AIA New Jersey

updated January 2006

To see the outline of the State Board Adoptions: click here

To see the Certified Interior Designer Rules: click here

To see Scheduled Bills in the Legislature: click here

Legislative Update: State Board of Architects and

Certified Interior Designer Rule Adoptions:

The Legislative and Government Affairs Committee, along with members of the Executive Committee has been focused on three major regulatory issues this year: Schools Construction, and two proposed rules adoptions for the State Board of Architects, one for rules governing the practice of architecture and one for rules certifying interior designers.

The Schools Construction issue is on-going and is being handled by members of the Executive Committee, and the Legislative and Governmental Affairs Committee's role is to assist them in developing an appropriate policy on the issue. AIA New Jersey is re-thinking its current policy on the issue of School Construction and will address issues beyond what we originally felt was the core issue for us, which was the use and (re-use) of prototype plans.

The two rule adoptions are related to a law passed several years ago creating the title "Certified Interior Designer" and placing responsibility for the evaluation process within the State Board of Architects. The "Interior Designers Certification Act" does not restrict the practice of interior design by architects, or by anyone else for that matter. It does, however, prevent the use of the title Certified Interior Designer, or CID, by anyone who does not meet the qualifications set forth in the rules. As constructed, the rules create an unfair advantage for interior designers who have taken and passed the NCIDQ examination and create an economic hardship to architect practitioners of interior design who must now explain to potential clients how these rules prevent them from becoming certified in a field they have legally practiced for years.

The rules allow an exemption for persons who may be licensed to practice or use the title in another state. The rules also allow for a "grandfathering" period, as stated below:

For a period of 360 days from the date of the first meeting of the Interior Design Examination and Evaluation Committee, any individual of good moral character who was residing in this State on the effective date of this act shall qualify as a certified interior designer without examination, upon application for certification and payment of the appropriate fee, provided that the individual has a total of at least 10 years of full-time diversified professional experience on the effective date of this act in interior design of a grade and character acceptable to the committee.

AIA New Jersey believes that licensed architects who practice interior design as part of their architectural practice should qualify without examination, regardless of when that license is obtained. In fact, AIA New Jersey, when asked by the State Board to provide the names of persons we felt may qualify for "grandfathering", sent the State Board our entire membership list.

However, as presently constructed, the rules allow only the Interior Design Examination and Evaluation Committee to make such determinations on a case by case basis. In our comments to the Board, we expressed our opinion that every licensed architect in the State of New Jersey should be exempt based on their education, experience, and passing of the NCARB A.R.E. examination. A detailed description of our comments on both these rules adoptions follows.

At the end of the article, you will find a list of scheduled bills, bills signed into law this year, and other recent rules adoptions.

State Board of Architects Rules Adoption

In mid-May of this year, Michael Soriano, AIA, State Government Network Representative working on behalf of AIA New Jersey together with AIA New Jersey President Bruce Turner, AIA, and others submitted comments to the State Board of Architects on proposed changes to the rules governing the practice of Architecture in the State. Below are some of the more salient comments AIA New Jersey made to the Board together with their responses.

"Materially related to Building Systems"

AIA New Jersey asked the State Board to clarify the phrases "not materially related to" and "materially affecting" in the definition of "interior design services" and to include a definition of "building systems" to provide clarification of this term.

We also suggested that the Board make additional clarifications regarding other issues concerning an occupant's health and safety, including non-load and load bearing partitions, seismic loads and fire-rated assemblies.

In their response, the Board stated that it "does not believe that additional definitions are necessary at this time. Specifically, the Board has not been made aware of any problems concerning the phrases "not materially related to," "materially affecting" and "building systems" that are contained in the current statutory definition of "interior design services" from which this rule definition is derived." In their official response to our comments, they contend that, "The commenter has not articulated any specific issues requiring clarification for the Board to address. Therefore, the Board is not adopting the changes."

We feel that to deny that the placement of non-bearing walls materially affects any number of building systems is incorrect, and that to leave the term so loosely defined will lead to confusion among the state's code officials and will make the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public unenforceable and unachievable. We addressed this issue again in our comments on the Interior Design regulations.

