulations that are reasonably necessary
to:

A. Govern the examinations of applicants for
registration to practice registered interior design.

B. Establish rules or professional conduct that are
not inconsistent with state or federal law. Every
person who holds a registration issued under this
bill shall be governed and controlled by these rules.

C. Carry out the provisions of this bill.

11.Requires a registrant to sign, date, and seal or stamp,
using a seal or stamp all plans, specifications,
studies, drawings, and other documents he or she issues
for official use. Allows the Committee to adopt
regulations specifying the manner in which a registrant
may electronically issue those documents.

12.Requires a registrant to use a seal or stamp of the
design authorized by the CAB, bearing his or her name,
the serial number included on his or her certificate of
registration, and the legend “registered interior
designer.”

13.Specifies it is unlawful for a person to seal or stamp a
plan, specification, study, drawing, or other document
after the certificate of the registrant, named thereon,
has expired or has been suspended or revoked, unless the
certificate has been renewed or reissued.

14.Requires a plan, specification, study, drawing, or other
document prepared by a registrant to contain a statement
that the document was prepared by a person registered
pursuant to this bill.

15.Allows a registrant, in the practice of registered
interior design, to collaborate with any of the
following persons:

A. A licensed architect.

CONTINUED

SB 1312
Page
5

B. An electrical, structural, or mechanical engineer
registered and authorized to use that title.

16.Requires the Committee to issue a certificate of
registration to a person who meets all of the following
requirements:

A. Has not committed any of the acts listed in #23
below.

B. Completes an application for a certificate on a
form prescribed by the Committee.

C. Pays the registration fee prescribed by the
Committee.

D. Submits proof satisfactory to the Committee of
successful completion of one of the following:

(1) A bachelor’s degree program in interior
design and 3,520 hours of interior design
experience, including 1,760 hours earned after the
degree program is completed.

(2) A bachelor’s degree program in any major, no
less than 60 semester or 90 quarter hours of
interior design coursework that culminates in a
certificate or degree, and 3,520 hours of interior
design experience, including 1,760 hours earned
after the degree program and coursework are
completed.

(3) No less than 60 semester or 90 quarter hours
of interior design coursework that culminates in a
certificate, degree, or diploma and 5,280 hours of
interior design experience earned after that
coursework is completed.

(4) No less than 40 semester or 60 quarter hours
of interior design coursework that culminates in a
certificate, degree, or diploma and 7,040 hours of
interior design experience earned after that
coursework is completed.

CONTINUED

SB 1312
Page
6

E. Submits proof of passage of the examination
prepared and administered by the National Council for
Interior Design Qualification.

17.Allows the Committee to issue a certificate of
registration to a person who meets both of the following
requirements:

A. May lawfully represent himself or herself as a
“certified interior designer” pursuant to current
law.

B. Submits an application to the CAB before January
1, 2011.

18.Allows the Committee to issue a certificate of
registration to a person who submits an application to
the Committee before January 1, 2011, and submits proof
acceptable to the Committee of one of the following:

A. Ten years of experience in interior design.

B. Eight years of experience in interior design and
two years of education in interior design that is
acceptable to the Committee.

19.Requires a person registered pursuant to this bill who
has not passed the examination within the first two
renewal periods, as a condition of renewal of his or her
certificate of registration, to show proof acceptable to
the Committee of both of the following:

A. Passage of Section I of the examination prepared
and administered by the National Council for Interior
Design Qualification.

B. Completion of 15 hours of Committee-approved
continuing education coursework relating to health,
safety, and welfare regulation. The hours earned
pursuant to this paragraph shall be credited toward
the continuing education requirements established by
the Committee.

20.Specifies a certificate of registration shall expire two

CONTINUED

SB 1312
Page
7

years after the date of issue.

21.Requires the registrant, to renew the certificate, on or
before the expiration date of the certificate, do all of
the following:

A. Apply for renewal on a form prescribed by the
Committee.

B. Pay a renewal fee prescribed by the Committee.

C. Submit proof of compliance with the continuing
education requirements established by the Committee.

22.Allows the Committee to, by regulation, require
registered interior designers to complete not more than
10 hours of continuing education per renewal period as a
condition of renewal of their certificates of
registration.

23.Allows the CAB, by order, to suspend, revoke, or place
on probation the certificate of a registrant, assess a
fine of not more than $10,000 against a registrant,
impose the costs of an investigation and prosecution
upon a registrant, or take any combination of these
disciplinary actions if a registrant does any of the
following:

A. Obtains a certificate of registration by fraud or
concealment of a material fact.
B. Is found guilty by the CAB or a court of competent
jurisdiction of fraud, deceit, or concealment of a
material fact in his or her professional practice, or
is convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of
a crime involving moral turpitude.

C. Is found mentally ill by a court of competent
jurisdiction.

D. Is found guilty by the CAB of incompetence,
negligence, or gross negligence in the practice of
interior design.

D. Affixes his or her signature, stamp, or seal to

CONTINUED

SB 1312
Page
8

plans, specifications, studies, drawings, or other
instruments of service that have not been prepared by
him or her, or in his or her office, or under his or
her responsible supervisory control, or permits the
use of his or her name to assist a person who is not
a registered interior designer to evade any provision
of this chapter.

E. Aids or abets an unauthorized person to practice
as a registered interior designer.

F. Violates a law, regulation, or code of ethics
pertaining to the practice of registered interior
design.

G. Fails to comply with an order issued by the CAB or
fails to cooperate with an investigation conducted by
the CAB.

24.Makes it unlawful for a person to do any of the
following:

A. Hold himself or herself out to the public or
solicit business as a registered interior designer in
this state without holding a certificate of
registration issued by the Committee pursuant to this
chapter. This paragraph does not prohibit a person
who is exempt from this bill from holding himself or
herself out to the public or soliciting business in
this state as an interior designer.

B. Advertise or put out any sign, card, or other
device that indicates to the public that he or she is
a registered interior designer or that he or she is
otherwise qualified to engage in the practice of
registered interior design, without holding a
certificate of registration issued by the Committee.

C. Practice registered interior design, or use the
title “registered interior designer,” in this state
unless he or she holds a certificate of registration
issued by the Committee.

25.Specifies this bill does not prohibit a person

CONTINUED

SB 1312
Page
9

certified, or otherwise qualified or approved by a
private organization, from using a term or title
copyrighted or otherwise protected under law by the
certifying organization or from providing services
customarily associated with that title, or specified by
the certifying organization, provided that the use of
that term or title does not connote registration under
this bill.

26.Specifies that a person who violates any provision of
this bill is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable as
follows:

A. For a first violation, the person shall be
punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more
than $1,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail
for not more than six months, or by both that fine
and imprisonment.

