|
Lawful Enterprise
The NKBA speaks out against interior design legislation
By Edward S. Nagorsky
June 01, 2008 - Over the last few years, the National Kitchen & Bath Association (NKBA) has been at the
forefront of protecting the rights of its members and the public against a small segment of the interior design industry.
This segment
seeks to limit the practice of design to only those it deems worthy and competent through a combination of education
(at its selected programs and schools) and qualification (via an exam that it has developed and marketed).
The largest professional association for interior designers, the American
Society of Interior Designers (ASID) has made it very clear that it intends to be the sole
gateway to the entire design profession and that without passing its
supported exam, the National Council for Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ), one is not able to safely and
effectively furnish design services. Over the past 30 years, ASID has undertaken a 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. ASID has spent, by some estimates, more than
$5 million in trying to push through legislation that would prohibit or severely limit the ability of non-members
to continue practicing interior design.
TWO ACTS
Generally, this lobby has attempted to introduce two very different types of interior design legislation, each
with different limitations on what a designer may do. The expressed ultimate goal, however, is to regulate the entire profession
through a practice act and bar those who do not meet ASID standards from providing design services.
The first type of legislation, known as a title act, regulates the use of a title such as "Certified Interior
Designer," "Registered Interior Designer" or, in six states, even the term "interior designer" itself. Although a title act
does not actually
prevent anyone from providing interior design services, only those who have been licensed by the state may lawfully
use the regulated term. A practice act, on the other hand, is much more restrictive and prohibits unlicensed designers
from performing any service that is defined in the bill as "interior design." Three states—Florida, Nevada
and Louisiana—have enacted practice restrictions. While many NKBA members do not identify themselves as "interior designers,"
the
broad definition of interior design contained in these laws clearly covers the services and work that they perform
on a daily basis. For example, the introduced bills cover such work as:
• Performing, supervising or managing any work related to the design of interior environments
• Investigating, identifying and documenting client needs
• Analyzing needs, proposing options and, working with a client, developing specific solutions
• Developing design documents, including contract working drawings and specifications
Clearly, kitchen and bath designers perform these types of services every day and, in a state that adopts a
practice act, will come within the prohibitions of the law.
Often, a bill's proponents will offer "exemptions" in an attempt to avoid any opposition and to silence objectors.
These exemptions require careful reading to see if they truly exclude the work done by kitchen and bath designers. For
example, a typical "residential" exemption might permit designers who do not use a regulated title or present
themselves as interior designers to provide residential decorating services. Of course, what kitchen and bath designers offer
will
not be construed as merely decorating services. Likewise, a typical "retail" exemption fails since it generally
excludes employees of a retail establishment so long as their services are limited to providing consultation regarding interior
decoration or furnishings on the premises of the retail establishment. Again, this is not what NKBA members
do and expressly excludes those who furnish design services only, those who do not sell at retail and anyone else who is not
considered an "employee."
TWO CONCERNS
The NKBA has many concerns about these attempts to co-opt the interior design market. Its primary objections,
however, are centered on two specific issues:
• Such laws do nothing to further the protection of public health, safety and welfare.
• Despite the glossy language intended to lend credence to these laws as a necessary form of consumer
protection, the end result of such laws is increased cost to the consumer and greater consumer confusion.
The purpose of licensure is to protect the public, and one of state government's top responsibilities is to
safeguard its citizens. Regulation by nature limits entry into a profession, makes it more difficult for those already in
the industry to
compete and should be reserved for professions and occupations that, if unregulated, pose a serious threat to
public health, safety and welfare. There is no indication that poor interior design work is a problem for consumers warranting
the regulation of an entire profession. The reason is simple: Existing state and local laws are already in place
to protect the public from harm (e.g., consumer protection statutes, building codes, licensing of contractors, plumbers and
electricians). Since 1905, when statistics were first compiled, virtually no complaints have been filed against
interior designers for negligent design causing health, safety or welfare concerns. Nearly every study conducted has concluded
that
there is no compelling need for interior design legislation and, in fact, such laws harm the public by artificially
inflating consumer prices, erecting unnecessary barriers to entry into the profession, giving government-imposed advantages
to
those already practicing and failing to demonstrate any social benefit.