Biennial Roster

In the most recent rule adoption, the Board proposed to repeal its requirement that it biennially issue a roster of its licensees that includes the statutes and rules pertaining to the Board because of the availability of this information through the Division of Consumer Affairs' website. However, we suggested that the Board should make a hard copy available to anyone requesting one from the Board. In addition, we noted that certain information on the Division's website pertaining to the Board is not up-to-date and that the Board provides the most up-to-date information.

Without the publication of the biennial roster, we feel that enforcement at the local code official level will become more difficult. This relates to the next issue below.

Use of Name and License Number in Advertising

The Board believes that the inclusion of an Architect's license number is necessary on advertisements because it is the sole unique identifier for a licensee. They feel that a consumer with a license number can readily determine the status of a licensee by the license number where other identifiers such as a name, may be shared by other licensees.

If this is indeed the case, then the State Board of Architects website should include a method to search for licensees by their license number. Currently, the website does not allow for this type of search; it only allows for searches based on first name, last name, and city.

The Board is aware of the economic impact of this requirement and will allow for a reasonable grace period for licensees to make the necessary changes to their advertisements and stationery so as to minimize the economic burden.

Use of the Term "Architect on Staff" By Non-Licensed Individuals

AIA New Jersey requested that the advertising rules be amended specifically to prohibit registered builders or home improvement contractors from using the terms "architect," "architect on staff," or similar terms in their advertising.

The Board does not believe that the recommended amendment is necessary, since existing rules specifically prohibit persons who are not licensed as architects to use the title "architect" or its substantial equivalent or otherwise represent to the public that the person is licensed to practice architecture in this State. The Board feels that our proposed amendment would be less broad than the statute and may confuse the public regarding the prohibition against an unlicensed person advertising as an architect.

Use of the term "Design" by Registered Builders and Home Improvement Contractors

We then noted that the term "design" may be misleading if used in an advertisement by a registered builder or home improvement contractor despite the definition of "design services" in N.J.A.C. 13:27-3.1.

The Board responded that they believe that the term "design" is not unique to architecture and that other professions, both licensed and unlicensed, use the term in their advertising without conveying that they offer architectural services. The Board has not found this circumstance to be a problem, and N.J.S.A. 45:3-10 as discussed above prohibits the activity described by the commenter. Therefore, the Board is not amending the section.

Plan Stamping

We asked that the Board consider adopting a new rule to specifically prohibit "plan stamping". However, the Board believes that they adequately address issues of "plan stamping" by applying the concept of "responsible charge" and they are not convinced that a new rule is necessary. However, the Board will consider whether to adopt a new rule, but since it is a complex subject, the Board believes that such a rule should be considered for a separate proposal.

Carrying Forward Partial Completion of the A.R.E.

We further suggested that the rules should be amended to allow a person who has passed a division of the licensing examination prior to the adoption of these rules, which limit the carrying forward of division scores to five years, be allowed to carry forward passed division scores indefinitely. The commenter cites a rule of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards as precedent.

The Board is concerned that an applicants' knowledge is current and has determined that five years is a sufficient amount of time to pass all divisions of the licensing examination. Those persons who have passed divisions prior to the effective date of this new requirement will have five years in addition to the amount of time that has already passed since the division was successfully taken. This provision effectively "grandfathers" those who have already passed divisions while also ensuring that the knowledge that was tested is current.

Perhaps the Board should consider allowing the use of Continuing Education credits by those seeking licensure to extend the period, since this is the method currently used to ensure that all licensed architects maintain current in their knowledge of the practice. This would also answer the question of many Associate members of the AIA who often ask why they should earn continuing education credits if it is not required for membership in our organization. Associate, allied, and emeritus members are exempt from the CES membership requirement but are encouraged to participate for their own personal benefit and that of the profession. Records are kept for all members who report their activities. IDP interns and nonmembers may now use the AIA record-keeping services.

