In response to strong opposition from a diverse coalition, the author of AB 2482, Assembly Member Fiona Ma, dropped her interior design Practice Act bill from further consideration, meaning it is dead. AB 2482 would have created a Practice Act for some interior designers, and, among other things, would have put many architectural firms under the regulatory authority of the proposed Registered Interior Designer Board.
The opposition coalition included the Community College League of California, many individual Community College Districts, the California Building Officials, California Legislative Coalition for Interior Design, National Kitchen and Bath Association, California Retail Association, Lowes, Home Depot, National Association of the Remodeling Industry, AIACC, California Architects Board, and many other groups and individual interior designers.
The community college and interior designer opponents were concerned that AB 2482 would create a tiered interior design profession and would restrict some interior design services to those designers who are qualified to become registered by the state, even though all interior designers are able to currently provide those services under existing law.
The AIACC and California Architects Board argued that before the state interferes with the free market by restricting practice, there must be clear evidence that the restriction is needed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. We then argued that there is no evidence of harm to the consumer or public caused by interior design, even though interior designers have been providing services in California for decades. See the AIACC letter AIACC letter here.
The proponents of AB 2482, mainly the American Society of Interior Designers and the International Interior Design Association, and including some architects and architectural firms, argued that state registration would recognize the growth, education, and experience of qualified interior designers, allow state registered interior designers to submit plans without architects in all jurisdictions, allow them to obtain federal contracts, and allow reciprocity with those states that regulate interior design (the opposition disagreed with and challenged each of these points).
Additionally, the proponents argued that, with the professional growth some interior designers have experienced over the years, commercial interior design services today are provided primarily by interior designers. At a legislative hearing on the bill, a lead proponent answered a question from a legislator on whether architects provide interior design services, in which she said:
-
That is not necessarily in their training. It is not something that they necessarily aspire to do … it has really become a very specialized field, so there are architects who work in the interiors environment … so it’s not that they can’t work in it, it’s really that the majority of interiors work is done by designers.
While the bill AB 2482 is dead, there is a way the issue can come up again later this year in a different bill. The AIACC will continue to work with our partners in opposition to AB 2482 in case this proposal resurfaces this summer.
Members of the AIA have opinions on both sides of this issue. Do you wish to state your opinion? Weigh in below.
Michael Dudek
Why shouldn’t properly trained and vetted professional interior designers be allowed to practice a limited range of code regulated interior construction projects?
Note- “because they are not properly trained or tested to do so” is not a valid answer.
Mark Christian
Michael, thank you for taking the time to visit our website and comment on this article.
From what I have been told by numerous interior designers, building officials, and my members (Members of the AIA), interior designers currently are allowed to prepare interior plans for residential and commercial projects.
Do you have different information?
Respectfully,
Mark Christian, Hon. AIACC
AIACC Director of Legislative Affairs
Michael Dudek
Mark that is the problem. The CID’s claim that there is no issue and that CID’s can pull permits in most (I’ve heard as many as 90%) jurisdictions but the IDCC claims otherwise- particulary in larger metro areas such as L.A. and San Fransisco. In addition to which jurisdictions consider the CID a valid building design professional seal/stamp there is a lot of ambiguity in the definition of scope and what is acceptable before a truly “licensed” design professional, R.A. or P.E., must endorse the documents.
I know this is simply an economic turf war cloaked in qualifications to protect the life safety of the public but I am surprised that the AIA/AIACC is buying the CID claims without evidence.
Thanks for the reply.
Sascha Wagner
Mark,
Your assertion that this bill would have “put many architectural firms under the regulatory authority of the Registered Interior Designers Board” is factually inaccurate. On the contrary, the bill as amended proposed that a subcommittee of the California Architects Board or another State Board be given oversight over the Registered Interior Designers in the state. Why would Interior Designers want to oversee an Architect’s work?
The goal is to create a single government body that oversees the limited amount of interior design work done in a code-based environment. Right now California is the only state in the U.S. where this oversight is done by a private entity, not a state board. I would argue this change would further protect the consumer.
Any other refernce to the issue of public health and safety is simply a red herring. This bill is about the right of qualified and trained interior designers to practice in California without having to employ architects to stamp drawings for them. While a few small jurisdictions may accept a CID stamp from interior Designers, a majority of agencies including those in all major cities (L.A., SF, SJ, etc.) do not. I wonder how many architects would feel if the situation was reversed, and their right to practice was arbitrarily constrained.
Brad Henderson AIA CDS
As with all concerns for design and talent, it remains in the eye of the beholder.
Interior design/ designers are not impacted in the true sense of “inertiors” practice. They have this avaiable to them now.
They are, however, stretching into the realm of impacting life-safety, structural and other engineered disciplines. If regulated, will the candidates be held to the same standards architects and engineers are substantiated through State examination for similar disciplines?
If not, I would suspect the Contractor’s Licensing Board could absorb the Interiors profession as another means of certifying and monitoring professional activities of Interior Designers. This body has a level of security for the public benefit that justifies their capacity and experience to perform such services (understanding of codes, construction contract law, limited engineeering principles, etc.).
In any case, this bill or any subsequent regulatory element would predict there should be an official State examination procedure of candidates for the protection of public/ consumer confidence (and not simply grandfathered into existence).
Pingback: Will Michigan Create an Interior Design Guild? - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Pingback: Will Michigan Create an Interior Design Guild? | Home decor and Interior design