|
President's Message
Legislative Round Table Commentary (August 2006)
by Carmen Olsson Rigdon, President of CLCID
Our
Legislative Round Table which was held at Anaheim Stadium on July 12, 2006 was a successful end to a day that was filled with excitement, an excellent trade show and a CEU on color and material trends.
The interior design exams were well-represented by Ed Nagorsky, (General Counsel and Director of Legislative Affairs) NKBA
exams Pamela White, (Executive Director) CQRID; Jan Bast, (President-Elect) NCIDQ; and Doug Stead, (Executive Vice President) CCRE. Understanding what each exam is all about is pivotal to embracing
the entire profession regardless of specialty.
Unlike most states, California has a unique collection of practicing interior designers. Although the majority of practitioners are residential
designers, commercial designers are in serious demand and kitchen and bath designers have gained ground as integral practitioners distinctly separating them apart from other states who conduct business
as contractors and/or retailers. As the interior design profession continues to gain recognition, the need for multifaceted exams encompassing the broad range of interior solutions is needed more now
than ever before in California.
Unification Will Strengthen Our Profession - Part 3 (February 2006)
by Carmen Olsson Rigdon, President of CLCID
There appears to be no disagreement among our peers that standards must be set high and the path narrow to demonstrate
professionalism The division comes on how and when to bring this platform to the state.
A singular exam, namely NCIDQ, has been the hot topic It has been said by
others that it is the most comprehensive for the profession If this is so, then why have AIA and NCARB openly stated that the NCIDQ is an inadequate exam? Curiously, several of the extremely
vocal individuals demanding this narrow singular method have not taken the NCIDQ Do these same individuals realize NCIDQ has withdrawn it's waiver for broadly experienced designers? This
careless action has now placed NCIDQ out of compliance in California For the professions, the state has a provision for those that are "broadly experienced". It allows any person
who has practiced in his/her profession for a minimum of 8 years with a high school diploma can sit for the respective exams.
From another standpoint, how can we force a platform of NCIDQ only when the professional organizations refuse to place their members on a career path with a time frame toward the NCIDQ? If these organizations cannot set the standard they so strongly advocate, then how can we "sell" it to the legislature? It is a message of "Do as I say, not as I do". To insist on a stringent, narrow pathway at this juncture, which even the professional organizations cannot master, places a significant barrier to practice in the eyes of the state. There is the argument of more members, including the vast majority that never intend to sit for the NCIDQ, under the umbrella and bound by professional ethics, the greater consumer protection Actually, it is merely a smoke screen that protects 70% of those organizations corporate bottom line Taking the same umbrella argument one step further, existing California certification has a far greater potential for capturing and embracing designers regardless
of specialty, professionally affiliated or not, to prove interior design is indeed a profession that impacts consumer health, safety and welfare.
While the narrow pathway ideology is a
noble aspiration and will one day be attainable, currently it is detrimental and creates another layer of barriers for a profession that has just begun its long legislative road Barriers that come
from within the profession are much more damaging than external opposition Without a general consensus among the entire profession, we are looked upon as a small child that cannot make up his
mind
In the interim, we have a greater chance to strengthen our statute by tabling the exam issue and concentrating on adding language identifying our occupation In fact, adding
occupational standards for certification is far more critical and achievable
In every arena of life there is compromise, if only for the moment, to move forward.
Unification Will Strengthen Our Profession - Part 2 (January 2006)
by Carmen Olsson Rigdon, President of CLCID
As interior design pushes forward to clearly identify itself as a
profession that impacts public health, safety and welfare, we can take lessons from the long road trodden by the architects.
It has taken over 100 years for California architects to achieve the legislative goals that interior designers began seeking less than 25 years ago.
Currently, the interior design Certification
Board accepts three exams with a supplemental exam.
A little over 10 years ago, California architects accepted two exams. Presently it is a singular exam with supplemental exam after these many years. California architects and designers are the same when accepting those with broadly experienced backgrounds (8 yr. min.) in lieu of education and accepting those with a combination of experience and education. While California does not require continued professional development for architects, Certified Interior Designers must attend 10 hours of CEU's per two-year renewal period.
California has the largest architect jurisdiction in the U.S. and Canada and is not the only state to not fully accept one organization's reciprocity template for "one size fits all"
legislation. For the betterment of the architectural profession, it is very apparent that the stakeholders communicated with messages of flexibility and compromise which will be invaluable when
seeking global reciprocity in the future.
For us, one thing we can take away from this example is that we must first agree.
For the architects it has taken a multitude of years to achieve similar but certainly not uniform legislation. It is painfully evident that the sooner we can build consensus among our profession the faster we can realize our goals.
Unification Will Strengthen Our Profession - Part 1 (October 2005)
by Carmen Olsson Rigdon, President of CLCID
ASID financed a report to assess the examinations that are acceptable for
California interior design Certification. It is not CLCID's position to defend examinations that the ASID report diminished.
Long before the ASID report was written, compliance issues were brought
to those testing vendors who had need of updating their requirements. It is then the testing bodies' purview to rise to the occasion and prove their validity to the State of California. Compliance can
only be addressed after the most current and sufficient data has been gathered.
From time to time, all of the examinations have fallen into non-compliance and all have been given ample opportunity to redeem themselves.
Interior design licensure is a huge issue nationally,
and one that is currently opposed by AIA National Policy and NCARB. Neither believes that interior design significantly affects public health, safety and welfare. California is not singled out in their
objections, but rather AIA and NCARB do not accept the NCIDQ examination or FIDER education as adequate.
We believe AIA and NCARB would strongly oppose any Practice Act legislation by the Interior
Design profession. On a positive note, they encourage strengthening Certification legislation. We all would like a Practice Act, but we must first follow a road of unification for the greatest synergy to
achieve any advancement or strengthening the current statute and our position with other professions.
|