PLAYING FAVORITES
In addition, these laws are anti-competitive as they favor one group of interior designers over other members
of the design community and, again, do so without serving any identifiable, valid public policy. Laws such as these seek to
bestow upon one segment of the interior design industry a potential commercial benefit that is associated with
state regulation—it is reasonable to presume that consumers may attach value to the state certification, thus placing
non
certified interior design professionals at an unfair competitive disadvantage.
Similarly, there is no evidence that the public desires additional regulation. Consumers already have the means
to verify the credentials of interior designers by verifying membership in existing private sector interior design professional
associations, such as the NKBA, the ASID, the Interior Design Society, the International Interior Design Association
(IIDA), the International Furnishings and Design Association (IFDA), the Organization of Black Designers, the Home
Furnishings Independents Association, the International Council of Interior Architects and Designers and others.
While interior designers are deserving of respect for their role in the design process, special legislative
consideration is not warranted based on an objective review of the facts. In truth, these bills protect the economic interests
of a few
within the interior design community and in no way promote or advance any rational, justifiable or necessary
public policy. As such, NKBA joins with the vast majority of the design community in opposing these unjustifiable attempts
to
monopolize the interior design profession.
—Edward S. Nagorsky, esq, is the general counsel and director of legislative affairs for the National
Kitchen & Bath Association in Hackettstown, NJ. He has been counsel for the association for 25 years and represents the
industry before state legislatures throughout the U.S.
Approved February 29, 2008
Position Statement
National Kitchen & Bath Association
The National Kitchen & Bath Association (“NKBA”), as the leading trade and
professional organization in the kitchen and bathroom industry, takes seriously its
role in educating our members and the public at large of the importance of
retaining the services of a professional designer when contemplating new or
remodeled kitchen and bath projects. It is only through education of the public
that they become familiar with the services that a trained kitchen and bath
professional can offer, and determine for themselves the level of skill and
expertise that is required to meet their needs and budget. Because of this, the
NKBA is justly concerned about the efforts of a small segment of the interior
design community, primarily those belonging to the American Society of Interior
Designers (“ASID”), to limit the right of the public to retain the services of a
designer of their choosing and restrict our members from practicing their
profession, a profession in which we have been engaged in for many years
without complaint or concern by the public. As a result of the limited success that
those interior designers have had across the nation, and our belief that their
anticompetitive efforts will continue in the future, the National Kitchen & Bath
Association has developed this Position Statement to make clear where we stand
on interior design licensing and how this organization will react to any further
attempts to restrict the profession.
ASID has for over 30 years, conducted a campaign through local coalitions to
convince a small but vocal part of its membership along with various state
legislators that there is a desperate need for interior design licensing to “protect
the public” from those designers who they have decided are unqualified and who
do not meet the self-imposed standards which they have arbitrarily set. They
have had some qualified success in obtaining licensing laws, primarily due to the
fact that such efforts went largely unnoticed by the design community at large.
Members of the National Kitchen & Bath Association generally historically were
not concerned about “titling” laws – regulations that merely restricted the ability to
use a term such as “Certified Interior Designer” or “Registered Interior Designer”
– since our members did not consider themselves “interior designers” and had no
desire to use the regulated term. In fact, under the broad definition of interior
design which these bills regulate, our members do provide interior design
services and would come well within the proscriptions of the law.
687 Willow Grove Street Hackettstown, NJ 07840
Phone: 908-852-0033 Fax: 908-852-1695
www.nkba.org
66528-1 2
Titling acts such as these have been adopted in some twenty-two jurisdictions;
however, the adoption of these types of laws is not the stated goal of the ASID
and its supporters. Instead, they wish to impose their will on all interior designers
by saying who may or may not perform any design work in a home or commercial
establishment and mandating passage of their supported exam, the National
Council for Interior Design Qualification exam (“NCIDQ”) and graduation from a
limited number of higher educational institutions who have been accepted by
their supported agency, the Council of Interior Design Accreditation (“CIDA”). As
we have witnessed repeatedly in the past, if ASID and their coalitions are unable
to obtain a governmental sanctioned monopoly in interior design by the initial
passage of a practice act, they will “settle” for a title act in the hopes of
introducing much more restrictive practice acts once the dust settles.
