Interior Design Licensing Bill Fails To Pass
The Interior Design Coalition of Washington (IDCW) again introduced legislation seeking state regulation of the interior design industry. Substitute House Bill 1878 was introduced about a month into the legislative session.
The AIA/WA offered to work with the IDCW on the legislation and met with their lobbyist on several occasions to suggest needed improvements to the bill. We recognize that interior designers are valuable colleagues in the design industry and support the effort to raise industry standards and qualifications. However, our respect for interior designers as colleagues does not weaken our support for effective public safety standards through professional licensure laws.
In 2004, the IDCW introduced a bill late in session. Despite having concerns about the bill, the AIA/WA agreed to not oppose the bill moving forward so that we could try to reach agreement on the issue. Before a final agreement could be reached, the bill failed to pass a required deadline.
After the 2004 legislative session ended, AIA/WA reached out to the interior designers, offering to meet and review legislation in the summer and fall of 2004. However, no new legislative language was brought forth until January of 2005. The bill as introduced failed to meet several critical standards for AIA/WA support and, thus, we encouraged legislators to not pass it.
There were three critical areas of concern for the AIA/WA. SHB 1878 would expand the legally authorized practice of interior design into aspects of architecture and engineering, had weak educational standards and included permissive grandfathering provisions.
SHB 1878 would expand the interior designers scope of practice into architecture and engineering by defining them as "registered design professionals." This phrase is used in Washington’s building codes and statutes to describe tasks required to be performed by an architect or engineer.
Late in the 2004 session, the phrase was proposed to be removed from the bill and specific limitations were included on an interior designers' building code authority. Those changes were needed to remove AIA/WA’s objections to the bill. This year, the bill included the problematic phrase and did not include the agreed upon limitations. These major changes in the scope of the bill this year caused the AIA/WA great concern.
The expansion of interior design practice was made more concerning by the bill's weak education provisions. The bill would allow a person to become licensed with only a two-year degree. The industry standard is a four-year degree from a FIDER accredited college or university. Moreover, it did not adopt the NCIDQ internship program, the Interior Design Experience Program, as a requirement for licensure.
Several architecture firms informed the AIA/WA that the standards in the bill are so low that firms could not rely upon state licensure for hiring decisions. Thus, the proposed bill would have undermined, rather than strengthened industry standards.
Finally, SHB 1878 included permissive grandfathering clauses. Under the grandfathering clause, it would allow persons to become licensed without taking the exam.
In the end, the AIA/WA did not want to lower standards in an effort to provide recognition. Architects value the skills of professional interior designers and do not want the state to provide a stamp of equivalency to lesser-trained persons.
Another factor that hampered the IDCW’s efforts was that they bypassed the statutorily required “Sunrise Review” process. Under state law any industry seeking new or increased state regulation must make an application to the Department of Licensing to review the need for such regulation and the appropriateness of proposed standards. Without this impartial review, lawmakers simply did not have enough information on the public safety need for new regulation of the interior design industry.
The recent experience with the geologists’ license was still fresh in many legislators’ minds. They too bypassed the sunrise review process and passed a new law. Immediately after enactment, it was clear there were problems with the law and it had to be changed. Also, soil scientists came forward this year seeking licensure because of the impacts of the geologist licensing law on their practice.
Many legislators feared a similar result with the interior design bill. Last year, the kitchen and bath designers actively raised concerns about the bill. In other states, residential designers have also come forward seeking regulation after interior design laws were enacted.
The AIA/WA has already begun reaching out to the members of IDCW to discuss future legislative efforts. We plan to meet with leaders of the various interior design organizations in Washington to communicate our concerns and better understand their desire for state restrictions on the industry.