Washington Votes Forum

What danger to society do unskilled interior designers pose?  This legislation is a complete waste of time and resources, and is obviously only an attempt to put some good and skilled (but unregulated) people out of business to protect a few.

I am curious where the money is here.  There is obviously no danger of physical harm from an ugly pillow.  And I haven't heard that there have been a large number of consumer complaints to the state about designers gone bad.  

So that leaves a financial incentive.  It is obvious why the registered interior designers want the bill, they can exclude their competition and fine the daylights out of them for offering an opinion on where your settee should be set.  But what connection does the sponsor have?  Does she get campaign contributions from them?  Did she suffer the heartbreak of a conflict between a stripe and a pattern?

Oh, the indignity of it all!

 They are involved in affecting the pubic health safety and welfare in ways accociated with building codes, fire and life safey codes and pratices, structural integrity of buildings, specification of materials that may not be safe, etc, etc, etc. I don't mind a bill that allows the simpe application decoration to be unregulated. After all, anyone can go to the local hardware store and get supplies to decorate all they want (within the limits of codes), but "designers" hold themselves out as professionals, so they should rise to the standard and be willing to be held accountable.

These Interior Design Licensing Schemes are being pushed in a lot of different states by ASID (American Society of Interior Designers) as a way to try to monopolize the practice of Interior Design and cut out competition.

The HSW argument has been proven to be completely Bogus.  I guess if they repeat it often enough they think they can dupe the legislators into passing a bill.

Lot's of money being spent on Lobbyists and campaign contributions here as well by ASID and their front groups.

The good news is that the legislation has been rejected in every state it has been proposed in over the last several years.

It is called a free market.  If you hire someone, you get references and look at their body of work.  The government really doesn't have to be in the business of protecting us from ourselves.  This scare tactic that a bad designer will cause a building to burn down is just ridiculous.  Only someone with a very strong financial incentive to eliminate the competition through the heavy hand of government would make such an argument.

I'm glad to hear this legislation has failed in other states.  It does make me question whether I want to hire anyone who is a member of ASID.  It sounds like they are worried about their ability to get clients based on their experience, and want government to choose winners and losers instead.  Doesn't sound like someone I want working on my project.

You have not taken the time to actively research and consider the scope of something like his outside your own experience. I am unconcerned about your friend, that you have "checked out" (although without sufficient education and experience you yourself wouldn’t even know what to ask or research) their references. What about the general population that can't? A “captive consumer” is a person or persons using offices and pubic spaces such as hospitals, stores, airports, and other non-live-in institution space and student or public housing in which finishes and furnishing are pre-selected and installed without consumer participation. They are considered “captive” because they have not been directly involved in the selection of the interior materials, furniture, and furnishings they are forced to use. Interior spaces designed improperly by uneducated persons practicing Interior Design can and do contribute to lost revenue, liability lawsuits, increased insurance costs, illness/hospitalization, injury/disability, and even death.

For example, uneven flooring transitions, unmarked flooring height changes, un-rated floors (involving floor traction), inadequate lighting, confusing flooring patterns, and color combinations that produce optical illusions all contribute to incidences of slip and fall; a leading cause of injury of which 300,000 disabling incidences and 20,000 fatalities occur each year in North America, about twice the homicide rate buy firearms.

 Yea, I can see you roll your eyes because this hasn’t; happened to you. Since you don't know anyone this has happened to, it must not happen. Over 540,000 slip-fall injuries, requiring hospital care, occur in North America each year. Slip and falls account for over 300,000 disabling injuries per year in North America. Slip and falls account for over 20,000 fatalities per year in North America – i.e. 55 persons per day. It is the second leading cause of accidental death and disability after automobile accidents. Slip and falls kill more workers than all other combined forms of workplace accidents.

But, this won’t make the evening news too often. When you get a little older and break a hip because of someone’s negligence, then you’ll care.

We'll the State of Colorado just did a Sunrise report in 2008 to research the need for Interior Design Legislation because ASID is pushing for it in Colorado as well.

The conclusion was that ID legislation is not needed and there was absolutely no proof that un-licensed interior designers are threat to the Health, Safety and Welfare of the public.

Washington State did a sunrise report in 2005 with the same conclusion I believe.

This slip and fall stuff is just more ASID scare tactics.

AIA (American Institute of Architects), NKBA (National Kitchen & Bath Association) and NARI (National Association of the Remodeling Industry) have all come out against Interior Design Legislation of any kind.

Last year ID legislation was vetoed by the Governor's of Indiana, Colarado, Massachusetts and New York (for the third time in New York).

In Alabama, the statute was found to be unconstitutional.  There are also three lawsuits pending in Texas, Connecticut and Oklahoma that contend that the ID licensing schemes in those states are a violation of the First Amendment.

I'm curious, randyha.  Why don't you use your real name?  It would be interesting to hear just what personal interest you have in this bill. 

As long as you stay anonymous, and don't give any links to your data, my only reaction is to totally disregard what you say.  A contractor for a commercial building is already doing what you say here, and building codes already cover what you are scare-mongering about.  I would find your post amusing, except that you are serious, and your industry is ready to go to court to sue "violators" for big money.  

Like I said, let us know who you are, and maybe you will have a little more credibility.

I have no personal interest, just an opinion. I have some experince in this general area that gives me one perspective, or which I shared a portion, but I am not in this area of industry now, nor have I been for decades. I don't need to try bolster my credibility to convince anyone. I presented my opinions and ideas and you are welcome to consider them in any way you like. My, or your, "credibility" has nothing to do with the ideas that you or I present. I don't even read the names. I am interested in ideas. I have taken the ideas others on this forum into consideration and have found some compelling, have caused me to consired this further and continue to challenge my own thinking. This is what I do. What you have done is to jump over the discussion, the facts, the arguments (meaning reasons for and against, not angered accusations) and attack me, my "credibility". You make assumptions, totally unfounded and totally self-fabricated. I accept that you reject my comments. It doesn't threaten me or make me feel less of myself. You appear to be fearful of the ideas themselves and needy of others credentials, perhaps disclosing feelings of inadeqacy with your credentials. There is a tone of fear and lashing out in your post. In contrast to what you accuse me of, personal interest, you seem very threatened, not by me but of this bill. However, I accept that you have a personal interest and that this woudl be an important part of your perspecive, and reasons behind your thinking. Too bad you didn't offer anything to consider. 