B. For a second or subsequent violation, the person
shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000
nor more than $2,000, or by imprisonment in the
county jail for not more than one year, or by both
that fine and imprisonment.

27.Specifies that in addition to any other penalty
prescribed by law, a person who violates any provision
of this bill or any regulation adopted by the Committee
or the CAB is subject to a civil penalty of not more
than $10,000 for each violation. That penalty shall be
imposed by the CAB.

28.Specifies that this bill does not apply to any of the
following:

A. A licensed architect acting within the scope of
his or her license.

B. A person engaging in work related to registered
interior design as an employee of a registered
interior designer if the work does not include
responsible supervisory control or supervision of the
practice of registered interior design.

CONTINUED

SB 1312
Page
10

C. A person performing registered interior design
work under the responsible supervisory control of a
registered interior designer.
D. A consultant retained by a registered interior
designer.

E. A person who prepares drawings of the layout of
materials or furnishings used in registered interior
design or provides assistance in the selection of
materials or furnishings used in registered interior
design, if the preparation or implementation of those
drawings, or the installation of those materials or
furnishings, is not regulated by a building code or
other law, ordinance, rule, or regulation governing
the alteration or construction of a structure. The
persons exempt from this provision include, but are
not limited to, a person who prepares drawings of the
layout of, or provides assistance in the selection
of, any of the following materials:

(1) Decorative accessories.
(2) Wallpaper, wallcoverings, or paint.
(3) Linoleum, tile, carpeting, or floor coverings.

(4) Draperies, blinds, or window coverings.
(5) Lighting or plumbing fixtures that are not
part of a structure.
(6) Furniture or equipment.

F. An employee of a retail establishment providing
consultation regarding interior decoration or
furnishings on the premises of the retail
establishment or in the furtherance of a retail sale
or prospective retail sale.

29.Sunsets the Committee on July 1, 2011, consistent with
the CAB.

FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

CONTINUED

SB 1312
Page
11

Major Provisions 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Fund

Interior design Up to $794 Up to $1,475Up to
$1,695 Special*
registration – estimated costs offset all, or in part,
by fee revenue -

Additional board members Minor, ongoing costsSpecial*

* CAB-Registered Interior Designers Fund

SUPPORT : (Verified 5/27/08)

Interior Design Coalition of California (source)
American Society of Interior Designers
International Interior Design Association

OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/28/08)

American Institute of Architects – AIA California Council
American Lighting Association
Building Owners and Managers Association
California Architects Board
California Building Officials
California Legislative Coalition for Interior Design
California Retailers Association
Canada College
College of the Canyons
Community College League of California
Fullerton College
International Furnishings and Design Association -
Northern California Chapter
Long Beach City College
Los Rios Community College District
Lumber Association of California and Nevada
Merced College
Modesto Junior College
Monterey Peninsula College
National Association of the Remodeling Industry
National Federation of Independent Business
National Kitchen and Bath Association – California Chapters
Ohlone College
Palomar College

CONTINUED

SB 1312
Page
12

Santa Barbara City College
Santa Monica College
Santa Rosa Community College
Shasta College
The Interior Design Society
West Valley Mission Community College
Western Home Furnishings Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the bill’s sponsor,
the Interior Design Coalition of California:

“In the interest and for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare, SB 1312 creates a Practice
Act for Registered Interior Designers in California. The
measure amends the current California Architects Board
into the California Architects and Registered Interior
Designers Board. It further defines a scope of practice,
and establishes education, experience and examination
requirements, and provides a voluntary registration
process and regulation for interior designers who provide
specific code-affecting services.

“This bill ensures that interior designers that do not
provide code-affecting services may continue to use the
title ‘interior designer.’”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Legislative
Coalition for Interior Design believes the bill
discriminates against many current professional interior
designers in California by “requiring us to become licensed
through an out of state organization that will not
recognize our qualifications.” They argue the bill does
not protect the consumer and adds an unjustified layer of
bureaucracy to the already overburdened state budget. This
bill raises exam and licensing costs which will result in
higher prices passed on to the consumer and only adds
additional cost to the services that an interior designer
provides making it more exclusive and out of reach for many
consumers. The Coalition states that the current
certification process in California already requires an
interior designer to follow a code of ethics and pass an
exam covering California codes and regulations. They argue
that this bill will exclude many designers from becoming
registered because of hard-to-meet requirements and will

CONTINUED

SB 1312
Page
13

criminalize certain acts subjecting them to severe
penalties.

JJA:mw 5/28/08 Senate Floor Analyses

SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE

**** END **** ]]> http://brentwilliams.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/legislative-analysis-of-sb-1312-support-opposition/feed/ 0 brentwilliams http://brentwilliams.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/asidiidas-undercover-parker-plan-leaked/ http://brentwilliams.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/asidiidas-undercover-parker-plan-leaked/#comments Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:22:27 +0000 brentwilliams http://brentwilliams.wordpress.com/?p=62 ]]>

Today I received a newsletter from the Interior Design Protection Council about an ASID/IIDA “secret legislative strategy” to simultaneously introduce interior design practice acts in 47 states. Not only will this be a very expensive endeavor on their part (paying lobbyists and state coalition expenses), it’s a big leap off a steep cliff for nothing.

These associations are out of step with the reality of today. States need REAL reasons (not conceptual or potential) to vote for practice acts and add expensive state boards to their already overburdened budgets. If there is no proof of physical harm, if there is no public demand with evidence of need, practice acts really do seem like a great way to shut all non NCIDQ designers out of business (or at the very least keep them ‘down as underdogs’ leaving them with a limited scope of practice).

There should be an easy way for everyone to stay in business and for the public to differentiate between unqualified, semi-qualified and qualified design professionals without it having to come from the state as a practice act. It is vitally important to the public interest to be transparent and to play fair.

Here is all the text from the IDPC June 13, 2008 newsletter:

NEWSFLASH!
2009 Monopoly Strategy – The Secret’s Out!

Manifesting the Monopoly
SECRETS REVEALED.

Earlier this week, ASID and IIDA discussed plans to launch a radical new strategy for 2009. This MONOPOLY effort, which some have dubbed the “Parker Plan,” will ramp up their efforts to regulate the interior design profession by introducing practice acts simultaneously in the 47 states which do not currently have these restrictive laws. These would-be laws could potentially harm more than 200,000 people in the design community, as well as over 3,000,000 in related trades.
Masking the Monopoly
The thinking behind this harebrained scheme. . .

Apparently IIDA and ASID are planning to to fund this “blitzkrieg” and try to out last the opponents because they believe they have both the money and the backing to do it.

And, they will try numerous ways to disguise it, e.g. stating it’s “to protect the public,” “necessary to get plans stamped,” or “voluntary,” all of which have been proven time after time to be untrue.

