In reviewing the efforts to pass interior design licensing legislation, the author of the “Legislative Update” article in the January, 2005 issue of Contract states that in “the recent surge in activity...the most basic factor is that more and more interior designers are taking increasingly active roles in protecting the future of their business enterprises and their profession.”" (emphasis mine).

Interior designers are attempting to accomplish two goals: establish the distinction between an interior designer and an interior decorator; and secure the statutory right to seal construction documents for the purpose of obtaining building permits. The former is appropriate. The latter is nothing less than an attempt to circumvent the rigorous standards of architecture licensure by defining “interior architecture” as separate from “architecture.”

Interior designers have argued that licensure is needed because: 1. They must distinguish themselves from interior decorators.
2. The new International Building Code (IBC) creates confusion concerning the preparation of construction documents by interior designers.
3. Other states are doing it.
4. They claim they are protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

Costly new state bureaucracies are not needed for interior designers to achieve recognition apart from interior decorators. If designers want to distinguish themselves from decorators, their own non-governmental certification programs are available; they need not be "licensed" unless they attempt to practice architecture and then they should be licensed as architects.

The second argument is based on previous uniform building codes which used the term “architects/engineers” when identifying those who are allowed to stamp or seal documents to be submitted for permit review and approval. The new International Building Code, as a result of intense lobbying by interior designers, uses the term “design professionals.” There is no confusion. Like previous codes, the IBC does not attempt to say who can prepare or seal building plans. All codes refer to underlying state laws on this question--the laws interior designers are trying to change. None of the code--old or new--prevent interior designers from lawfully working in their field.

The third argument, that “other states are doing this,” is put in perspective by understanding that a majority of states do not license interior designers. Many states are highly critical of these lobbying efforts. In 2000, California’s governor vetoed interior design regulation because it created a “new regulatory program for an industry where there is no demonstrated consumer harm.” New York Governor Pataki vetoed a proposed practice act in July 2004, saying, “I have not been presented with any compelling facts or circumstances to justify changing the current system.”

The NCIDQ claims its current exam is entirely focused on health, safety, and welfare matters. This is a huge jump from the 18 percent figure claimed for its 1999 exam—how has the exam changed to justify this statement? Perhaps the answer lies only in how one defines “welfare.” Presentations made by interior designers at the 2003 NeoCon in Chicago made the claim “they would own the word welfare.” By this “sleight of hand” the NCIDQ exam now claims to be 100 percent focused on health, safety, and “welfare” issues. However, the real question is what is in the best interest of the American public.

By their own admission, interior designers in Alabama acknowledged that passing the NCIDQ exam did not satisfactorily prove the candidate’s competence to recognize structural, mechanical, and other life safety concerns when undertaking complex interior work. They are now at work trying to write a more rigorous exam. One architect, who recently passed the NCIDQ exam without any preparation, stated that the exam falls well short of the examination required to become an architect.

The education, training, and examination of interior designers do not compare to that which is required of architects, yet interior designers want to practice “interior architecture.” The interior of a building is a complex mechanism that requires comprehensive knowledge to competently design and coordinate its life safety systems. Can an interior wall be safely removed to create a larger space? What if it is a load-bearing wall? Can a large light fixture be hung anywhere? Can a stair be added for interior access and still maintain structural and fire integrity? How will an interior designer who has not been educated, trained, or examined in any aspects of structural design know what to watch out for?

Unless the improper practices of a trade or profession impact substantially on the health and safety of the public, not just its welfare, there is no reason to create the bureaucracy and public costs to license its practitioners. Simply put, no rational society would license artists, poets or concert pianists even though each is engaged in a calling requiring extraordinary knowledge, skills and abilities and each contributes to the public welfare. But the failure to perform properly does not adversely affect the public’s safety. The unlicensed practice of architecture by others, including individuals practicing “interior architecture,” will put public safety at risk.

While skilled interior design contributes materially to the comfort, beauty and function of our homes, offices and public spaces, the licensure of interior designers is contrary to the public interest for several reasons:

• Interior designers are not adequately educated, trained or examined to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
• Their education is specific, not comprehensive.
• Their exam falls well short of the examination required to become an architect.
• Their main objective appears to be protection of their business rather than the public’s safety.
• They can achieve recognition and distinction through the existing certification programs (which do not rely on scarce public resources).

Individuals should not be allowed to practice “interior architecture” without first being licensed as an architect. Qualified interior designers can avail themselves of, and work to strengthen, the private certification programs, already available, to give themselves proper recognition for their knowledge and capabilities.