NKBA has many concerns about these efforts by a select few individuals to
corner the interior design market. Our primary objections, however, are centered
on two specific issues:
· Such laws do nothing to further the protection of public health, safety,
and welfare .
· Despite the glossy language intended to lend credence to these laws
as a
necessary form of consumer protection, the
truth is that the end result of
such laws is increased cost to the consumer and increased consumer
confusion.
Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
The NKBA firmly believes that the purpose of licensure is to protect the public and
that one of state government's top responsibilities is to safeguard its citizens. 1
Regulation by nature limits entry into a profession, makes it more difficult for those
already working in the industry to compete and should be reserved for professions
and occupations that, if unregulated, pose a serious threat to public health, safety,
and welfare. In other words, to take the serious step of restricting the
marketplace, thereby impacting the ability of persons to compete effectively, a
state must determine whether a profession provides services that directly
and
significantly affect the public health, safety, and welfare.
These laws do nothing to achieve their purported desire of safeguarding the
public health, safety and welfare. Their sole purpose is to protect the interests of
a few individuals within the interior design community and in no way promotes
nor advances any rational, justifiable or necessary public policy. If anything,
these laws present a threat to the public health, safety and welfare in that they
imply to the public that the person certified thereunder is in fact regulated by the
State when in truth, the state has virtually no authority over the practice of that
1 As used in this document, any reference to a state or national
government shall be equally
applicable to the provinces of Canada.
66528-1 3
individual. The state’s only jurisdiction is over the individual’s use of the regulated
title; the requirements to become certified and sit for the exam are determined by
third parties over whom the state has no input or control.
In addition, these laws are anti-competitive in that they favor one group of interior
designers over other members of the design community and, again, do so
without serving any identifiable, valid public policy. These laws seek to bestow
upon one segment of the interior design industry a potential commercial benefit
that is attendant with state regulation. It is reasonable to presume that
consumers may attach value to the state certification, thus placing non-certified
interior design professionals at an unfair competitive disadvantage.
Consumer Protection
Proponents of these regulations contend that they are needed as some form of
consumer protection. However, they add nothing to the level of protection in the
built environment afforded to a state’s citizens.
There is no indication that poor interior design work is a problem for any
consumer warranting the regulation of an entire profession. What is the showing
of "public health, safety and welfare" that is currently unprotected by a state and
which is not being adequately addressed by existing law (e.g., consumer
protection statutes, building codes, licensing of contractors, plumbers and
electricians)? How many consumer complaints have been filed because of
unregulated interior designers? Virtually every study conducted has concluded
that there is no compelling need for interior design legislation and in fact, such
laws harm the public by artificially inflating consumer prices, erecting
unnecessary barriers to entry into the profession, giving government-imposed
advantages to those already practicing and failing to demonstrate any social
benefit.
Similarly, there is no evidence that the public desires additional regulation.
Consumers already have the means to verify the credentials of interior designers
through verification of membership in existing private sector interior design
professional associations, such as the National Kitchen & Bath Association, the
American Society of Interior Designers, the Interior Design Society, the
International Interior Design Association, the International Furnishings and
Design Association, the Home Furnishings Independents Association, the
Organization of Black Designers and the International Council of Interior
Architects and Designers. In fact, the qualification standards for membership in
many professional associations, particularly our Certified Kitchen and Certified
Bath Designers, are more stringent than the licensing criteria contained in many
of the interior design licensing bills. We would submit that no industry is more
readily accessible to the public than the interior design profession. Aside from
the organizations listed above, there are numerous consumer publications,
websites and television programs (and networks such as HGTV) which educate
66528-1 4
the public on the role of interior designers and the qualifications of the various
disciplines. Surely, the public does not lack the ability to make informed choices
about who they retain for design services.