Just received this email:

Florida Small Business Owners Get Help
To Fight Unfair Interior Design Law  

Interior Design Protection Council and Institute for Justice
Join Forces Again to Aid Small Business Owners

I think this sounds like the plot for a you-tube movie.

I wonder how many of the bill sponsors will still be defending this piece of legislation when the film starts rolling.

Nice try, randyha.  All I asked is that you be honest about who you are, and why you would put forward a defense of this bill that is implausible and unproven.  When I asked what interest you have, your reaction is to get defensive and attack.  You can google my name and find that I have no personal interest in this bill.  I am not a designer nor have any connection to the industry.  By staying anonymous, you can claim anything you want, and no one can prove it one way or the other.  My guess is that you are being less than honest.  Feel free to prove me wrong.

Remedies exist now for shoddy work.  There is no reason to force interior designers to be licensed by the state.  People are perfectly capable of looking up references and checking out a body of work.  This isn't difficult, it is prudent business.  

The only people in favor of this bill are those who will benefit from it financially.  That is why I am curious about your support.  So far you have not presented any evidence that this is a "problem" that needs to be "solved".  But many on this blog have demonstrated that the ASID is aggressive in wanting to get this protectionist legislation passed, and then goes to court to destroy innocent designers.

Doesn't any of that bother you?

ASID RESIGNATIONS

-GROUP 2-

                                                                                                                January 16, 2009

Michael Alin, Executive Director

The American Society of Interior Designers

608 Massachusetts Ave., NE

Washington, D.C., 20002

Dear Mr. Alin:

Once again Allied designers have come together to state the reasons for their dispute with ASID and to resign as a group in protest of the organization’s policies and practices.

Despite the fact that ASID leadership thinks it knows better, designers who have been practicing for years understand what they do for a living and how clients react to their work. And what they know is that they are not endangering the health and safety of the public, nor are they prevented from practicing by the IBC – both simply serve as excuses for licensing.

What they also know is that licensing is totally unnecessary, and basically a device that is used by ASID and its testing partner, NCIDQ, to DISQUALIFY, not qualify, designers through legislation, and through NCIDQ requirements that cripple designers’ ability not only to take the test, but to pass it as well.

Most designers have absolutely no desire and see no reason to take the NCIDQ.  Nowhere has it ever been proven that designers who take it are any better than those who don’t.  Many of the most accomplished, famous designers in the world (notably those often featured in Architectural Digest) have never taken the test and certainly don’t need to. What they have is talent, plus the ability to be creative and visionary. Techno-engineering is not what we want to study and it’s not what we want to do. But this is what ASID is trying to force upon us.

We see increasing comprehension and anger from young design graduates who were fed on the milk of ASID’s policies from an early age, and were uneducated as to how these policies would negatively affect their careers. They are now coming to understand how ASID’s methodology will keep them from moving on up into the so-called professional ranks. NCIDQ’s requirement for years of what many young designers are calling “indentured servitude” makes it impossible for anyone coming out of school to immediately take the test.

And the lack of NCIDQ-certified designers who could or would hire these young graduates into that required indentured servitude makes even the possibility of taking the test very unlikely indeed.

Many young designers have simply abandoned the desire to take the NCIDQ and are taking other roads – which is apparently another way that ASID deliberately decreases the ranks of future interior designers.

Additionally by requiring young designers to work only with NCIDQ certificate holders (few that there are) they also deny them the possibility of working with the top designers in the world who are not NCIDQ-certified.

Once again, we are appalled by the situation unfolding in Florida, which, sadly, has provided a glimpse into the real future of the meaning of design legislation.

• If it has been your goal to cut the ranks of interior designers in Florida, you have succeeded
• If it has been your goal to restrict decorators to the bare minimum of “legal” services where they would be less competitive, you have succeeded
• If it has been your goal to use the Florida practice act to cause much pain in the design community in Florida, you have succeeded
• If it has been your goal to cause Florida designers to operate in a state of fear, you have succeeded
• If it has been your goal to penalize and exact huge fines against interior designers and collateral trades just trying to do business as they were used to doing, you have succeeded
• If it has been your goal to destroy the ability to design in freedom in Florida, you have succeeded.

It is, however, our goal to inform designers of the type of restrictive actions heading their way if they allow ASID to pass legislation in dozens of states where legislation is slated to be introduced. And it is our goal to make sure that you never succeed in forcing this legislation on the design community, causing this type of damage to our fellow designers again.

Designers no longer feel that ASID’s dues represent a good value. In letters written by Allied members, they cited over and over again the fact that better information could be had over the internet, that Connex is worthless because of extensive censorship, that mandatory dues force people to pay for lobbying efforts they do not support, and that ASID does not do what it should to promote designers (especially Allied designers). Most agree that they can buy their own magazines, and for far less than $440 a year!  

And perhaps the most important reason of all is that clients simply don’t care whether prospective designers are members of ASID – only that they like their portfolios, feel comfortable with the designers and agree with the proposed financial arrangements.

Additionally, ASID’s claim that it promotes the interests of Allied members is particularly ludicrous since other than paying dues that support lobbying for legislation that will put us out of business, the Society seems to have no use for us. Cited over and over are the elitist attitudes that permeate leadership and chapters around the country, creating an uncomfortable and unwelcome atmosphere for Allied members who are looked upon as second-class citizens.