Certificate of Authorization

N.J.A.C. 13:27-4.8(a) 2 concerns certificates of authorization by corporations and limited liability companies of architects and closely allied professionals. We suggested this proposed rule be amended to require 51 percent ownership by architects rather than the 20 percent as contained in the proposed rule. The Board disagreed, stating that this formula is set by statute.

Interior Design Subcommittee Rule Adoption

The room within is the great fact about the building. - Frank Lloyd Wright

In my Annual Report to the AIA New Jersey Board of Trustees, I identified the Schools Construction issue as the single most important issue facing architects in the State of New Jersey , or at least the one issue that has most grabbed our attention through the now daily articles that appear in major news media about the Schools Construction Corporation. Since I filed my annual report, however, the Division of Consumer Affairs, through the Interior Design Examination and Evaluation Committee, a subcommittee of the State Board of Architects, has published its proposed rules regarding certification of interior designers for comment. These rules were promulgated by the Interior Design Examination and Evaluation Committee with the assistance of the Attorney General's office to reflect their interpretation of the enabling legislation. Our comments, we believe, also reflect the intent of the legislation.

Please understand that this is not currently a legislative battle; that was fought several years ago. What we proposed in our comments are suggestions on how to better implement the legislation through thoughtful and appropriate regulations that would lessen the professional and economic impact on architect practitioners of interior design.

As many of you already know, the "Interior Designers Certification Act", which took effect on October 22, 2002, had a major impact on the way in which interior designers practice in the State of New Jersey . The proposed rule adoption also has profound affects on the way Architects will practice their profession.

Most striking about the proposed rule adoption was that the rules seem to dismiss the fact that many Architects provide interior design services as part of their practice. While it is our opinion that interior designers are deserving of respect for their role in the design process, we continue to believe that legislative regulation of the profession through certification is unnecessary and unwarranted.

In keeping with the position of the Institute, we noted that to take the serious step of restricting the marketplace thereby depriving some people of their livelihoods, as these regulations clearly do, the State must determine that a profession provides services that directly and significantly affect the public health, safety, and welfare . Such is the case with the licensing of Architects, but we do not agree that the regulation of interior designers is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public.

Given the abbreviated period of time we had to formulate our opinions on this matter, President Bruce Turner, AIA, commissioned a Task Force to respond and comment. He designated me as the Chairman, and I empanelled a Task Force of several AIA New Jersey Past Presidents, Past Legislative and Government Affairs Chairpersons, and others including a former member of the State Board, our Legislative Consultant, our Legal Counsel, our Insurance Counsel, and President Elect Stephen Carlidge, AIA.

Based on our work, a legislative alert was e-mailed to as many AIA New Jersey members as possible, asking each to review our comments and address their individual comments to the State Board by the November 18, 2005 deadline. I'd like to personally thank all who took the time to send in their comments on this important issue.

In addition, we reached out to Paul Mendelsohn, Senior Director, State and Local Affairs at the AIA in Washington for assistance. The Institute provided us with information about similar interior design title and licensing initiatives in other states; and developed comments of their own that were subsequently sent to the State Board.

Notwithstanding our opinion as to whether certification should be required, we offered several comments and suggestions for amendments to the regulations for the Board's consideration. The following is excerpted from our letter to the James Hsu, Executive Director of the State Board of Architects. We are currently awaiting their response to our concerns.

Grandparenting Clause

Timing and Schedule

It is our understanding that the 360-day Grandparenting period begins when the interior design committee first meets. Please clarify when the first meeting will take place, or if in fact it has already met. Specifically, what date is set for the 360-day Grandparenting period to expire?

Please clarify why many architects have already received an application for certification as an interior designer while the proposed regulations are still in their comment period. We do not understand the rush, after having waited so long for these proposed regulations to be published for comment.

[Note: Many of you have probably already received an application for certification without examination. We, like you, are not entirely sure when those 360 days will begin or perhaps has begun.]

Architects are competent to provide interior design services.