The NKBA’s National Position
The NKBA has formally adopted a position to oppose Title and/or Practice Acts in
general and specifically for numerous reasons.
· There is no guarantee that a Title Act will not lead to a more restrictive
Practice Act in the future
· There is no guarantee that exemptions in Title or Practice Acts today
will
not be removed tomorrow – once on the books, they may be easily and
without much fanfare, changed
· Once a state (anywhere) enacts a Title or Practice Act, it gives credence
to the movement in other states to encourage additional interior design
legislation in those states that may not offer similar or any exemptions
· Regulatory enforcement of a new law does not always accurately reflect
the intent of the law. Agencies charged with creating and administering
the rules and procedures to approve applicants for licensure often have no
state oversight and frequently interpret their requirements in the most
restrictive way imaginable in an effort to limit those who may perform
interior design services and compete for their work. The result is costly
litigation and an uncertain outcome
· Title and Practice Acts create another unnecessary bureaucracy without
adding value
· The NKBA does not accept the proposition that only the NCIDQ exam
tests the minimum competencies to perform interior design services.
Other exams, such as our CKD and CBD exams, the Council for
Qualification of Residential Interior Designers (“CQRID”) exam and state
code exams are equally valid and should be recognized. In fact, the State
of California does just that and has rejected repeated efforts of ASID to
accept only their supported (both financially and philosophically) test. The
NCIDQ exam, an independent, unregulated test with a historically low
pass rate of under 40%, should not be granted a monopoly on saying who
does and who does not possess the minimum skills necessary to practice
interior design, including kitchen and bath design
· The NKBA does not accept the proposition that only CIDA accredited
schools are competent to train designers to practice their profession.
Aside from the many other educational institutions which offer valid and
66528-1 5
rigorous interior design programs, including our accredited colleges and
universities, NKBA supports various pathways of entry into the profession.
Many people can acquire the necessary skills through extended work
experience or through shorter degree programs combined with other
education. Many others have started in one area and evolved into
competent practitioners in another. Society does not benefit by a
narrowing of access to creative fields.
· Competence is best judged on the basis of the work produced rather than
credentials alone. Credentials are a result of, but not substitutes for,
competence. Competence can and often does exist in the absence of a
credential. Many of our kitchen and bath professionals have chosen not to
seek the credentials that our certification programs provide
· There has been no demonstration of harm to the “public health,
safety or
welfare” to warrant increased governmental regulation of a profession
which has, for so many years, operated without such interference. Since
1988, five state agencies have examined the need for titling and/or
licensing laws for interior designers and all five found no benefit to the
public, concluding that consumers already possessed the means to make
informed decisions about interior designers and their services. There has
been no evidence whatsoever that a failure to license interior designers
has adversely impacted the consuming public
· Interior design title and practice act legislation is not being advocated
by
the public through consumer advocacy groups, attorneys general offices
or divisions of consumer affairs. Rather, such laws are being pushed by a
small group of designers who have a personal stake in limiting competition
under the guise of “consumer safety” and are asking that the State give a
select few a competitive and economic advantage over others, including
kitchen and bath designers
· Existing state and local laws and codes already afford the consumer
with
protection against unqualified persons performing construction and
remodeling in the home. Building inspectors, code enforcement officials,
licensed electricians, licensed plumbers and others all have a role in
verifying that work performed by contractors meets the code and safety
requirements enacted to protect the public. Additional licensure merely
duplicates those efforts and creates another layer of bureaucracy and
oversight
· The NKBA believes that the consumer should be given a choice in
retaining the services of a design professional. Our Members wish to
compete on the merits of their work and abilities and do so through their
portfolios, references, design competitions, certification and continuing
education. The NKBA spends in excess of 1 million dollars each year in
66528-1 6
educating the public as to the benefits of retaining the services of an
NKBA Member; we do not support efforts to limit freedom of choice among
consumers by dictating who they can and cannot hire to perform design
work, with the attendant increased cost to the consumer which always
follows when competition is restricted
While interior designers are deserving of respect for their role in the design
process, special legislative consideration is not warranted based on an objective
review of the facts. As such, NKBA joins with the vast majority of the design
community in opposing these unjustifiable attempts to monopolize the interior
design profession by the ASID and it’s supporters.