Just because a designer passes the NCIDQ test and serves an NCIDQ certified practitioner for a number of years, does not make that designer a professional, nor does it entitle those designers to take an elitist attitude that is unwelcoming to others within the same organization who are not NCIDQ-certified.  

Professional designers are those whose vision and creativity evolve over time, and who serve their customers successfully with expertise that is derived from any number of different sources, and these professionals include people who are self-taught through their own hands-on experience. “Professional” status is something designers earn through the quality of their work in the competitive arena of a free market – it is not something that can be conferred simply by passing a test or obtaining a government-issued license.

ASID will continue to lose members as long as it pursues professional licensing through legislation; as long as it continues to lose credibility by misrepresenting to its membership that licensing is necessary and good for the profession; as long as ASID continues to deny that licensing will put thousands of designers out of business; as long as it continues to ally with NCIDQ to disqualify designers from practice; as long as it continues its elitist attitudes; as long as it continues to mislead newcomers about their future in design; as long as it continues to deny designers who disagree with policy a voice; as long as it continues its policy of mandatory legislative assessments; and as long as it continues to promote its dictatorial policies, while denigrating its own membership.

ASID is not the organization it once was. We see that clearly, and have no desire to continue our membership.

And so we are resigning.

Thomas M. Bauer, #29892, Indiana

Paula Bertucci, #52512, California

Denise Bressler, #1485955, Florida

Edith Clamen, #42256, New York (previously resigned for above reasons)

Diann Gibson, #1226118, Florida

Starr Gobtop, 1868762, Illinois

Amy Hart, #1503605, Virginia

Melodie Hunt, #39056, Missouri

Patrick Mallaley, #1894927, Canada

Carolyn McComber, 1538456, Florida

Nicole Mitchell, #1527699, Pennsylvania

Emily Nagel, #1860696, Washington (state)

Richard Parker, #1480188, Florida

Deborah A. Rodeghier, #1485759, California

Kelly Savell, #1551058, Tennessee

Janet Schmierer, #1238256, New Jersey

Cricket Seal, #2440, Texas

Mimi Swerdlow, #1223205, Connecticut

Margaret Vogt, #84751, North Carolina

Corey Zucker, #1222704, New York

Comments from another Blog on Washington State Interior Design Legislation:

From on Blog in Washingon State:

I Have Decided To Give 'em Hell!

I sat up writing my blog last night, typing, deleting, type, delete… Then I thought about my dad, how he always gave advice when I was scared, overwhelmed, or struggling with something that I hated like Algebra. My dad loved to give quotes from the past. At 5 AM I think I became clairvoyant; no kidding I think I heard a voice say "Give 'em hell". My father has passed on, so call me crazy. My dad was an older guy who loved the tough, straight talking Harry Truman. He was the "buck stops here" president.

So I will be blunt; there are a couple of special interest groups that want to make it illegal for most interior designers to practice our profession! In our current economy there are all ready major lay offs in all areas of construction. Furniture stores are filing chapter 11, small designers are struggling to get work and we pay insanely high B&O taxes. Now the ASID (American Society of Interior Design) and IIDA (International Interior Design Assoc) under the guise of the IDCW (Interior Design Coalition of Washington) want to make most other interior designers criminals in our state; yes, these designers and their cronies are back for the 5th straight year like a bad rash. The IDCW introduced bills in both State houses that claim to protect you from all of the independent, hard working, tax paying, swatch holding, obviously deficient Interior Designers like me.

The language in the bills is confusing. It is meant to be confusing. The argument the IDCW (really the ASID/IIDA, the sole benefitting special interest groups) asserts this year that the public needs to have Registered Interior Designers who can stamp plans for commercial projects. This is just a Trojan horse. Anyone in the building industry already knows that for about $1000 anyone can get a license and bond and become a General Contractor and stamp plans. These two organizations are propogandists who want to eliminate their competition and create a cartel. My friend Richard Landon summed up arguing with a propagandist such as the IIDA best in an email to me:

"Propagandists love to shift the debate onto territory they can manipulate to further their agenda. If we as opponents engage them on their territory that gives them strength. Like the HS&W thing (health safety and welfare). They can say, "What?! You are against protecting the public's H, S & W?!" The moment I defend myself I risk becoming like the character the Chekov short story, A Slander, who smacks his lips over the soup, is overheard, and then fears that his guests may think he has been kissing the cook. His efforts to fight off a scandal led to a meltdown in his life."Why should you the general public care beyond the moral outrage most of us feel when we see any Madison Ave machine try to roll over the little independent business guy? Cost! If these two elitist arrogant special interest groups have their way, every home owner and every commercial building will increase in cost. You the public will have to hire one of these ASID/IIDA trade members. Every line in this bill is written to eliminate their completion. Today the public has choices. There are many trade organizations and paths to Interior Design. And there simply is no need to restrict those practicing interior design.

To drive my point home, Michael S Smith is the new designer selected by the Obama's for the White House would not qualify. He would face a cease and desist order, and $1000/day fines. Why? Because he is not by these ridicules standards a "Registered Interior Designer". Michael is one of the most celebrated Interior Designers in our current culture. He is the designer for Stephen Spielberg, Rupert Murdock, Michele Pfeiffer, and Dustin Hoffman. Those are all people who obviously need government regulations to assist them and protect them with their decorating decisions.

This is wrong! There is no need to regulate the design industry. We the independent designers and our supporters are descending on Olympia Feb 10. I am going to Olympia to argue to keep my job, and those of many others, because I am outraged. My battle cry is "In my Jimmy Choo's this designer is going to Olympia to "give 'em hell"!

Eric Goranson, CKD wrote...

