Practice Makes Perfect” – Part 3
Reality 19 years ago No Comments

The first two installments in this mini-series [THE “REAL” REAL WORLDMarch 2005 and April 2005] about interior design legislation (Title Act vs. Practice Act) stirred the pot. Readers stewed, causing opinions to bubble over regarding the importance (or lack thereof) of Foundation for Interior Design Education Research (FIDER) accreditation for design programs. (For those carefully measured arguments, see the April 2005, May 2005, June 2005, and July 2005 installments of LEARN, BABY, LEARN.) Well, we’ve still got a few ingredients left in our grocery bag, so let’s add them in and see if things get even saltier.

The whole issue of Interior Design legislation is confusing, and misinformation frequently gets passed along, innocently or otherwise. Remember that childhood game called Gossip” It’s the one where the first player whispers a statement — something silly and harmless like “Jack loves toys that are cool” — into the second player’s ear, who then repeats it to the third player, and so on. By the time the message gets back to its originator, the content and tone have usually taken a turn for the worse. Instead of the first innocent message, you might now hear something a little more sinister like “Jack shoves boys at the school.” Well, this sort of thing is happening within the industry, and we want to try to help you navigate the facts.


More Fears, Rumors, & Controversies
(see the March 2005 and April 2005 articles for items 1–4)


5) Are Decorators Threatened By Practice Acts”

Some definitely feel that they are, but truly they are not. Decorating is an important aspect of the overall design industry, and the majority of designers whole-heartedly recognize that fact. Every player is important: decorators, interior designers, architects, engineers, and specialized consultants all work together to create dynamic environments. Many times, the only services a client may need are purely decorative, and those in the decorating industry should most certainly have the freedom to provide those services.

In the case of the language proposed for the Texas Practice Act, decorators’ services are specifically exempted as not to affect their ability to continue to operate a successful business, but many do not realize this. According to page three of the Winter 2005 issue of Inside, the publication of the Texas Association For Interior Design (TAID), the proposed changes spelled out in Texas Interior Design Practice Act SB339 do not:

  • prohibit an employee of a retail establishment from providing consultations regarding interior decoration or furnishings: on the premises of the retail establishment or in furtherance of a retail sale or prospective retail sale;
  • restrict the activities of a person who provides decorative services or assistance in the selection of surface materials, window treatments, wall coverings, paint, floor coverings, surface-mounted fixtures, and loose furnishings not subject to regulation under applicable provisions of governing jurisdictional codes, regulations or the jurisdictional fire codes providing such persons do not refer to themselves as an Interior Designer.

Several of the showroom and retail establishment operators, who rightly consider themselves part of the decorating community, have banded together to lobby against a Practice Act because they are frightened that it will affect their ability to operate, and thus cause them to go out of business.

Let’s think about this fear for a moment. Why in the world would any interior designer want a decorator to go out of business” Both their survival and the décor / design relationship are vital to the overall health of the industry. Interior designers depend on showrooms and retail establishments for selection and project execution just as much as those suppliers depend on designers to specify or purchase their products and services. Having fewer (or no) vendors with which to do business would hinder (or paralyze) a designer’s ability to complete successful projects for clients. Why would designers want to do that” The answer: they wouldn’t.

The concern, of course, always goes back to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. By educating the public on the differences in skill level between decorators, interior designers, and architects, the public benefits enormously and understands what to look for to fulfill their design-related needs. Speaking of architects, that leads us to our next question.


6) Can An Architect Call Him/Herself An Interior Designer”

This topic is probably the most contentious of them all. Many blame architects’ historical lack of support for interior design legislation purely on Ego. We can all recognize that, whether on the big screen or in the classroom, architects have consistently had the reputation of having heads bigger than their drafting boards. But not so fast — don’t be so naïve as to think that architects have cornered the market on attitude. Unfortunately, some interior designers and decorators have perfected the art of arrogance, posturing a plenty.