About the National Kitchen & Bath Association
The National Kitchen & Bath Association (NKBA) is a non-profit trade association that
has educated and led the kitchen and bath industry since 1963. With over 41,000
members and growing, NKBA owns the Kitchen/Bath Industry Show & Conference
(K/BIS), the world’s largest trade show dedicated to the kitchen and bath industry. The
mission of NKBA is to enhance member success and excellence, promote professionalism
and ethical business practices and provide leadership and direction for the kitchen and
bath industry . For more information, visit www.nkba.org or contact the NKBA
at 800-843-
6522
THE
WALL
STREET JOURNAL.
OPINION
Watch Out for That Pillow
By CLARK NEILY
April 1, 2008
Imagine you were a state legislator and some folks asked you to pass a law making
it a crime to give advice about paint colors and throw pillows without a license. And imagine they told you that the only
people qualified to place large pieces of furniture in a room are those who have gotten a college degree in interior design,
completed a two-year apprenticeship, and passed a national licensing exam. And by the way, it is criminally misleading for
people who practice interior design to use that term without government permission.
You might stare at them incredulously for a moment, then look down at your calendar
and say, "Oh, I get it -- April Fool!" Right? Wrong.
These folks represent the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID), an industry
group whose members have waged a 30-year, multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign to legislate their competitors out of business.
And those absurd restrictions on advice about paint selection, throw pillows and furniture placement represent the actual
fruits of lobbying in places like Alabama, Nevada and Illinois, where ASID and its local affiliates have peddled their snake-oil
mantra that "Every decision an interior designer makes affects life safety and quality of life."
Legislative analysis by a half-dozen states that rebuffed ASID's attempts to cartelize
interior design -- including Colorado, Washington and South Carolina -- has failed to support ASID's claim that the location
of your couch or the color of your bedroom walls is literally a matter of life and death. As the Colorado Department of Regulatory
Agencies put it, there is "no evidence of physical or financial harm being caused to . . . consumers by the unregulated practice
of interior designers."
Lacking any factual support for its sweeping public welfare claims, ASID and its supporters
often resort to fear-mongering. For example, licensing proponents frequently say the tragic fire at the MGM Grand Hotel in
Las Vegas that killed 87 people in 1980 was the result of
inappropriate fixtures and furnishings.
The fire was actually caused by an electrical fault and allowed to spread by a grossly
inadequate sprinkler system. Investigators later identified 83 different building code violations. Another favorite is the
2003 fire at The Station nightclub in Rhode Island, in which
100 people perished. Again, that tragedy had nothing to with substandard interior design services. It was caused by an illegal
indoor fireworks display and the absence of a code-mandated sprinkler system.
If there were any credible evidence that unregulated interior design presents a genuine
risk to consumers, ASID would certainly have found it by now. They have had plenty of time (more than three decades), resources
(dues for ASID's 40,000 members average several hundred dollars per year), and incentive. Furthermore, despite ASID's best
efforts, only three states regulate the practice of interior design. That leaves 47 (including California
and New York) where the ravages of unlicensed interior design
could be easily documented -- if there were any.
So what is really behind ASID's relentless push for more regulation? Simple: naked
economic protectionism.
It is no accident that the credentials required for licensure in ASID-backed occupational
licensing bills are the same credentials required for membership in ASID itself. This includes a four-year degree from an
accredited interior design college, a two-year apprenticeship, and a two-day, thousand-dollar licensing exam so irrelevant
to the actual practice of interior design that many ASID members have never bothered to pass it themselves and simply get
a waiver instead.
In vetoing interior design legislation last May, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels explained
that the "principal effect" of the law would have been "to restrain competition and limit new entrants into the occupation."
Mr. Daniels noted that interior designers were "hardly the only profession" seeking government protection from potential competitors.