Here they go again...They just dont get it

With the ASID and the IIDA trying to push legislation in Washington they can’t hide the fact that in states such as California they are the biggest offender of complaints out of any trade organization group. In California since 1992 there were 152 complaints to the License board. 43 of those complaints were against ASID and IIDA Members and the NKBA members that they are trying to exclude here in Washington State had two. I would argue that there are as many members of the NKBA as there are members of both originations in California. If this was about protecting the industry and the public we would be excluding the largest offenders and not the few. This is all about the money and not protecting anything but a small group of designers that want to start a Design Cartel and control the competition.
January 27, 2009 10:07 am

Bard wrote...

Usually Government Breaks Up Cartels, not Start Them
When I think about some of the monopolies or cartels in our country's history I think of oil, railroads, telecommunications, etc. In each case the government decided these cartels were not in the best interest of the public and forced these industries to break up into smaller and competitive companies, resulting in more diversity, increased products and services, and lower costs. Here we have an example of an organization trying to use the government to pass a law to create a cartel...excuse me? How is this in my Joe Public's best interest? This law would severely limit diversity, reduce products and services, and increase costs. There is no good reason for doing this as there is no problem with the interior design industry. This is insanity, and all about the greed of a few.
January 27, 2009 10:54 am

Space Planner wrote...

Out of date and out of touch

If the IDCW took a step back and realized what message they were sending the industry, they ought to feel embarrassed. The fact that they don't is the real shame of this whole licensing thing. This is a 30-year old effort that is daily making them more and more unpopular. When you are willing to hurt other eminent, well-qualified interior design professionals in an effort to further your own agenda, that says a lot about the lack of professionalism within your similarly inclined associates. The Internet did not exist when they started this effort. Now, it has created inter-state aspects to interior design that allow professionals to practice wherever they choose, resident or not. This creates huge enforcement issues. The number of exemptions in this current bill and the convoluted wording of it creates a confusing legal situation, increasing even more the risk of non-compliance. This legislation is out-of-date and out-of-touch with reality.
January 27, 2009 11:08 am

JannPlacentia wrote...

Another year, another ridiculous waste of time, energy and money
In an effort to legislate away the competition, some of whom are wonderfully talented "stars" like Michael Smith, Vicente Wolf and Clodaugh, two organizations (ASID and IIDA)are willing to torpedo this state's economy just to grab all the business for a handful of designers. There are some estimates that this legislation will cost WA state millions of dollars of lost revenue - paid in the form of B&O taxes from current practicing Interior Designers who will not qualify to practice any longer. This does not include the lost revenue from those designers' suppliers...... Talent cannot be legislated nor does "registration" or "licensing" guarantee a well-designed project.
January 27, 2009 11:33 am

Design In Time wrote...

Designers come in all colors!
As we start the new year in trying economic times, we don't need to eliminate jobs for Interior Designers (and their vendors). I have been in this industry for over 22 years and have been successful due to my satisfied clients, not because of my title. All of us have different styles, methods and ideas to assist our clients. We don't need legislation to make us do a better job at what we do. Most of us are in this industry because we have a passion for it and wouldn't do anything else. No amount of education can make us more creative or talented. Let's stop this madness and get back to doing what we do best...design wonderful homes for our clients!
January 27, 2009 3:42 pm

FBerschauer wrote...

It's worse than you think
Tami, I listen to your show on occasion(I'm more the political type) and think you need to know that I was a General contractor for many years and then a superintendent building high-rises and at no time did I have the power to stamp plans. What your nemesis' wants to do is make interior designers have an architect's license to insure that only the immediate architect / interior designers would be able to operate, inflating their fees due to the high demand on licensed decorators. Meanwhile you are losing everything you've worked for while trying to get your architect's license over the next FOUR YEARS. This needs to be stopped! Maybe your own legislation should be lobbied for to protect the thousands of decorators who don't need an AIA license to be good at what they do.
January 27, 2009 10:10 pm

MLB wrote...

Stand up and be heard
Thank you Tami for shining a light on this critically important subject. If you visit the State Senate Democrats' webpage you can read all about their strong commitment to creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Our Senators - and representatives - need to hear from us and understand that SB5514 (senate bill) and HB1608 (house bill) are going to kill jobs and ruin many small and not-so-small businesses. Despite 20 years of professional, award-winning work, I will become a criminal - unauthorized to practice my trade - if these bills become law. Each of us whose careers are threatened must take action. Let's tell folks to visit the website www.protectdesignfreedom.com to learn more; write and/or call your senator and representatives; come with us to Olympia on Feb 10 for "Lobby Day" when we show up en masse to be heard. Don't wait for someone else to do this -- we all have to work on this together. Thanks Tami!
January 28, 2009 12:49 am

JeremyF wrote...

Cloaks & Daggers

As a structural engineer, I have taken it upon myself to join the interior designers in their fight against this effort each year, as should the entire design and construction community, and once informed, the general public as well. As a licensed engineer, it is crutial for the work I do, as well as that of the architect, electrician, plumber, and contractor, to be governered to protect the public safety. The materials used in construction and interior design should also be under intense scrutiny. Interior designers do not install or manufacture these materials. ASID is not unlike any other professional organization, as a matter of fact there are many equally within the interior design industry. What they are attempting to do each year, in each state, is to create a DUMMY organizations like the IDCW to apper as a united group. The legislation is for the purpose of putting everyone else out of business by making themselves the governing body of their field. They want not only to write the code, the test, and the education, but they ultimately want to decide the fate of every designer in the nation. If this were to happen in any other field, they would be laugh right out of business by their peers. The ethical way to do this would be to remove themselves, so that everyone would need a new degree, new experience, and, new license. But that would be stupid wouldn't it.
January 28, 2009 1:37 am

Cascavel wrote...

Appalling? YES. Shocking? No.

I wish I could say I am shocked at the current proposed legislation, but that is not the case. What I do feel, however, is another unsettling layer of nausea at the seemingly endless attempts to pass additional regulations in the name of "public safety". Give me a break. Why is it so few people seem to be able to think for themselves these days? Give 'em Hell, Tami!
January 28, 2009 6:11 amInsanity: Doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results.

dranymo wrote...