Malevolence of the Monopoly
How a practice act would affect YOU.

This is nothing more than an attempt by a small handful of industry insiders to eliminate their competition!

What is truly amazing is that practice acts even harm Allied ASID members, but since ASID does not consider them to be “professionals,” they would fall under the heading of “collateral damage.”

Note: The Alabama Supreme Court declared their practice act UNCONSTITUTIONAL in 2007 and ordered it removed from the books.
Matching the Monopoly
What YOU can do to stop it.

Those pushing regulation are counting on

(1) continued apathy on the part of the uncommitted design community, and

(2) eventually wearing down those of you who have been actively resisting their anti-competitive legislation over the years.

But YOU can stop them. How?

By joining IDPC and getting on board to assist us in

Operation: Designing Freedom

• Make our voice louder by increased numbers
• Your membership fee will be used to fund such programs as:
• Providing education and training to assist each state to set up and maintain an effective grassroots opposition group.
• Conducting town hall meetings and rallies to educate designers across the country by providing the truth and exposing the motives
• Actively influencing legislators by providing information essential to obtaining a “NO” vote on interior design bills
• National campaign to educate students who have only heard the misleading and blatantly false brainwashing scheme perpetrated by the proponents pushing regulation.

THERE’S NOT A MINUTE TO WASTE!

Legislation IS coming to YOUR state!

You must act now!

Dear Friends, The key to ensuring that interior designers retain their right to practice is. . . YOU! Don’t hesitate — the proponents are already planning the demise of your business. New bills are being written, many of which have a September 2008 deadline for entry. Our resources are limited and unless you act now, IDPC will be unable to provide spontaneous and immediate assistance to the onslaught of requests at the beginning of 2009. You will be affected. Join us. Do it NOW. Best regards,

Executive Director Interior Design Protection Council Email me at pmorrow@IDPCinfo.org PS: If you’d like to volunteer to take the lead in forming a grassroots group in your state, or help on one of our committees, please email legislation@IDPCinfo.org.

Last week SB 1312 died because it didn’t have enough votes to get to the Senate floor.

This week, IDCC is betting they can change the minds of the community college representatives and make some kind of legislative progress. Posted on their home page it says:

“Clarification on SB 1312

“Last week IDCC updated you on the progress of SB 1312. As you know, the decision was made to not present the bill to the full Senate because of the concerns raised by community colleges. Yes, this particular bill is dead, but we and our determination for a Practice Act for Interior Designers lives on. The Coalition will meet with community college representatives and other stakeholders, as soon as this week, to discuss the provisions of the bill and to clarify what was and was not included in the text of SB 1312.

“Despite our best efforts, there was considerable confusion about the legislation and its intention. It is important as we go forward that the record is corrected and that we continue the important dialogue about this significant issue. Please click on the link to read the letter we provided to community college representatives. We want to share with you some of the issues that were raised and the information IDCC provided to them.

“The Coalition has great respect for the many ways interior designers come to the profession, and specifically made room for all interior designers to have the opportunity, if they choose, to become registered in SB 1312.

“As we progress with our efforts, we will continue to keep you updated.”

If I was a member of ASID, I’d demand to know how much money they have been THROWING DOWN A BLACK HOLE as “they” continue with their determination for a Practice Act for Interior Designers.

According to the Interior Design Protection Council:

“This year, an unprecented lobbying campaign to regulate interior design has been initiated by ASID and its funded coalitions.

“Since January, bills in ten states (CA, IN, WA, MS, NE, NY, TN, SC, CT MN) have been given some kind of consideration.

“To date, NONE have been enacted. Click on the 2008 bills link above for details.

“Last year (2007), 24 new bills were introduced which would have imposed some type of interior design regulation. At year’s end, NONE of them had been enacted.”

For the record, before IDCC pulls this gem off their web site, here is the full letter they have written to community college representatives:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Community Colleges

May 26, 2008

Ms Bonnie Slosson, Director of Governmental Relations
Community College League of California
2017 O Street
Sacramento CA 95811-5211

Dear Bonnie Slosson,

On behalf of the Interior Design Coalition of California, we appreciate the time you took to discuss with us proposed changes to SB 1312, the Interior Design Practice Act legislation we are sponsoring. As we discussed, we are willing to work with you and community college representatives to address any concerns you have. We want to ensure you that those students attending community colleges would be positively impacted by the proposed legislation, and we disagree that there will be negative impacts to any community college students from the passage of this Bill.

The purpose of this letter is to reiterate several points that were raised in the meeting.

1. SB 1312 will have only a positive impact the students who are, or intend to enroll in interior design curriculum.

As written, SB 1312 will increase career options for community college students currently enrolled, or intend to enroll in an interior design program. Today, students who graduate from a community college interior design program are free to practice interior design in all its aspects, and SB 1312 ensures they will have the same opportunities in the future. As I noted in our discussions the exemptions ensure that.

Graduates and students have a voluntary opportunity to become registered, which is left to them to decide. However, SB 1312 keeps the current standards that enable community college students, and students from dozens of public and private colleges and universities in California to have direct access to take the National Council for Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ) exam, which is the national standard exam used in 26 other states.

Although there is no requirement for registration, Community College students would have the opportunity to register, and would be able to present plans and drawings for consideration at city building departments throughout California as a Registered Interior Designer.

2. Students who graduate from community college programs will still be able to seek employment and practice in the interior design field with employers large and small in a manner of their choosing.

The interior design profession as a whole has enjoyed tremendous growth over the last twentyplus years, thanks in large measure to ADA requirements, green building programs, and a host of other opportunities. Graduates from community colleges, four-year universities and schools such as FIDM have and will continue to enjoy opportunities in interior design companies of all sizes. There is nothing in the legislation that would prohibit a graduate, or an interior designer who wishes to transition from one company to another, to seek gainful employment with an interior design company or other companies that engage in such practice areas as retail, furniture, manufacturing, engineering and architectural firms.

3. SB 1312 was crafted to support the existing curriculum.

SB 1312 does not address curriculum standards and therefore there is absolutely no impact to the standard of teaching and education given at a community college. In addition, the accreditation requirements are open to support all colleges and schools to be eligible as educational criteria.

The Bill specifically states this information in the registration entry requirements.

4. SB 1312 allows an open playing field to all types of educational programs, whether private, community or state.

There are multiple methods of entry to become a Registered Interior Designer which recognizes the many ways interior designers come into the profession. Community colleges are one of them, with programs that can stay as they are. In our discussions with the community college representatives, we agreed that the work experience requirement should be changed to include work experience performed concurrent with school attendance and as well as after graduation. Language for an amendment has been written to reflect that change and will be added to the Bill.