We feel that licensure as an architect demonstrates a more than adequate level of competence in interior design, as recognized by the regulations. Nothing in these regulations prevents architects from calling themselves "interior designer". Many of us have used that title, and practiced as such, for many years. We disagree that any additional qualifications are necessary in order for licensed architects to practice interior design while using the designation "Certified Interior Designer". Our arguments for parity with NCIDQ / FIDER accredited interior designers will become apparent as you read on.

It makes sense that the Board consider language that would allow all licensed Architects to use their education, examination, and experience to qualify for certification under these regulations, not just by grandfathering, but as of right. Having met the criteria for obtaining a license to practice architecture includes being qualified to practice interior design. Nothing, therefore, should prevent the use of the title "Certified Interior Designer" by architects.

Prior to the passage of this Act, Architects were the only regulated professionals capable of providing interior design services. That right, of course, has to be preserved. Architects will suffer unforeseen consequences, however, if they are not allowed to offer these services with the same level of recognition afforded non-architect interior designers.

Grandfathering of unqualified practitioners.

We are concerned that the "grandparenting" for certification of certain interior design practitioners who have no demonstrable or formal design education, no recognized examination testing competency in health, safety, and welfare issues, and no appropriate experience will create an entire class of less than competent certified interior designers that will persist for an entire generation.

We recommend that the Board not allow "grandparenting" of unqualified practitioners based merely on their having practiced as interior designers prior to passage of the Act.

Architects are interior designers.

Interior design as a profession is a subset or off-shoot of the architectural profession; it is not a distinct and separate profession. This is not meant in any way to demean or devalue practitioners of interior design. AIA New Jersey values interior designers as partners in the design process.

Architecture has traditionally included the practice of interior design. By way of example, many famous architects like Michael Graves, Frank Lloyd Wright, Mies Van Der Rohe, Alvar Aalto, Le Corbusier, and Marcel Breuer have designed some of the most iconic interiors and pieces of furniture of the 20th century. Not so famous architects should not be denied the same opportunity to make their contribution to the built environment. How can it be argued that licensed architects are not worthy to use the appellation "Certified Interior Designer"?

It should be recognized that by denying licensed architects certification as interior designers devalues the architectural profession, professionally and financially. We feel the professional and financial impact on the architectural profession has not been fully considered by the Board in the proposed regulations.

We request the Board modify the language of the proposed regulations such that the Economic Impact, Jobs Impact, and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis statements in the Chapter Law addressed insofar as architect practitioners of interior design are concerned, recognizing the potential losses to the architectural community caused by these proposed regulations.

As a reasonable accommodation to offset some of those potential economic losses, we would like the Board to allow any valid New Jersey Licensed Architect to become certified as an interior designer.

Certification is not mandatory under these regulations.

Most "interior designers" have not demonstrated competency by education or examination.

Interior design organizations estimate that in the United States and Canada today there are 200,000 individuals that refer to themselves as interior designers. Yet, a vast majority does not possess the skills and training needed to meet minimum standards of public protection afforded by certification as demonstrated by passage of a recognized examination.

Moreover, lack of uniformity in the interior design training system, and inconsistency in the language of the proposed regulations, offer no clear-cut way to differentiate qualified individuals from under-trained personnel.

The practice of interior design poses no obvious threat to health, safety and welfare.

Many states have reviewed the concept of interior design registration and rejected it as unnecessary. Generally, those states cite a lack of evidence that the unregulated practice of interior design poses a direct and significant risk to health, safety, and welfare issues.

We question whether certification of interior designers is necessary to 'protect and benefit the public' since the law itself does not mention health, safety, and welfare, and especially in light of the fact that all interior designers are not required to be certified.

Signing of documents.

The regulations require drawings that were produced by a Certified Interior Designer to be signed, yet nothing in the Uniform Construction Code requires drawings by Certified Interior Designers or non-certified interior designers to be submitted in support of a construction permit.

What specific purpose does allowing Certified Interior Designers to sign interior design drawings serve? This practice will confuse the consumers and local Construction Code officials when nothing in the Chapter Law or the Uniform Construction Code requires such documents to be submitted for a permit application.