UP AGAINST THE WALL!!!

Oh My!!! I feel like I was hit with one of those HUGE commercial industrial fans!! Little do these people know there is a door in that wall and Tami just opened the door!!! Watch out!! Tami is coming through that door!!!! Give 'em HELL!!! I never knew your Dad but I see him in you!!! You will not only be representing your industry but every person who has a passion for what they love and are good at!! I remember something I heard that goes something like " We the People"!! Give 'em Hell Tami!!!
January 28, 2009 7:36 am

 This Legislation brought to you By Rosa Franklin , slightly more socialist than Mao, constantly attempting to foist new taxes, regulations, and beurocracies on an oveburdened public. More government and government agencies , thats just what we need! Does the State require a fee ( Not a tax right Rosa? ) for my wife to be advised by her friends which colors are popular?

Maybe people should read the bill before you decide whether or not it's bad.  This bill IN NO WAY PREVENTS ANYONE FROM PRACTICING INTERIOR DESIGN. 

Not to mention alot of people seem to think this is a license to pick colors and move furniture when really it has to do with whether or not you know ADA codes and how to tell if a wall is structural before you go tearing it down.  It has to do with fire saftey, egress and alot more.  If I only wanted to tell people what kind of drapery to buy and what style decor they should use then I would just call myself a DECORATER.  Nothing agains decoraters I'm just saying there is a difference. 

If you care enough to write a comment then maybe you should care enough to actually read the bill and educate themselves on it before they spout all kinds of things that just aren't true.  It's easily accesible on the internet and took me about 15 minutes to read.

 Mrs W:

Interior Decorators are what Interior Designers in favor of licensing call other Interior Designers who oppose licensing as a way to insult  them.

There is no difference between Interior Designers and Interior Decorators.

This entire debate has been created by so called Interior Design "Professors" in the colleges who can't make it in the real world who are pushing for legislation to justify their degree programs.

Please explain for all of us the mass resignations from ASID this year of Interior Designers who are sick and tired of the elitist ASID legislative agenda?

And can you explain why Michelle Obama hired "Decorator" Michael Smith as the official "Interior Designer" for the White House!!!!

The Obama girls are in grave danger! 

You didn't read the bill before responding. The bill creates a differentiation between a "Registered Interior Designer" and others, like 'Designers". Essentially this is a title law rather than an practice law. You don't want to go through the qualifications, then don't. You can call yourself anything except a "Registered Interior Designer". This bill creates a new category. It doesn't eliminate the practice of all the other "designers" and "pillow selectors" out there. The search function in Google is your friend, but since you couldn't do it here is what the bill DOES NOT AFFECT OR PREVENT. Tell all of us what you want to do that this bill will prevent. Or, are you just afraid of being marginalized in a free market because this will allow those with more training to set themselves apart from you. If you can sell yourself on your portfolio, then you don't need the title and shouldn't care. Again, tell all of us what you want to do that this bill will prevent you from doing!

This chapter may not affect or prevent:

·         The practice of architecture

·         The practice of landscape architecture

·         The practice of engineering

·         The practice of naval architecture

·         Any legally recognized profession or trade not registered under this chapter

·         Even an architect who is registered under applicable laws of this state registered interior designer unless registered under this chapter. Even they don’t get a pass and they have to have WAY more experience than a Registered Interior Designer.

·         Any person from calling himself or herself an interior designer

·         offering interior design services provided that he or she does not refer to himself or herself as a registered interior designer and does not provide registered interior design services

·         Any person who provides decorative services, or assistance in selection of decorative accessories, surface materials, window treatments, wall coverings, paint, floor coverings, lighting fixtures which are not part of a structure, plumbing fixtures which are not part of a structure, cabinetry, surface-mounted fixtures, and loose furnishings and equipment not subject to regulation under applicable provisions of jurisdictional codes, regulations, or the jurisdictional fire codes, providing the person does not refer to himself or herself as a registered interior designer

·         Any employee of a retail establishment, wholesale establishment, or commercial furniture dealership providing consultation or furnishings in the furtherance of a sale or prospective sale, providing the person does not refer to himself or herself as a registered interior designer

·         Any person from doing interior design work including preparing

·         construction contract documents and administration of the construction contract for:

(i) Residential buildings regardless of the size of the building, so long as it does not contain more than four dwelling units;

(ii) Residential buildings of more than four dwelling units, but only if the entire completed building is less than four thousand square feet;

(iii) Nonresidential buildings of any occupancy not exceeding four thousand square feet;

·         Drafters, clerks, project managers, superintendents, and otheremployees or consultants of a registered interior designer from actingunder the instructions, control, or supervision of their employers

·         The construction, alteration, or supervision of construction by contractors registered under chapter 18.27 RCW or superintendents employed by contractors or the preparation of shop drawings in connection therewith

·         Owners or contractors registered under chapter 18.27 RCW from engaging persons who are not registered interior designers or registered architects to observe and supervise construction of a project

·         Any person who prepares plans, drawings, or specifications for buildings for his or her own private residential use.

And....you can still be sued. The bill doesn't prevent that: "A person exempted by the provisions of this section is not thereby absolved from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise accrue." I'm sure you are happy you have not had this taken away.

And PLEASE, try better logic than asking us why Michelle Obama hired "Decorator". If that is how you demonstate your thinking, maybe stricter regulations do need to be examined.

If this bill follows the pattern of what the ASID has done in other states, this is just the first step.  Once they have established the wording of "registered", then they can proceed to impose fines on anyone who does similar work, but isn't "registered".  

In every other state that this has been passed, the next step has also been passed, and designers are facing fines of $1,000 per day for doing the same job that they have always done.  

Why are you so intent on ruining people's lives?  This bill is just a cover, and it has no purpose in today's environment.  People need their jobs, and you are a shill for an organization who wants all competition to be unable to work.

