(H/t Dispatches from the Culture Wars) George Will has a column entitled Wallpapering With Red Tape. In it, he takes a look at the curious case of interior designers attempting to use the government to limit access by competitors. As a lawyer, a member of a protected profession, I can’t wax too indignant. But, I figured I’d post a cite to the George Will column since I’ve noted the efforts of interior designers in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Since you challenge this “puff” interior design legislation, I thought I would give you something to think about.
In what is considered one of the worst hotel fires in modern US history, 87 lives were lost and 785 people were injured in a fire at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas because some interior finish and furnishing selections were not appropriate for commercial use. If furniture is placed in such a manner that it impedes egress during an emergency or exit pathways are not appropriately marked or visible (say, due to an 69″armoire), people can die. Would you want a non-qualified, non-educated person selecting the materials for interior of your child’s school? Your hospital? Your loved one’s nursing home? The licensure of interior designers IS in the public’s best interest and should not be treated with such flippancy.
A fine lecture. Unfortunately it’s a non sequitur. The legislation in question today, Indiana’s Senate Bill 490-2007, would do absolutely nothing to address the situation you describe.
1. It contains no prohibition on negligent design.
2. It contains no prohibition on the practice of design by unregistered designers.
3. It contains no prohibition on designs by individuals who are not designers.
4. It contains no oversight of the exams administered by the National Council for Interior Design Qualification, so the state doesn’t really know whether the exam is weeding out the competent from the incompetent or just increasing its cash flow by administering a state required examination.
5. It contains no mechanism by which the public would be made aware of whether a particular building was designed by a registered designer, unregistered designer, or non-designer.
Also, on a pedantic note, the bill is annoying because it uses the term “registration” when what it describes is “certification.”
Kimberly’s strawman is probably a fire hazard, as well.
Unless interior designers are to become the primary enforcement agents for fire code compliance, that is.
And, extra points to her for a more-subtle-than-usual invocation of the mandatory “for the children” meme!
Doug,
You’re a born litigator. :)
(Coming from an argumentative sort like me, trust me — that’s a big compliment. ;-) )
Interior Designers pushing for this legislation use the same fire examples in every state, plus the fireworks in the RI Night Club fire to justify this legislation. It’s what their lobbyists tell them to say.
There are Fire Codes and Fire Marshall’s who are responsible for making sure contractors build to code. In fact most contracts that interior designers use exempt them from any liability.
This same legislation was recently proposed in New Hampshire and it was defeated by a large margin.