Since certification as an interior designer is not compulsory in order to practice interior design, what would prevent a non-Certified Interior Designer from signing documents that are made a part of a permit application? What meaning would the signing of those documents have?

Do interior designers choosing not to seek certification have any obligation to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public? If so, how is that enforced?

If no further clarification is made to the regulations to address this inconsistency, can an architect choose not to sign certain documents that may be part of a construction permit application if they feel those drawings do not materially affect a "building system"?

Inconsistency in the term "closely allied professionals".

There is a patent inconsistency in what is being proposed to regulate interior designers. It makes no sense from a health, safety, and welfare standpoint that one can become a "closely allied professional" and not be regulated, as is the case with non-certified interior designers. These non-certified interior designers can be virtually anyone, despite a complete lack of competency as demonstrated by education, examination, or experience. These same persons can become "closely allied professional" partners in design firms and still be virtually unregulated. Not only is this inconsistent, but it raises some serious issues of liability, not to mention credibility, for all legitimate designers.

Conversely, the proposed regulations imply that Architects are not competent to call themselves "Certified", since their education, examination, and experience does not comport with those strict requirements stipulated by the regulations, despite the fact that many architects can, do, and will continue to practice interior design.

The inability of licensed architects to become certified puts the entire architectural profession in the same category as less qualified, non-certified interior designers.

Clearly, Architects do easily qualify for the certification by virtue of their training and licensure. How can the requirements for a voluntary "certificate" be more stringent than those for a mandatory "license", if that license (architecture) allows the same practice (interior design)?

For consistency with current professional practice regulations, including health, safety, and welfare concerns, all interior designers who wish to be "closely allied professionals" should be required to become certified.

While there will always be people with good taste who can select carpet patterns, fabrics, and furniture, and other elements of the interior design that do not affect the systems of a building, nothing in the regulations should continue to allow these non-certified practitioners to be "closely allied professionals". Moreover, such interior design practices do not materially affect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

Practice vs. Title

Practice definition not necessary.

The proposed regulations have unintentional practice implications in addition to the intentional title aspects contained therein.

Qualifying individuals to use "Certified Interior Designer" is title regulation, as are regulations governing continuing education requirements.

Having the ability to make determinations of what can and what cannot be done once certified is practice regulation. The definition of interior design as stated in the proposed regulations is practice regulation, not title regulation. A definition of practice is not required in order to protect a title. All references and proposals to regulate practice should be removed from the regulations.

If certification is not compulsory, there is no protection of public health, safety, and welfare; and it follows that if health, safety and welfare at not at issue, then title legislation is not necessary at all.

Definition is vague and contradictory.

Furthermore, we feel the definition of "interior design services" is unclear, ambiguous, and contradictory. This ambiguity demonstrates that interior designers lack the educational, examination, and experiential qualifications to make the determination of what materially affects a building system, as shown below.

The following terms need further definition or clarification so as not to confuse the public, the Construction Code officials, regulated and unregulated design professionals in making interpretations of the Rules.

• Non-load bearing walls . Architects do not capriciously designate walls as "bearing", but rather make decisions based on their knowledge and expertise in structural design, and construction materials and methods. The regulations recognize an interior designer's inability to design or alter a building's structural system. This is clearly beyond their expertise. How then is someone who is not qualified to design a structural system qualified to determine which are non-bearing walls? How can certified interior designers be capable of determining, for instance, which walls are needed as "shear walls" in a building if they are not capable of designing such walls.

• Materially affect a building system. The definition of "building system" is unclear and ambiguous. The definition in the regulations implies that the placement of walls and doors, for instance, does not affect a building system unless the walls are bearing walls. This is clearly not the case. The placement of interior non-bearing walls affects the egress system of a building; and choices made in the design and construction of non-bearing walls affects the fire rated assemblies of a building. Likewise, the placement of lighting fixtures in a suspended ceiling affects the fire rating of the ceiling/floor assembly and the location of electrical receptacles affects the electrical system. These are not the only examples that can be cited, but suffice it to say that far more affects the design of a "building system" than is recognized by the proposed regulations.