The numbers certainly bear him out. Fifty years ago, only 5% of the American workforce
was licensed; today it is nearly 30%. We're not talking about brain surgeons or airline pilots, either. Louisiana requires
florists to be licensed (yes, florists), and in several states -- including Louisiana, Oklahoma and Virginia -- only licensed
funeral directors may sell caskets, a state-sanctioned monopoly they use to jack up prices anywhere from 400% to 600%, a fact
established in litigation by the Institute for Justice in Tennessee and Oklahoma.
Until it was struck down by the state supreme court last year, Alabama's interior design law made it a crime to offer advice about throw pillows and paint
colors without a license. To anyone who thinks that law -- or others like it currently being pushed by interest groups like
ASID in state capitols around the nation -- was motivated by a genuine concern for public health and welfare, I can only say
this: It's going to be a rough day.
Mr. Neily is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice.
Consumer protection often isn't
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Michigan ranks sixth in the nation when it comes to occupational licensing, with 116 different occupations requiring state
approval, according to a Reason Foundation report.
Michigan even has a license for reptile catchers.
So, why do we have all of these licenses? Who comes up with them? Here's a hypothetical example of how such policies come
about:
A lawmaker meets with lobbyists representing an association of interior designers. The lobbyists say interior designers
contribute $10 million annually to the state economy and provide more than 10,000 good paying jobs.
Interior designers work hard to have a good reputation, say the lobbyists, but all of that is in danger. Rogue designers
who are not members of the association have been undercutting prices and providing shoddy workmanship that damages all designers'
reputations. The lobbyists tell of a designer who made a cheap shelving unit that collapsed.
The association proposes requiring all interior designers to be registered with the state. They propose a course of study
-- provided by the association, to members only -- and a test administered by a state panel of design experts -- largely representatives
of the association.
Applicants must pay a $500 fee to cover the cost of the course, the test, the panel and all other related activities. Fee
money would also be used to investigate and prosecute any unlicensed designers.
The lawmaker likes the idea of "protecting" his constituents and introduces a package of bills, mostly drafted by design-association
lawyers. The legislation passes with little fanfare.
But here's another side:
Jane Citizen works 40-plus hours per week at her own interior design business. She has no formal training in design, and
neither time or money to pay for it.
Her business has been steadily growing by word-of-mouth. Jane has never been a member of any design association.
The new "consumer protection" act goes into effect without Jane's knowledge. She is soon approached on the job by a bureaucrat
who tells her she is violating the law and must pay a $500 fine and cease plying her trade immediately.
She must become registered or face additional fines or legal action. Jane has unknowingly violated the law and must cease
earning her living.
The design association was the only party protected. They eliminated competitors who drove down prices.
The next time you hear about consumer-protection legislation that requires yet more licensing, check to see who it really
protects.
Isaac Morehouse is director of campus leadership for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, based in Midland.
©2008 BDW
© 2008 Michigan Live. All Rights Reserved.
Talk2Us
Interior Design Shouldn’t Be an Exclusive Field of Knowledge
Posted June 1, 2005
I’d like to applaud
some of the approaches to teaching interior design that were mentioned by Shashi Caan in her recent interview [“Why Shashi Caan Is Overhauling Interior Education”]. I’d also like to raise serious issue with some of her other thoughts.
First, I think she is going down the
right track when she proposes that students study interior design in full-scale, virtual 3-D projections. Interior design
differs from architecture in its concentration on full-size details, and in the sense of immersion we get when we experience
real interiors. Parts of today’s aviation construction industry, which are also poorly served by the last century’s
architectural drafting conventions, have already adopted this approach to great effect by using goggles and immersive projections.
Also,
because experience rather than form is paramount in interior design, using graphic storyboarding and film-editing techniques
to describe the function of an interior design makes perfect sense. Interior design programs that have a strong art and technology
faculty as neighbors will move more quickly in the right direction.