5. SB 1312 allows a student to attend a college, university or community college of their choice. All of these types of higher education give the student the chance to take the NCIDQ which is currently unavailable to community college students.

This legislation is neutral on what type of education a student chooses to pursue, whether that is a community college, university, state college, or private college. Community colleges have, and will continue to play a critical role in the education and training of interior designers.

6. SB 1312 opens a door to become a Registered Interior Designer and allows everyone to choose their own career path when they leave school.

The exemptions have been amended so that they are the same as the current architecture law. For example, these exemptions take into consideration all retail establishments, any non-code impacting work, residential interior design, and contractors. The work environment that interior designers are in today stays the same for interior designers and graduates when SB1312 becomes law.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with these important clarifications to SB 1312. This is significant legislation that will allow interior designers the opportunity to fully practice what their education has prepared them to accomplish. As was stated at our meeting, we undertook a review of 39 local building departments to determine whether, in fact, interior designers had the opportunity to present plans and/or drawings to local building officials. Of the 39 departments we queried, 17 building departments deny interior designers the ability to present drawings or plans for approval without an architect’s stamp. Another 12 departments have “severe” restrictions on an interior designer’s ability to present plans. SB 1312 will correct that for interior designers who are practicing today and for the emerging interior designers who are the students you are teaching today and in the future.

I urge you to reconsider your position, and offer a continued dialogue in order for us to work together to ensure the greatest possible opportunities are available to Community College students in California. I realize you did not have the opportunity to read SB 1312 before we met last week. However, once you have read the bill, I am confident that we can have a productive discussion when you consider how this benefits community college students in being able to advance their career in ways otherwise that may be currently unavailable to them.

It was always the goal and intention of the Interior Design Coalition of California to provide an opportunity for the community college student to be able to participate in the profession of interior design in a way that gives them more choices in how to express themselves in their chosen career. Speaking for the Coalition, we look forward to discussing SB 1312 further with you.

We firmly believe that the bill increases the opportunities available to community college students. We thank you and the Board in advance for your reconsideration of SB 1312, look forward to working with you on the bill, and hope you will join us in supporting this important measure.

Sincerely,

Bruce Goff
Legislative Director

Cc: Community College League Board
Senator Leland Yee

[Below is a guest commentary by a retired interior designer who lives in Southern California. She wrote to me this morning and asked if I would publish this for her]:

Today the Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean pleaded with the 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee to find a resolution that will unite the party heading into the November election. “We are strong enough to struggle and disagree and even be angry and disappointed and still come together at the end of the day and be united.”

According to the CLCID website, in 1984-85 there was a real threat to the practice of interior desgn and the various design associations came together and worked for seven years to get certification established and running:

• 1984-85 – Senator John Seymour’s SB 790 sponsored by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and California Board of Architectural Examiners passes legislature and is signed by Governor George Deukmejian without opposition. SB 790 restricted practicing all design and submission of plans to building departments except those drawn under the supervision of CA licensed architects and engineers.
  
• 1990 – Senator Craven introduces SB 153. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the Board of Architectural Examiners oppose it. Negotiation with both Architects and Contractors for an Interior Designers Practice Act is unsuccessful.
  
• 1990 – After being amended to “Certification” recognition, SB 153 passes through the legislative process in both the Senate and Assembly. SB 153 is approved by the Legislature and signed by Governor Deukmejian.
  
• Late 1990 – A Task Force is convened to form a certifying board.
  
• 1991 – Senator Craven authors SB 667 to amend the interior design statute section on grandparenting.
  
• 1991 – A certifying board for interior design is formed as a non-profit 501(c)(6) and titled the California Council for Interior Design Certification ( CCIDC), and the CLCID Board of Directors approves it. The CCIDC Board of Directors is established and staff is hired.
  
• 1992 – CCIDC commences certification for eligible interior designers.

Certification of interior designers that is recognized by the state and yet not burdened by the state has been praised by many including the Institute for Justice. Page 4 Executive Summary “Designing Cartels” says:

“Legislators should critically examine the need for new titling and icensure laws and
consider repealing existing regulations of questionable value. Instead, self-certification
through professional associations or non-profit boards, as in California, can help designers
and other professionals distinguish themselves without needless government oversight
that serves only to keep out aspiring entrepreneurs.”

With the recent SB 1312 that IDCC(ASID) and IIDA tried to force through (at the expense of the Calif. Architects Board, thousands of design professionals and students), they seem to have judged self-certification as inadequate, as some kind of inferior step-child to state licensing. With enormous state budget problems and no emergency status, SB 1312 died appropriately.

I do not wish for another SB 790 to bring the interior design profession together. But it would be great if everyone remembered it and realized how much can be accomplished when the profession is united.

[also read comments]

CLCID’s News Release

SB 1312 Stalls in Senate

Sacramento, CA, May 29, 2008 – - In the face of growing opposition, Senate Bill 1312 was removed from consideration and not voted on by the State Senate. The bill cannot be considered again in the Senate this year.

SB 1312 is strongly opposed by the California Legislative Coalition for Interior Design (CLCID) who for the last twenty five years has served as the primary interior design coalition in the state of California. The membership consists of California Chapter Members of the National Kitchen and Bath Association, Interior Design Society and International Furnishing and Design Association, independent Interior Designers, Individual Members affiliated with the American Society of Interior Designers or International Interior Design Association, students, educators, and individuals in the interior design industry.

The legislation was also opposed by the Community College League of California who is concerned the bill would have a devastating impact on careers of current and future students who attend community colleges who would not be eligible to become registered interior designers.

The opponents successfully argued that SB 1312 is a restrictive practice act that would deny access to practice registered interior design to current interior designers who have professional experience, but who didn’t graduate from schools with specific qualifications.

The California Architects Board, who would have be called upon to administer the regulation opposed SB 1312 stating the cost to be approximately $1.5 million per year, adding unnecessary cost and administrative overhead to the interior design industry that must be passed on to the consumer.

CLCID wishes to thank the many individuals and organizations that opposed SB 1312. The organizations who lobbied to defeat SB 1312 include:

California Building Officials (CALBO), Community College League of California, National Kitchen and Bath Association – California Chapters (NKBA), American Institute of Architects – (AIA California Council), California Architects Board (CAB), Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), California Legislative Coalition for Interior Design (CLCID), Los Rios Community College District, The Interior Design Society (IDS) – California, Western Home Furnishings Association, Lumber Association of California & Nevada, National Association of the Remodeling Industry (NARI), International Furnishings and Design Association (IFDA) – Northern Calif. Chapter, The Home Depot, American Lighting Association (ALA), American Institute of Building Designers (AIBD) and the California Retailers Association.