The proposed regulations are ill defined and therefore difficult or impossible to enforce. Code Officials are barely able to enforce the current Uniform Construction Code requirements requiring an architect's signature and seal on those drawings required for a construction permit. Moreover, they are not enforcers of rules relating to the illegal practice of architecture.

The State Board of Architects is charged with enforcement of those regulations, and is likewise over-burdened addressing more "clear cut" issues like the illegal practice of architecture by non-regulated practitioners.

These proposed regulations necessitate yet another level of regulatory control on an already over-burdened system of regulation of professions and enforcement of the State building code.

More stringent enforcement of existing regulations by both the State Board of Architects and the State's Construction Code Officials is necessary. A clear understanding, through a formal continuing education program, of the implications of these new interior design regulations by the State Board of Architects, licensed professionals, and the Construction Code Officials is required.

Better yet, the regulations should emphasize that an Architect must be retained on any project that requires a construction permit to ensure that no building systems are adversely affected by the proposed interior design drawings. This would obviate the need for additional training of already over-burdened construction code officials along with its financial implications.

Certification does not make one capable of determining when a "building system" is affected.

Certification as an interior designer does not allow the production of construction documents that materially affect building systems, and rightly so, for this is the practice of architecture . How then can a Certified Interior Designer be qualified to determine if or when a building system is indeed affected? They are not trained and tested, nor do they possess the appropriate experience to make that determination.

The language of the proposed regulations requires that if a Certified Interior Designer "in the course of his or her work on a project" becomes aware of a violation of applicable building laws or regulations that would "materially and adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, the interior designer shall notify the employer or the client of such consequences and such other public authority as may be appropriate in the situation". Again, how would that be possible in the course of their work, since their work does not include the making of such determinations? This is clearly out of their area of expertise. What happens when a "Certified Interior Designer" does not recognize a potentially life threatening situation?

The definition of what constitutes a "building system" should not be established by the interior designer sub-committee, since certification as interior designers and their expertise as interior designers does not allow them to make informed determinations about structural systems and other "building systems". Rather, the definition should be established by those who are licensed to design and alter these systems and are already involved in the process of designing and regulating building design and construction, including architects, engineers, and licensed code officials.

In order to appropriately protect the public, the regulations should clarify that only appropriately licensed professionals, not "closely allied professionals", are qualified by their education, examination and experience to determine when building systems are materially affected based on the definition determined as stated above.

Architects right to use "Certified Interior Designer"

All registered Architects, present and future, should be entitled to benefit from the privileges afforded to interior designers, including the right to use the designation "Certified Interior Designer". Architectural education, examination, and experience are at least equivalent to, if not more comprehensive than, interior design education, examination, and experience in terms of those issues that relate directly to interior design certification.

Currently, licensed architects who chose to practice interior design by virtue of their NCARB and NAAB credentials, provide health, safety, and welfare protection to the public. Some architects may choose not to belong to any professional association specifically for or about "interior design", yet they practice interior design as an integral, holistic part of their architectural practice. They draw no line of distinction between the interior of a building and the "building shell", a definition of the architectural profession to which certain proponents of interior design legislation would have the public believe architecture is limited. Architects who choose not to perform interior design services do so as a business decision, not based on a lack of design proficiency.

Protection from incompetent practitioners.

How is the public protected from the incompetent or illegal practice of interior design by non-certified interior designers? We contend that since certification is not mandatory, there is no protection of the public. Either all interior design should be regulated, or none at all. Any other solution would lead to confusion about competence, liability, and professional credibility

The State Board of Architects should expand the protections afforded by current practice laws by mandating better enforcement and regulation of the practice of all "closely allied professionals", licensed electricians, licensed mechanical contractors, and licensed general contractors. Without proper enforcement, the protection of the public offered by professional registration of any kind is meaningless.