It is time that you revealed who you are.  You are obviously a lobbyist for the ASID.  I called you out before on this, and you went hysterical, but didn't tell us who you are.  Why should we give you any credibility?  You aren't an innocent bystander.

Randyha, I couldn't stop laughing when I saw your print getting larger and larger, or should I say, louder and louder.  You remind me of the ugly american, trying to speak english in a forgiegn country.  When they don't understand you, you think if you just keep repeating it in english, louder and louder and long enough, that somehow that will make them understand.  What we do understand is that in every state that a title act has been passed, it is quickly and quietly moved forward to a practice act.  We do understand that the NCIDQ is not the only measure of ones skills and knowledge.  We do understand that ASID has CEU's available to learn how to get this legislation passed nationally.  Did you learn the technic of writing LOUDER there?  Watch for my future post in the next day or so.  My attorney is reading it over now, as well as the bill, (that Mrs. W thinks she totally understands after spending 15 minutes reading). I think the courts will probably be taking about 15 years to interpert the vague and mis-leading language of the bill, unless it is changed to clarify me right out of a career before that happens.  Oh, and Michael Smith, Interior Designer, can do Michele Obamas project, not because he is a decorator, but because he is an extremely prestigious interior designer with an education from the prestigious Otis School, (you know the west coast Parsons) and is working on a Federal Building, which is exempt from the holy NCIDQ requirements that is so much a part of the ASID rhetoric for how to tell if you are a professional designer or not.

Randyha thinks the health, safety and wefare of the captive public will be benefitted by Licensing for interior Designers.  The example of confusing floor patterns, creating optical illusions, dimmly lit surroundings, etc. is used.  I think you just described Las Vegas, which is in a Practice Act state.   Have you ever noticed a fire exit in a Las Vegas Casino.  Fine job the legislation is doing there. Just think of the progress we can make by eliminating the compitition here as well.

The caps in my first paragraph are intentional. Apparently it worked. All I had to do was rattle the tackle box and you jumped right into the boat. The text in the remainder of the post is a funcion of cut and paste from MS Word. The system tool on this site (note: the tool bar icon with the clipboard and the "W") was not functioning, so I pasted directly to the site. The text formatting you see is the result. I did err in assuming that folks like you would look past format and focus on content. It is apparent that your emotions completely overided your cognition.What you describe that it reminded you of is due to your paradigm, not mine. That this threatened you so, perhaps you may have some unresolved emotional experiences associated with such an experience.

I note that your arguments for convincing your point are (a) every state that a title act has been passed, it is quickly and quietly moved forward to a practice act every state that a title act has been passed, it is quickly and quietly moved forward to a practice act, and (b) your attorney is reading it over now, and (c) the courts will probably be taking about 15 years to interpert the vague and mis-leading language.

Correspondingly I note that (a) you present no evident supporting the claim that every state that passed a title act quickly and quietly moved forward to a practice act (please defend "every", "quickly" and "quietly" with some facts), (b) you didn't retort that you have read the bill, but you are having someone else read if for you, and (c) "will probobly" is not very compelling; also you provided no examples of your claim of "vague and misleading language". Perhaps because you haven't read the bill, can't understand the bill, or are waiting or hoping for "your attorney" to find something vague and misleading.

So, let's summarize what we know here:

1. You may not have read the bill, but if you did, you don't understand it because it is vauge and misleading.
2. You have not supported your claims with facts.
3. Most importantly, you FAILED (caps intended) to describe what it is about this bill that prevents you from doing ANYTHING (caps intentional again) that you want to do.
4. You have pointed out NOTHING (you get it by now) that this bill does that affects you. You only provide a doomsday domino theory of future disaster should this first step be taken.
5. You cannot support your position adeqautely and that frustrates you so you skip facts and go directly to personal attacks.

I still believe that many don't like this bill becasue it will create a catagory of professional that, at least appears to be, more qualified than they are, but not because it prevents them from doing anything they are doing. Again, tell us what it prevents you from doing.

Here they go again.

Give it up ASID,

Nobody wants your legislation.

Why do you continue to waste your members dues on these insane licensing schemes?

Randyha, aka ASID lobbyist, can you read?  This thread has all the research needed to prove that this is the tactic taken in every other state that ASID has proposed this legislation.  Guess reading wasn't a required topic in that fancy education of yours.  

Good thing you will have "registered" on your business card, so you won't have to compete with all those other lesser beings who actually know what they are doing in the world of design. 

Seriously, why the legislation, if it doesn't narrow the field?  If it really has no effect, as you so eloquently state, what's the point?  Your organization can "register" designers and provide what you say is a superior level of education and expertise.  Then, the market will decide that you are in fact better than those who don't have the ASID approval code.

That's how the market works.  If you are offering a truly superior product, and a the designation truly means something, clients will vote with their pocketbooks to hire you.  You won't need the crushing power of government to accomplish it for you.

Guess that won't be happening any time soon.  Refute that theory.

janet suppes:

You say:

1) Randyha, aka ASID lobbyist, 

2) Guess reading wasn't a required topic in that fancy education of yours.  

3)  won't have to compete with all those other lesser beings. 

4) Seriously, why the legilation if it doesn't narrow the field?

5) If it really has no effect, as you so eloquently state, what's the point?  

 I say in response:

1) An attempt to personify me as the enemy incarnate. In this way you aim to universally impugn anything I state by emotionally marginalizing me. I have no affiliation with ASID at all. But you will want to "call me out" again. Gee, do you want to fight me in the lunch room? (you must have been a lot of fun in high school!). I simply disagree with you on some things and it frustrates you that you can't find a "hook" to be even more personally negative so you can justify your emotion rather than you logic. Keep it up, I don't care.

2) Another personal attack. Pitiful. You have continue to use this technique since you  can't be persuasive with calm argument.