#########################################################################

IDCC’s Home Page Statement

Latest developments regarding SB 1312

Our author, Senator Leland Yee, decided not to take up SB 1312 before the full Senate because of mounting opposition and concerns that were raised, some legitimate and many that were not grounded in fact. The Interior Design Coalition of California will continue to work diligently to listen to and address concerns by those opposed to the bill to bring this important issue back to the legislature.

On behalf of IDCC, we want to thank all of you for your hard work to help pass SB 1312, legislation that would provide a pathway for designers to become “registered.”

SB 1312 was written to provide the greatest amount of flexibility for the interior design community, creating a voluntary pathway to become a registered interior designer without impacting those that are currently practicing and who may not wish to register.

Equally important, we wanted to make sure that those who are studying to become a designer, either at a community college, or at a private or public college or university, have the broadest opportunities possible.

SB 1312 has received tremendous support from across California including educators, students, design professionals and a host of others. That support was necessary as we worked our way through the State Senate. Because of all of your hard work, SB 1312 was approved by two Senate committees ­ Business and Professions and Appropriations.

Along the way there were a number of issues raised and we worked very hard to make sure that each of those issues were addressed in a straightforward fashion to improve the bill, and it has been duly amended to reflect a solution for those issues.

Thank you once again for all of your hard work.

##########################################################################

Interior Design Protection Council

SB 1312 dies in Senate!

SB 1312, a practice act, was withdrawn from the the Senate agenda today, and given the status of “inactive” due to the tremendous outpouring of opposition. In spite of intense lobbying by ASID and IDCC, as well as support by several influential Senators, in the end, the majority of clear-thinking members of the Senate could not overlook the logical, statistical, and factual documentation presented in rebuttal to misleading and mendacious statements made by the proponents of SB 1312. Many Senators stated that they had received “stacks” of letters in opposition and confirmed that the phone calls in opposition greatly outnumbered those of the proponents. Allegedly, only 9 Senators were willing to vote “yes” to SB 1312, so the bill was removed rather than be voted down by such a large margin. One of the most important voices in opposition was that of the Community College Leage, advocating on behalf of many thousands of students who would have been negatively impacted by SB 1312. Many other groups joined IDPC in actively opposing this anti-competitive bill: CADAL, NKBA, AIA, IDD, AICAD, IFDA, IDS, DANA, CALBO, CBA, as well as many Allied ASID and independent designers. This joint collaboration produced the overwhelming amount of opposition which resulted in the bill’s demise. The question on everyone’s lips, “will they be back next year?” Probably. But strategies are being formed, right now, to ensure that another state-imposed regulatory monopoly scheme never sees the light of day in California. But for today, celebrate your victory in protecting your right to practice! Patti Morrow Executive Director INTERIOR DESIGN PROTECTION COUNCIL

Contact Us info@IDPCinfo.org

[also read comments]

Senate Bill 1312 (Yee) on Registered Interior Designers was to be voted on today by the entire Senate.

It was sentenced to the inactive file.

Good RIDdance to bad rubbish. The RID legislation was a mess of a bill.

Inactive File: The portion of the Daily File containing legislation that is ready for floor consideration, but, for a variety of reasons, is dead or dormant. www.leginfo.ca.gov/glossary.html

It doesn’t say “shall” which is more definitive, and it does say “both.

What he doesn’t realize is that will be only 2 years from the date of this bill becoming actual law [January 1, 2009] and that the state won’t even have an application form by that date. The board will have to go through all kinds of administrative and public hearings with stakeholders in order to determine fees, requirements, rules and regulations, etc.

5733. Before being issued a certificate of registration you have to at your own personal expense travel all the way to Sacramento and appear before “the committee” and swear an oath.   —– Even doctors don’t do that anymore!!!

Basically this bill subjugates all those who wish to become, or have to become, an RID to the NCIDQ process one way or another. This bill does NOT subjugate the NCIDQ to state law or state will. No matter what Bruce Goff says to the contrary he, and the state of California have no control over the NCIDQ and they will do what they want, not what this “committee” or California wants. It will not matter one bit if California has a seat on NCIDQ’s delegates council because California will have only one vote .  THIS IS A LOSE LOSE LOSE proposition for California.

THANKS to Patti Morrow of IDPC for this great letter opposing SB 1312. (Edited to suit blog)
FAX YOUR LETTERS BY MAY 28

THE SENATE WILL BE VOTING ON THIS BILL ON THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008.
THE HEARING STARTS AT 9:00 A.M. WHICH YOU CAN WATCH ON THE CALIFORNIA CHANNEL!!!!!
Download list of Senators here.

—————————————————————————————-

Re: OBJECTION to SB 1312 – Regulation of Interior Designers

Dear Senator ________,

I am writing to you to express my strong objection to SB 1312. This legislation does not meet the criteria of protecting the public health.

• SB 1312 is UNNECESSARY. The only reason to regulate an entire profession is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. There has been no evidence presented anywhere that the unregulated practice of interior design places the public in any jeopardy. In Item #14 of the CA Sunrise Report, the proponents were requested to “cite cases of or instances of consumer injury.” Not even one example was listed. Further, in Item #15 the proponents were asked how the proposed regulation would preclude consumer injury, and they replied, “There is no method to preclude injury from regulated professions.” In Item #36, in answer to the question “To what extent is public harm caused by personal factors such as dishonesty?” again, not one example was offered. Therefore, there is no reason, either evidentially or proactively, to regulate interior design.

• SB 1312 is UNTRUTHFUL, The claim by IDCC/ASID that they need this law because of their inability to get drawings approved with the new IBC is simply false. CA does not use the IBC; they use the CBC, and there has been no evidence that plans which adhere to the proper criteria have been rejected. The truth is, over 30,000 of 40,000 permits issued by LADBS each year do not require design by a licensed engineer or architect.

• SB 1312 is UNATTAINABLE. SB 1312 would be detrimental to students. The bill requires that they work under an NCIDQ-certified designer for 2 to 4 years before qualifying for the exam, but since there are not nearly enough NCIDQ-certified designers to hire the number of graduating students each year, the overwhelming majority of CA students would be excluded from providing any of the services listed under the scope of “registered interior design” and ultimately be forced to move to another state to practice their chosen profession.

• SB 1312 is UNWARRANTED. Consumers are already adequately protected by codes and inspections, which must be adhered to whether a designer is licensed or not. The Federal Trade Commission concluded that regulation of interior design would result in higher cost and fewer consumer choices.

• SB 1312 is UNECONOMICAL. This bill is not fiscally-neutral, but would have a negative impact on the California economy as it is a restrictive, anti-competitive and anti-consumer bill. Taxpayer funding of over $1.6 million would be necessary to implement and enforce SB 1312. That’s a lot of money for a program that is totally unnecessary.