On the other hand, I think Caan is off-track when
she tries to capture a well-delineated body of knowledge and call it the exclusive territory of interior design. Most significant
design opportunities require us to regularly cross the imaginary borders around [different bodies] of knowledge…[and
use] techniques gleaned from a broad variety of academic disciplines, including anthropology and social psychology. These
techniques of research and analysis are still best deployed in the comprehensive design studio, which is still the best place
to attempt a design synthesis that approaches maturity. And even then we might want to circle back to include the development
of taste and a strong individual sensibility.
[…] There is no intellectually defensible way to completely separate
the study of interiors from that of the architecture that surrounds them. Interior architecture exists as a field of study
and work because of this fact. Anyone who has ever strolled through the Gallerie Vivienne, after Percier and Fontaine, will
immediately understand that there are concrete fields of endeavor such as interior architecture, and even interior urbanism,
especially in today’s super-large buildings.
[…] These intellectual endeavors and their built progeny
have existed for centuries, and they pre-date and put the lie to the recent mincing legislation [such as New York’s
Interior Design Title Act] that some states have passed in a misguided attempt to cordon off the allowable application of
design knowledge into the world. Under the guise of protecting the public, this legislation is actually a rank attempt at
trade protectionism. In today’s climate of deregulated competition, it is no wonder that Governor Pataki will not fall
back into a trade protectionist posture.
[…] The history of innovation in the United States is at risk because of this restrictive legislation that is being
pushed through less-than-alert state legislatures by well-funded, self-serving lobbying organizations. Remember that Thomas
Edison crossed between the supposedly separate fields of acoustics and electricity because his sensibility and innate curiosity
lead him to. Consider the actress Hedy Lamarr’s contribution to the invention of the frequency-hopping technology so
prevalent in radio communications today: she did that because she could, not because she was allowed a particular boundary
of legislated expertise.
All of design, including interior design and interior architecture, will ultimately follow
these examples out into the global light of free enterprise.
Yours truly,
Anders Nereim, Chairman
Department
of Architecture, Interior Architecture, and Designed Objects
School of the Art Institute of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
* * *
Original
Story Can Be Found At:
http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=1403
Newsweek
March 22, 2007
Wallpapering
With Red Tape
By George F. Will
PHOENIX - In
the West, where the deer and the antelope used to play, the spirit of "leave us alone" government used to prevail. But governments
of Western states are becoming more like those elsewhere, alas. Consider the minor - but symptomatic matter of the government-abetted
aggression by "interior designers" against mere decorators," or against interior designers whom other interior designers wish to demote to the status of decorators.
Some designers think decorators should be a lesser breed without the law on its side. Those categories have blurry borders.
Essentially, interior designers design an entire space, sometimes including structural aspects; decorators have less
comprehensive and more mundane duties - matching colors, selecting furniture, etc. In New
Mexico, anyone can work as an interior designer. But it is a crime, punishable by a fine of up
to $1,000 and up to a year in prison, to list yourself on the Internet or in the Yellow Pages as, or to otherwise call yourself,
an "interior designer" without being certified as such. Those who favor this censoring of truthful commercial speech
are a private group that controls, using an exam administered by a private national organization, access to that title.
This is done in the name of "professionalization," but it
really amounts to cartelization. Persons in the business limit access by others - competitors - to full participation in the
business. Being able to control the number of one's competitors, and to dispense
the pleasure of status, is nice work if you can get it, and you can get it if you have a legislature willing to enact
"titling laws." They regulate - meaning restrict - the use of job descriptions.
Such laws often are precursors of occupational licensing, which usually means a mandatory credentialing process to control
entry into a profession with a particular title.
In Nevada,
such regulation has arrived. So in Las Vegas, where almost nothing is illegal, it is illegal- unless you are licensed, or
employed by someone licensed - to move, in the role of an interior designer, any piece of furniture, such as an armoire, that
is more than 69 inches tall. A Nevada bureaucrat says that
"placement of furniture" is an aspect of "space planning" and therefore is regulated - restricted to a "registered interior
designer." Placing furniture without a license' Heaven forfend. Such regulations come with government rationing of the
right to practice a profession. Who benefits? Creating artificial scarcity of services raises the prices of those entitled
to perform the services. The pressure for government-created scarcity is intensifying because the general public - rank
amateurs - are using the Internet to purchase things and advice, bypassing designers. What has happened in Las Vegas will not stay there. It will come to Arizona, and to other states that do not already have it, unless the likes of Robert Lashua
and Lynne Breyer succeed in turning back the minority of this state's interior designers who are trying to erect barriers
to entry into that profession.