3) Like I said, I do think this is the reason for the opposition; it will differentiate you. It may not be accurate, you may be better than all of them, but that is what the perception will be when someone is registered and others are not. I'm not even sure that I think that is a good reason for this, but it certainly will be the perception and again, I think this is the main reason for much opposition. Your statement proves this in your case. You, and know one else has stated ANYTHING that the bill will prevent them from doing.

4) I have never disagreed that is will not narrow the feild. I've only said that it will do it by creating a new classification with which you will need to  compete, not by preventing you from doing anything that you are, or want to be doing. Right? No one wants to respond to this.

5) This is actually a good question. I knew you could do it.

 It appears that it limits doing interior design work including prepareing constructino contract documents and administering constructino contracts for the multi-famiiliy projects that exceed 4 dwelling units, unless the buildinjg is less than 4,000 SF. It limits the work on non-residential buildings in excess of 4,00 SF.

If your argument is that you want to be doing larger multi-family projects or non-residential buildings that's a valid point...if that is what your beef is. We may not agree, but at least I understand the logic. But it is interesting that no one opposed to this bill has ever articulated that these limitations are thier concern, or any other limitation that may directly affects them.

Is this the perfect demarcation? I'm not sure myself. Maybe the commercial size could be higher. Or, maybe the distinction could be on activity like paint colors (or other "decoration") vs. structural alterations, etc. I realize this isn't the perfect analogy, but I hope the point can be understood - i honestly don't mean to inflame with this point. I know that there are those that see ANY limitation as a slight to them personally. There are life stafety issues involved in such things and there is a legal basis for the public to have a reasonable expectation that in certain scenerios that there has been some oversight, some minimum standard of education and experience. Perhaps it is the location of the "line" that is where the core of the debate is not that there should be no regulation of habitable spaces at all.

This debate went on beween architect and "building designers" and has seemed to have settled out eventually. I'm glad that the state no longer has to focus on disallowing a store to be called "Architectural Pottery" simply because the retailer wasn't a licensed architect. Today there are many residential designers and builders that are more experienced and deliver a better product that some licensed architects. But the breadth of things that can be done until one needs an architect's stamps is pretty wide and I don't hear a huge cry from residential contractors and building designers to allow them to design and administer the construction contracts for downtown high rise buildings. Even where there is disagreement, it is about where the line is and how it is established, nor that there should be no regulation of any kind for any size and type of structure or occupancy.

This is why I keep asking what you want to DO that this will prevent, because I do think a practice law is more desirable than a title law. It's just that the right balance needs to be found so most people can do what they want, in a market based manner, up until there is a need for some minimum standard of training. I think that ASID is probably guilty of trying to marginalize those that don't meet their standard. Of course they are self serving. Their members pay them to be that way and I wouldn't expect them to be any other way. I'm just not opposed to the idea of much of what this bill does even if I may not agree with everything ASID is and does.

I'm open to where you think that line should be drawn, or do you simply argure that anyone should be able to do anything in any scale of building, and any occupancy type, with no regulation?

The line should be drawn where it is today.

There is no need for these licensing schemes in Washington.

If you want to work in a state with licensing, I suggest you move to Florida where they are using "police state" tactics to go after anyone who put the words "Interior" & "Designer" in the same paragraph on their website. 

designer7:

If you want to work in a state with licensing, I suggest you move to Florida where they are using "police state" tactics to go after anyone who put the words "Interior" & "Designer" in the same paragraph on their website. 

Wow. That is such compelling logic to support a conclusion.

I see you didn't read, or understand, the part where I disagreed with the title act form of legislation which is what you referenced about Florida.

Still, no one, including you, has told us what is it they are doing, or want to be doing, that this prevents. You must really what to use the word "Registered".

What's to argue about?

Right now there is no licensing scheme in Washington State for Interior Designers.

What this is really about is commercial interior designers who work for architects who made the wrong career decision and didn't become architects.  Gee, I wonder why you can't make partner in an ARHCITECTURE FIRM?

This is nothing more than legislation to help you with your low self esteem.

It's not about finding some type of compromise language.  Why compromise?

And then the commericial designers have the audacity to call residential interior designers the new four letter word in interior design, "decorator".

Most commercial designers with their so called Interior Design degrees do not have a clue about residential interior design.

designer7:

What's to argue about?

Right now there is no licensing scheme in Washington State for Interior Designers.

What this is really about is commercial interior designers who work for architects who made the wrong career decision and didn't become architects.  Gee, I wonder why you can't make partner in an ARHCITECTURE FIRM?

This is nothing more than legislation to help you with your low self esteem.

It's not about finding some type of compromise language.  Why compromise?

And then the commericial designers have the audacity to call residential interior designers the new four letter word in interior design, "decorator".

Most commercial designers with their so called Interior Design degrees do not have a clue about residential interior design.

 

Again...........what will this prevent you from doing?

Designer 7 says "Again...........what will this prevent you from doing?"

What are you talking about?  Maybe if you proofread your post and learned to write in complete sentences, your argument might mean something.

If you want to be "registered", then start something in ASID.  If the public thinks it is a distinction worth paying extra for, then you will have a corner of the market.  But why use the force of law?  There is more to it, if you aren't confident enough to do it in a free-market manner.  Sounds like without the heavy hand of regulation, your designation will be worthless, and you won't be to force competitors out of business.

When you can show an actual harm being done by those you seek to license, then maybe this legislation will be worth it.  Otherwise it is just a money grab.

janet suppes:

What are you talking about?  Maybe if you proofread your post and learned to write in complete sentences, your argument might mean something.

So much hoslility and anger... and you have only personal attacks in your qwiver. It speaks loudly about how you think about things. You seem very frustrated.

However, getting back to the facts, apparently I am right.  You still cannot name even one thing that this bill prevents you from doing.