No, the real issue is Money. Money is a prickly issue, and the fear of losing it tends to boost adrenaline, blurring rational thought. From previous installments on this topic and this article as well, you can see that some interior designers and decorators fall prey to this fear, right alongside many architects.

As the interior design profession has developed, architects’ fear of losing business to designers has increased, and, now, as the design industry’s importance is ever more recognized by the business world, many architects are even more protective of what they consider their turf.

In the start-up stages of our young profession, interior design legislation language was quite conciliatory (at least in Texas) to architects. When the Interior Design Title Act took affect in Texas in the early 90s, registered architects had the opportunity of also registering as interior designers, but they were not required to pass the NCIDQ exam to do so.

We covered the idea of grandfathering interior designers in Question #4 (in the April 2005 installment) of this series. Though you really should refer back to examine the details, it essentially boils down to the following:

When that Texas Interior Design Title Act took affect, interior designers who met certain criteria could register as interior designers with the State and were not required to pass the NCIDQ exam. Now, the way the language is written for the Texas Interior Design Practice Act, interior designers previously grandfathered in will either be required to take Section One of the NCIDQ (which covers ADA, life and safety codes) or take 15 hours of approved ADA, life and safety code continuing education program hours to renew their Texas interior design licenses.

So why point this out when we are talking specifically about architects” We want to juxtapose the newly proposed requirements. The way the language is now written for the Texas Interior Design Practice Act, a registered architect that is currently also registered as an interior designer, but who did not have to pass the NCIDQ exam to obtain that registration, must have engaged in the practice of interior design for at least three years under the supervision of a registered architect or registered interior designer in order to renew interior design registration without having to now pass the NCIDQ exam. Although this stipulation has turned out to be controversial in and of itself, the truly hot-n-sticky issue is the next scenario.

If the Texas Interior Design Practice Act passes under its current language, a registered architect that is not currently also a registered interior designer can only call him/herself a registered interior designer if he/she now passes the NCIDQ exam. Interior designers are asking that architects be required to take the NCIDQ exam to complete their interior designer registration, and it seems that architects are insulted by this request. They feel that their architect registration should automatically grant them an interior design registration. Talk about turf war.


Final Thoughts

If a project expands into something beyond the decorative, then a decorator calls in an interior designer. If it then grows into something structural, then the interior designer calls on an architect. If the client then wants to get even more structurally ambitious, then the architect calls in an engineer. If no one on the team knows how to meet some of the client’s specific demands, then the team calls in various consultants.

That’s the way it should work. The design process is collaborative — not one person can usually do it all, nor do they typically want to. They may say that they do, but when it comes down to it, they really don’t. We all have talents, skills and passions, and we tend to gravitate toward using them in a way that is satisfying and (hopefully) profitable. If people in our industry could get past the fear and focus on the reality, then the industry as a whole would unquestionably benefit.


Tune in to THE “REAL” REAL WORLD in future months when we will discuss more about:
– why the majority of interior designers want regulation in the first place
– the importance of educating the public about the profession


Editor’s Note:
Since the release of the March 2005 article of THE “REAL” REAL WORLD, where we listed the states operating under a Title Act, one has been added: Iowa. From the May 9, 2005 issue of ASID’s Newsflash:

Iowa Interior Design Title Act Signed Into Law
On Wednesday, May 4, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack signed the Iowa Interior Design Title Act into law. The law outlines qualifications and procedures for becoming a “registered interior designer” and creates an Interior Design Examining Board under the Professional Licensing and Regulation Division of the Iowa Department of Commerce. With the governor’s signature, Iowa becomes the 25th U.S. state or jurisdiction to legally recognize the interior design profession. Senate Bill 405 was introduced on April 12 and referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. SB 405 passed the Senate on April 21 by a vote of 49-0. The bill then was referred to the House Committee on State Government and passed the full House on April 28 by a vote of 97-1. Companion bill, HB 714, was sponsored by Rep. Jeff Elgin.