Lashua and Breyer have the help of the Arizona chapter of the Institute for Justice, libertarian
litigators with many successes in resisting such "rent-seeking." That phrase denotes the practice of using public power
to confer private advantage - generally, getting government to impose a regulatory hardship on your competitors. It is
not true that businesses, as a matter of principle, want to fend off government regulation. Businesses have a metabolic
urge to make money, which is as it should be. But when a compliant government gives them the opportunity to use government
regulations to enhance their moneymaking, that metabolic urge will overpower any principles about the virtues of free (from
government intervention) enterprise. Commercial interests solicit regulations to obtain commercial advantage, as with titling
laws. Such laws are instances of rent-seeking.
Beyond the banal economic motive for such laws,
they also involve a more bizarre misuse of government. They assuage the status anxieties of particular groups by giving them
the prestige, such as it is, that comes from government recognition as a certified profession. But government licenses
professions to protect the public and ensure quality. It licenses engineers and doctors because if their testable skills
are deficient, bridges collapse and patients die. The skills of interior designers are neither similarly measurable nor comparably
disastrous when deficient. Perhaps designers could show potential clients a portfolio of their work, and government could
trust the potential clients to judge. Just a thought. Thomas Hobbes thought that liberties "depend on the silence of the law."
From lawmakers here, and everywhere else, more silence on the matter of titles would be welcome.
Published February 7, 2008
[ From Lansing State Journal ]
Patti Morrow: Don't regulate designersInterior design bill will hurt, not help, Michigan's
economy
I am writing to address the blatantly incorrect information presented as fact (Viewpoints, Jan. 31) on interior design
licensing. House Bill 4772 will harm interior designers and will harm the economy.
Claiming that the purpose of legislation is to protect the health and safety of the public is simply wrong. There is not
a shred of evidence that the unregulated practice of interior design places the public in any form of jeopardy.
In commercial applications, use of fire retardant materials is required by codes and confirmed by inspections, whether
a designer is licensed or not. Imposing additional regulation would be redundant and a waste of the state's time and resources.
Twenty-six states do not have the licensing laws. Only three states regulate who may practice interior design. A fourth
state, Alabama, previously had a practice law, but it was declared unconstitutional by the Alabama Supreme Court in 2007.
There is no consumer outcry for interior design regulation. Yet, regulation will result in fewer choices and higher costs
to the consumer.
The push for regulation comes from a small handful of industry insiders who want to eliminate their competition and enhance
their businesses. The state should not regulate occupations for the sole purpose of "enhancing" the professional stature of
some interior designers by putting others out of work. Lawmakers should consider adoption of a law only if the public health,
welfare or safety truly compels it.
The ICR survey has been thoroughly discredited because of the motivation behind it, nor did it stand up to judicial scrutiny
where it was recently rejected on the basis that it provided "an inadequate basis" for supporting Texas' defense of its interior
design law. It was found that the survey did not relate specifically to interior designers, and that "the generic nature"
of the survey "severely undercuts" its value.
The reason potential clients and students in Michigan are turning to New York and Chicago is not because of Michigan's
failure to license designers - neither of those states license designers. Rather, it's more likely because of Michigan's depressed
economy. Perhaps legislators should turn their attention to that more pressing issue, instead of wasting the state's time
and resources on regulating an industry that has been functioning just fine without government interference.
In 2007, 24 bills were introduced that would have imposed some type of interior design regulation. At year's end none of
them were enacted.
I urge legislators to join government officials across our country who have considered and rejected interior design regulation
that it is a losing situation for everyone.
| Patti Morrow
is executive director of Live Free and Design, a New Hampshire-based group "opposed to anti-competitive,
unnecessary interior design regulation."
|