And you haven't provided a single reason why this legislation should be passed.  There is no danger posed by designers that this bill will prevent.  There is no need for this bill.  

If you want certification, then do it in the private sector.  Don't spend my tax dollars.

The onus is on you to provide evidence for why this is necessary, not on me to argue why it shouldn't be enacted.  

All of these bills are a form of "Rent Seeking".  The language is irrelevent. The propenents of legislation always try to talk about a compromise.

ASID has never seen a bill they didn't like, because to ASID, it's just one more stepping stone to a Practice Act no matter what the bill says.

In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to make money by manipulating the economic and/or legal environment rather than by trade and production of wealth. The term comes from the notion of economic rent, but in modern use of the term, rent seeking is more often associated with government regulation and misuse of governmental authority than with land rents as defined by David Ricardo.  (From Wikipedia)

janet suppes:

If you want certification, then do it in the private sector.  Don't spend my tax dollars.

Here is the evolution of your reasoning (leaving out your petty personal attacks), in order of presentation

1.       There is obviously no danger of physical harm from an ugly pillow (this is where you erroneously thought that the bill regulate “decorating”)

2.       registered interior designers want the bill, they can exclude their competition (this is were you erroneously thought that the bill could do this. We now know the bill doesn’t do this except in large multi-family and non-residential projects. There is evidence for this kind or regulation)

3.       fine the daylights out of them for offering an opinion on where your settee should be set (we now know this also is not true, simply cynically misstating the facts)

4.       your industry is ready to go to court to sue "violators" for big money (well first, not my industry; second they can’t; but the state could go after someone that used the term “registered” inappropriately)

5.       no reason to force interior designers to be licensed by the state (we now know hti si s also not true, this is totally voluntary for only those that want to be qualify and subsequently use the word “registered” and perhaps work on large multi-family and non-residential projects.)

6.       ASID is aggressive in wanting to get this protectionist legislation passed, and then goes to court to destroy innocent designers. (we now know this is not true; and they can’t go to court to destroy anyone. Only the state can perform enforcement)

7.       what the ASID has done in other states, this is just the first step (now here we have the late introduction of the domino theory; “this bill isn’t what I’m really concerned about. It’s the next bill universally has to follow and it is the one with the dire circumstances” – fear of the unknown future)

8.       what the ASID has done in other  (Oooooo!!!... the “crushing” power to (a) regulate the use of the word “registered”, and (b) regulate who designs and administers large multi-family and non-residential projects. This IS the end of the world as we know it!)

9.       the heavy hand of regulation (see #8)

10.    no danger posed by designers that this bill will prevent (except the inherent dangers in the ignorance of self-taught residential designers that are obviously more capable of schooled commercial designers in the design and administration of large multi-family and non-residential projects)

11.  Don't spend my tax dollars (and finally all the previous rationalizations have been swept away by the embarrassment in reading the bill and discovering that it doesn’t do any of the other things you thought it would before we all discussed the actual language of the bill, for those to whom it is not too vague and confusing, and discovered that….it doesn’t do any of what you thought it would in the first 10 attempts to create a reason)

"The onus is on me"...good one Janet. No good reasons of your own, just an attemp at deflection - sort of like the 'ole "I'm rubber and your glue...). I stated my reasons. I accept that you don't agree. I think there should be some kinds of projects defined by some combinatino of scale, occupancy type and/or complexity that demands a certain amount of education, experience and regulation. I have stated that I'm not totally certain I agree with the exact line drawn by this bill (large multi-family and non-residential projects) but this is probobly a good start, and no one including you has said otherwise. I stated I was open to the ideas of others on this topic (a dialogue, not personal attacks) but none have been forthcoming. All I hear is a rabid rejection of any regulation of any kind. At least we now all seem to agree that this bill will not prevent you from doing anything you want to do. Me, by stating it over and over. You ant others, by not being able to enumerate anything it will affect in your practice of design.

 Again Ad Nauseum : This bill is a waste of time but evidently it serves someones passionate ambition hence the vitriol. When the chioce is given between more Gov. regulation and no more Gov. regulation.....ALAWAYS choose no more regulation !

The evidence is in this blog as to the evolution of the legislation being proposed has had in other states.  You can ignore it if you want, but that doesn't make it go away. The ASID has acted in a predatory manner in other states, and it started with precisely this legislation.  Does it concern me?  Yes.  

What is lacking is actual evidence that this legislation is necessary.  You make reference to dangers, but present no actual incidents of harm or patterns of damage caused by those who will be regulated by this bill.  Yes, designers need to be educated if they are going to work on large projects.  What evidence do you have that they aren't?  What is wrong with a little bit of due diligence on the part of those hiring the designers?  I wouldn't hire the kid next door to install new plumbing.  Why do you believe that builders and architects are too stupid to act in a similarly rational manner?

Yes, this is costing tax-payer dollars.  Just presenting it and having to take time in a busy legislative calendar costs money.  Implementing it will require government resources.  Have you looked at the budget deficit?  Unless there is solid evidence of imminent threat of great harm that can be handled in no other way besides this bill, then I say it is a good idea to skip it this year.

Exactly!

There is no threat to HSW by un-licensed or un-certified Interior Designers.

The fact that the proponents have to make so many compromises, and claim to exempt residential designers is proof as to how bogus this legislation is.

ASID has never seen a piece of legislation they didn't like.

And if this bill were to pass, they would slap a color on the State of Washington on their State Map and put out a press release as to how one more state has passed Interior Design Legislation.

Enough with legislation that is nothing more than a "feel good" merit badge for Interior Designers with low self-esteem.

It's time for ASID to close shop.

Just received this email:

What do you expect, it's the same legislature that proposed a State Income Tax.

Vote her out!!!!  She has proven she does not care for society or the people that vote her in, she only cares about rasing taxes and californicating Wa..

I support recalling Gregoire http://www.idiotorliar.com/

DK