• SB 1312 is UNFAIR. With the downturn in the housing market and the slowing economy, providing a state-sanctioned regulatory monopoly advantage for a small handful of designers would literally result in thousands of others being put out of business, thus taking their incomes right out of the economy and their tax dollars right out of the state treasury.

• SB 1312 is UNWELCOMED. The push to regulate interior design has come about not through public demand or legislative determinations, but mainly through the efforts of ASID and NCIDQ [founded by ASID in 1974]. Every other organization that is in any way involved in or with interior design opposes such legislation. See attached list of organizations.

• SB 1312 is UNGOVERNABLE. No matter what the state board sets as requirements, they have no control over what NCIDQ determines as its own qualifications to sit for the exam, creating a situation of de facto legislation, whereby an outside party is able to change a law without knowledge or consent of the legislature. ASID/NCIDQ may, for the sake of getting a foot in the door, set the requirements low, but please note that the proponents’ goal for criteria is “minimum of a bachelor’s degree to be eligible for accreditation beginning 1/1/2010.” (From Practice to Profession, ASID, page 27.)

• SB 1312 is UNSUPPORTED. Last year, 24 interior design bills were rejected by the legislature or governors. So far this year, every state that has considered interior design regulation has declined to enact. In his 2007 veto message, Governor Daniels of Indiana said that the “principal effect” of legislation would be to “restrain competition and limit new entrants into the occupation.”

California already has a very successful and voluntary Certified Interior Program in place which is serving the consumer well and is not taxpayer funded. Enacting SB 1312 would be a lose-lose-lose-lose proposition for designers, students, consumers, and the California economy.

I respectfully urge you to join legislators in other states who have considered and rejected anti-competitive, unnecessary regulation.

Very sincerely,

[be sure to read COMMENTS in this post]

Supporters argue that SB 1312 “does NOT use the NCIDQ standards, but allows the states to set them. Specifically no CIDA school requirements, no fixed internship – just work experience.”

The opposition isn’t focusing on CIDA school requirements or fixed internship. They ARE focused on the work experience… and just check it out! This WORK EXPERIENCE requirement IS just terrible for students coming out of design school now.

This is straight from the NCIDQ WEB SITE: SEE ” Supervised Experience Requirement”
http://brentwilliams.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/ncidq-intdesexperienceprogram.pdf

It’s amazing how IDCC changes the subject in midstream. Slick, but very transparent.

[be sure to read the COMMENTS to this post]

A design educator wrote to me the following:

“Brent,

The problem is with WORK EXPERIENCE (not the two, three or four years education). As of Jan. 1, ‘08 WORK EXPERIENCE has to be under a “registered”, “licensed” interior designer, or an “NCIDQ certificate holder” or an “architect who practices interior design”.

All our students who are graduating this year (and beyond) WILL HAVE TO find their work experience with one of the above.

In our present ‘down’ economy – - which is predicted by experts to be down for at least 18-24 months, hiring is slow at best, and many firms, I am told, are eliminating jobs altogether.

SO NOW, under SB 1312, our students who have spent many years and small fortunes studying interior design, will have to take the NCIDQ that doesn’t test them on Title 24 and so they will have to learn that which doesn’t even apply to them in California, that is, IF THEY ARE ELIGIBLE to take the exam, when the ONLY WORK EXPERIENCE they can obtain before applying HAS TO BE UNDER one of the above-listed professionals.

This legislation really burns me up. It is so unfair to our students . I do believe that many of our graduates will have a VERY DIFFICULT TIME getting the so-called “right kind” of experience that it will take them many years before they will be able to become “Registered” under SB 1312.

I fear that some of our graduating students who are not able to get jobs will start working for themselves and they will unknowingly violate the RID law and face government fines. And even if they did work for themselves or found good work with some talented and experienced designers, NONE OF IT WOULD COUNT towards their NCIDQ exam.”

[be sure to read comments below]

AIA California Council (AIACC):
Mark Christian, Director of Legislative Affairs for the AIACC, recently said on the
prospect of this issue dissipating in the near future: “We are finding the proponents of
interior design regulation to be well-financed and very determined. They hired a highly
regarded lobbying firm and chose a respected and effective state senator to carry their
bill. Even if they are not successful this year, we have no doubt they will modify their
arguments and try again.”
The AIACC is currently working very closely with the interior design community,
California Architects Board, California Building Officials, and others opposed to S.B.
1312 and has worked to educate others on the effect of the bill. They have met with
several state senators, legislative staff, executive staff, and appointees to explain why
S.B. 1312 is not needed and are currently implementing a targeted letter writing campaign.
- – Source: http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/ID%20addendum1.pdf

Comment: I just have to laugh over the “insanity” of IDCC/ASID/IIDA to introduce a Practice Act UNDER the California Architects Board. Hahaha, — They don’t want interior designers on their board. They never have, and they never will. What are you guys smoking?!?!??

I’ve “appalled” a certain hard-line educator who has a “stake” in ASID, NCIDQ, IIDA and IDEC.

Her school is “and has been proudly CIDA (FIDER) accredited for almost 25 years; we offer a BFA in interior design”

She further wrote that the community college programs that teach interior design are “not in as much depth as a four-year program.”

And she wrote “It is NCIDQ’s mission “…to protect the health, life safety and welfare of the public by establishing standards of competence in the practice of interior design”.

NCIDQ may be an okay exam, BUT IT DOES NOT AND NEVER HAS COVERED CALIFORNIA CODES.

[see comment by DK on my About page a detailed explanation]

This afternoon I sent a letter to Interior Design EDUCATORS on the behalf of interior design students and how SB 1312 can affect them. Thus far, I was accused by one educator as follows:
He wrote: “The bill does not require any of the things you are indicating. Please stop distributing misinformation.”

IF I HAVE POSTED MISINFORMATION, PLEASE, DESIGN EDUCATORS, EDUCATE ME ON SB 1312. SEND COMMENTS, I WILL APPROVE THEM, SO THE INTERIOR DESIGN COMMUNITY CAN LEARN FROM YOU. THANKS.

——————————-

I wrote him back and said:

Dear Mr. __,

I am not distributing “misinformation”. The California Senate page publishes
the proposed legislation, and you can read it here:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1301-1350/sb_1312_bill_20080513_amended_sen_v96.html
and, (as shown below), it indicates the EDUCATION AND WORK requirements.

Now, if you are familiar with the NCIDQ, you would already know their requirement dictates WHO you can work for, before you get to sit for that exam. “This January a new requirement makes that experience only count if the job is supervised by an NCIDQ certificate-holder, or a licensed architect!”

PLEASE POINT OUT WHERE THERE IS MISINFORMATION so I can post it on my blog. Or if you would like
to publicly “comment”, please do so.

——————————————

MY LETTER TO EDUCATORS:

Hello,

I was wondering if you are aware of the STRICT EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS for the proposed
“Registered Interior Designer” bill (SB 1312).

Does your interior design program align with the education mandate this legislation sets forth?
Will your graduating students have a difficult time to get internships?
(they would need thousands of hours of work experience under an RID, NCIDQ certif holder or an architect before they can sit for the NCIDQ).

The Community College League of California is OPPOSED to SB 1312, maybe you should be too:
http://www.ccleague.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3645

The League says:
“SB 1312 is a bad and intrusive effort into the curricular standards of colleges. The work experience and education requirements of SB 1312 are onerous and at odds with educational programs…”

Your graduating students are eligible to apply for Certification and take the certification exam WITHOUT work experience. The exam they would take
is relevant to California codes. The NCIDQ does not cover California codes. Think about it. What is the better route for your students?

The Senate will vote on this the week of May 26 – May 30. If you oppose, Fax a letter or call your Senator. Your students will thank you.

Sincerely,
Brent Williams, designer/space planner
See my post: “I pity the design students”
at http://brentwilliams.wordpress.com/

——————————————

[be sure to read comments below!]

SB 1312 is a bad piece of legislation. All you students will not be able to sit for the NCIDQ exam to start the process to become a Registered Interior Designer UNTIL you have  thousands of hours of experience working under an RID or someone who has passed the NCIDQ, or an architect.

IF YOU BELIEVE there are enough of these people *with jobs to offer you*, you are sadly mistaken. In addition, because you will be so desperate for these kinds of jobs you place yourself at the mercy of anyone who will hire you.

Students obviously have not understood this legislation and have been fed a bunch of baloney by ASID.

HERE’S SOME STUDENT FACTS about SB 1312
4. Registration 5730.
The committee shall issue a certificate of registration to a person who meets all of the
following requirements:
(a) Has not committed any of the acts listed in Section 5745 .
(b) Completes an application for a certificate on a form prescribed by the committee .
(c) Pays the registration fee prescribed by the committee pursuant to Section 5755 .
(d) Submits proof satisfactory to the committee of successful completion of one of the
following:
(1) A bachelor’s degree program in interior design and 3,520 hours of interior design experience, including 1,760 hours earned after the degree program is completed.
(2) A bachelor’s degree program in any major, no less than 60 semester or 90 quarter hours of interior design coursework that culminates in a certificate or degree, and 3,520 hours of interior design experience, including 1,760 hours earned after the degree program and coursework are completed.
(3) No less than 60 semester or 90 quarter hours of interior design coursework that culminates in a certificate, degree, or diploma and 5,280 hours of interior design experience earned after that coursework is completed.
(4) No less than 40 semester or 60 quarter hours of interior design coursework that culminates in a certificate, degree, or diploma and 7,040 hours of interior design experience earned after that coursework is completed.
(e) Submits proof of passage of the examination prepared and administered by the National Council for Interior Design Qualification.

Yesterday the Ca Senate Appropriations Committee gave the green light to SB 1312. It will go to the full Senate Floor for a vote sometime next week. ASID/IDCC is getting a run for their money and they must be very happy right now.  Read the Legislative Alert

[be sure to read comments below]

The fate of Senate Bill 1312 (the poorly written “voluntary Practice Act” for Registered Interior Designers) will be decided on Thurs. May 22nd. On both fronts, designers have been urged to fax Senators to either throw a rope to save it, or to send the monster to the underworld —but I think its a done deal already. My guess is it will die in suspense, never to be heard from again.

IDCC is still “hopeful” with this dog. Their home page says:

“It didn’t pass through to the Senate yet, …..”

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]

[be sure to read comments below!]
Thank you Patti M. for letting us know we can listen to the hearing

LOTS OF SUPPORT, MAINLY FROM ASID, IIDA (about 19 testified in support)
LOTS OF OPPOSITION, NKBA, AIA, CAB some ASID, NARI, CLCID and others… (about 41 in opposition)
even Community College League of California is opposed

• “It’s the wrong bill at the wrong time”….

• “It will put me out of business”….

• “there is confusion in the bill…”

Dept. of Consumer Affairs Finance had comments….including ongoing costs would be $1.6 million, with fees established by regulation, there will probably have to be a loan from the general fund to get the program started.

Outcome:  SB 1312 went to suspense. Thanks to Bob T. who send me Frank Russo’s ( California Progress ) explanation of what suspense can mean for a bill. “They have been sent to purgatory–the “suspense file”–and if not moved out and passed will either become “two year bills” to be considered next year only–or they will be dead for the session.”

THE CALIFORNIA CHANNEL HAS TV AND WEBCAST OF TODAYS SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE HEARING WHICH WILL GO OVER SB 1312

CHECK TV AND WEB SCHEDULE www.calchannel.com

Sunday, May 18, 2008; Page G02

Largely thanks to government mandates and rising fuel prices, the green revolution is revving up in the global automobile industry.

Even Nissan, which once frowned on all things electric and hybrid, is planning to launch several fleets of electric vehicles aimed at markets such as New York and London and at commercial delivery enterprises worldwide.

Washington Post article:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503023.html

I’m an industrial design buff and as far as I know, industrial designers aren’t licensed, and they aren’t knocking down doors to get licensed either. I looked at the IDSA web site and I don’t see any mention of “legislation”. If you can find any, let me know.

If you want to compare industrial and interior design and whose job is “more important” to public safety, I’d vote for industrial design any day of the week. They design mass-produced cars, ergonomic chairs, keyboards, forks and knives, motorcycles, table fans, even Ronco dice & slice gizmos.

Sure, while it takes special education, skill and a discerning ability to design and specify for inside a building, is this the kind of work that needs oversight by the state because bad practice kills people? , or is it the kind of work that consumers can easily benefit from what we have now, which is private (state recognized) Certification. I’m neither licensed or certified, I just have not found the time yet to study for the CCRE.

Is there a big difference in the name Registered versus Certified . Does one title have more prestige or give a client a better designer. I don’t know.

As a space planner/designer who works with contractors and architects all the time, I’ve had my share of unwarranted “attitude”. I’ve been called interior desicrator to my face and behind my back. There seems to be an unspoken pecking order in construction, which is not unlike racism. It makes you feel bad about yourself and it wears you down. I think this would occur even if designers were licensed.

Over the years I’ve heard workmen in the field whisper and wonder if I was gay or some real ignorant, come right out and say it to my face. They don’t even know me and they judge me badly because of what I do for a living. (I’m not by the way). There have been many times that I wanted to be higher on the pecking order but then I should have become a Civil Engineer. They’re top dog, the buck stops with them, they have the biggest responsibility of all. But I like design and not math and I don’t want more responsibility (or liability) than I already have. I feel that a state license will bring me more of what I don’t want.

But back to the industrial designers, I have met a few in my life, and they seemed to have good self esteem and didn’t suffer an inferiority complex. I’m sure they get their share of crap from engineers in their field but thats just human nature unfortunately. There’s always going to be ’some’ people who like to tear others down to make themselves feel better. Their work is hard, just like interior designers or even more so, and yet they as a group don’t think they need a state license to protect the public from their work nor to validate them as being good professionals. As a group (and for what they give us), I think they’re pretty cool.

[be sure to read comments below!]

Tonight I found this site called CADAL which stands for California Designers Against Legislation and their clever tagline is “Eureka! We have found the truth!” (maybe they have, maybe they haven’t, it’s up to each individual to read it for themselves and decide) …… This web site is focused on opposing SB 1312. It’s not very large and looks kinda new but it’s packed with id turf war articles and white papers. One blog entry is called The Running Dogs of Interior Design and I have to side with commentator “Clifford, AIA” where he says NCARB is worse than ASID. Heh.

This reminds me of the costs to become a Registered Interior Designer under SB 1312.
http://www.glasbergen.com/images/k323.gif

As a follow up to “NCIDQ blew it” – I want to thank Debra O. for reminding us designers out there that NCIDQ keeps changing their requirements for candidates who might want to sit for their exam.

Excerpts from Debra’s comment:

“….the people deciding who may even register for the NCIDQ exam are trying to make it impossible for anyone else to ever take the test.”

“Last year they implemented a new rule requiring all experience counted toword the minimum requirement must occur after the education requirement. What happens to those who have a number of years in the industry, and decide to return to school? Tough luck.”

“This January a new requirement makes that experience only count if the job is supervised by an NCIDQ certificate-holder, or a licensed architect!”

Read all of her comments here (#2)

<!– @ 5:32 pm –>

Check it – Not just opposition letters, but quirky articles from Newsweek and the Sacramento Bee.

There are more important things to write about. Like the price of gas and how did the Celts push the Cavs to the brink of elimination?

[be sure to read comments below!]

So many interior designers are in the dark about what the hell is happening with their profession in California. There are now TWO legislation coalitions at odds with each other (CLCID and IDCC); a couple of large national organizations seemingly “at war” (ASID & NKBA); sideline groups and their members sparring with each other, not to mention ‘outsiders’ (such as AIA and CALBO) jumping in to render their opinions, and all the while, no doubt, being watched by the Institute for Justice.

And what’s all the fuss about? A national interior design exam, called the NCIDQ, that was once the ‘only’ accepted exam for interior design certification (in Calif.), but then a while ago fell into non compliance with California law.

With much negotiation on the certification boards part, NCIDQ wouldn’t make any exceptions to comply with California law, so CCIDC had to adjust their exam requirements to comply with the law. This didn’t sit well with NCIDQ or ASID who have since decided to try to legislate the NCIDQ as the only exam (under proposed Senate Bill 1312).

While this isn’t the entire mess, it is a big part of it. Many of us sit and wonder why ASID is pushing for the NCIDQ only when MOST of their own members have never taken it.

All NCIDQ had to do was make some exceptions to their rules to comply with California law, and they’d have a whole lot of candidates sitting for their exam today and in the future.

As it stands, they pretty much forced CCIDC to lookfor other ways to properly test and certify designers in California and they now have plans to drop their current exams and go to one California Codes Exam in 2009.

Big mistake NCIDQ. I think you blew it in California.

Who opposes SB 1312:

1. Interior Design Tribe
2. AIA California Council
3. WAH’s Journal (with a date problem)
4. Interior Design Freedom
5. CLCID
6. ASID-CA Peninsula Chapter (discusses pros/cons)
7. Institute of Justice in Capitol Weekly
8. Legislative Update -Blogspot re CALBO
9. Interior Design Protection Council
10. NKBA
11. AIA- National
12. Brents Blog – you are here

SB 1312 would eliminate the California Architects Board (CAB) and instead establish the California Architects and Registered Interior Designers Board (CARIDB).

You should never establish a state board with a name you can’t pronounce. (heh)

Why should I care what ASID or IIDA does when I’m not a member of either one of these groups.
I care because what they do can affect me and my work and there are alot of designers who do not belong to groups (just like alot of architects who do not belong to AIA) .

I am, or at least try to be a well balanced person and not poke my nose into others business but it just stinks when people band together and end up harming others.

FROM another website:

“….a small faction within the interior design community has been waging a relentless lobbying campaign to cartelize the industry through government regulation. Led by the powerful American Society of Interior Designers (ASID), that campaign follows a two-part strategy.

“….The first step is to persuade credulous legislators to adopt so-called “titling” laws that permit anyone to work as an interior designer, but provide that only those meeting certain credentials (specifically those held by—surprise!—ASID members) may use the terms “interior design” and “interior designer.” The result is that in New Mexico (as well as Texas, Illinois, Florida and Connecticut) thousands of talented, highly experienced interior designers are suddenly demoted to “decorators” or “consultants” and prevented from advertising themselves—truthfully—as full-fledged interior designers.

“…..From censorship, the cartel then proceeds to full-blown occupational licensing in the guise of “practice acts” that dictate who may actually work as an interior designer….read it all on Institute for Justice

FORWARDING from my friend Janet R.:

Do interior designers NEED a Practice Act? or should I ask: do consumers NEED to PAY MORE for interior design services? The answer to both is NO.

Interior designers can already become Certified by CCIDC and have their choice of exams (including the NCIDQ). I think in a year or so, there will be only one exam and that will be on California Codes.

This is a good thing as students will be able to take the codes exam right out of school (NCIDQ does not allow for that) and it will open more designers to becoming Certified. IF you are a designer with EXPERIENCE ONLY, NCIDQ doesn’t want you. Jane, Diane and Walter, I hope you are reading this.

Don’t fall for the grandfather lie. You won’t be automatically registered without a whole lot of trouble and alot of expense, and even then you may not qualify. Just because you are allied or assoc. members of ASID or IIDA, doesn’t mean a thing.

ASID who is pushing this so hard has not thought this through, at all, it makes me wonder who is in charge. They are making their members angry and it is so obvious they just don’t want “outsiders” to practice interior design (sorry, but thats what I think, all NKBA members, IDS, independents,… ASID is trying to shut you out or at least keep you down while they try to elevate themselves at all cost).

I’ve been reading alot about SB 1312 lately, and today, I figured, enough is enough. Many of my friends in ASID and IIDA think they have been lied to, and they don’t know what’s going on. I’ve been researching and getting emails from other designers who are getting down to the truth of this PROPOSED LEGISLATION which doesn’t pass the smell test. This bill needs to be stopped. I don’t even know how it’s actually gotten this far.