References

Under current laws and regulations, Professional Engineers, Certified Landscape Architects, and Licensed Land Surveyors cannot design buildings for human habitation. Moreover, the practices of Professional Engineering and Land Surveying are not regulated by this Board; and Landscape Architecture, by definition, does not deal with the interior environment.

While architects truly value the expertise these professionals can bring to a building project, what applicability would the recommendation of these licensed professional have to the certification of interior designers? We think the answer is "none".

We recommend that the Board continue to recognize Architects' unique qualifications to design complete buildings, interior and exterior, for human habitation, in accordance with current laws and regulations. The regulations should therefore disallow references for certification as an interior designer from Professional Engineers, Landscape Architects, and Land Surveyors.

Education, Examination and Experience

FIDER programs are not comprehensive or focused.

The Foundation for Interior Design Education Requirements (FIDER) accredits 2, 3, 4 and 5 year degree programs. Any individual in a FIDER accredited degree program, even if they only completed two years of study, will meet the minimal educational entry standards established for state registration and the National Council for Interior Design Qualifications (NCIDQ) certification. No degree or even certificate is required.

The proposed rules require participation in a FIDER accredited degree and passage of the NCIDQ as the only acceptable educational and examination prerequisites for obtaining a Certified Interior Design designation. We feel it is questionable that the educational requirements for certification of practice as a design professional can be met by a two or three year program, or worse by attendance for two or three years out of a four or five year program. Mastery of the required technical knowledge in a two-year time frame is difficult at best. A requirement to hold a minimum of a four-year college degree is more appropriate, and should apply to all certified interior designers.

Two and three year programs are not rigorous or comprehensive enough to screen potential candidates for certification if the purpose of such certification is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. And "dropping out" of a four or five year program halfway through is even worse. If the intent is not to protect the public, then certification is not necessary.

Consider, also, that the only FIDER accredited curriculum available in a New Jersey institution of higher learning is a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in Interior Design from Kean University . In reviewing the requirements for this degree from their website it appears that the required core curriculum toward earning a BFA degree contains no mandatory Interior Design courses, only electives in Interior Design. A student may take the required number of credits in a "FIDER accredited program" such as the BFA available at Kean, for only two years without ever having attended a single class related to interior design. Under the proposed regulations, this would qualify a candidate for certification. The FIDER accreditation process, therefore, does not offer a comprehensive and focused educational experience in the field of interior design.

In addition, we recommend that certification be made available only to those holding a minimum of a four- or five-year degree from a FIDER accredited program, as well as to holders of a five year B. Arch., or four year B.S. or B.A. in Architecture through an NAAB accredited program, upon completion of the appropriate amount of diversified interior design or architectural experience.

By doing so, a waiver of examination for Architects, while another viable option for providing for a resolution to some of the inconsistencies in the proposed regulations, would not be necessary; only a recognition by the Board of the fact that the educational, examination and experiential requirements met on the path to licensure as an Architect are at least adequate, if not more rigorous, to qualify a candidate as a Certified Interior Designer.

No mandatory intern development program.

The Interior Design Experience Program (IDEP) is not a prerequisite for sitting for the NCIDQ examination, therefore there is no mandatory monitored and documented experience program required to sit for the NCIDQ examination. The Board should make compulsory for certification the completion of a recognized, professional experience program.

Intern interior designers may gain their "experience" requirements to sit for the NCIDQ examination by working under the direction of an architect that "offers interior design services". However, the proposed regulations do not fully recognize that those same architects can and do provide interior design services. Why is an architect's work experience not acceptable for certification as an interior designer?

In addition, the Board should accept the NCARB A.R.E. examination as a qualifying examination for certification as an interior designer, since current regulations require participation in the AIA / NCARB jointly administered Intern Development Program (IDP) prior to sitting for the examination for licensure as an architect, and that program does ensure a minimum level of proficiency in the design of spaces for human habitation for health, safety and welfare issues.

Regulations do not recognize other organizations of interior designers.

The proposed regulations clearly follow the ASID "model" for full professional membership in that organization. Comparing the ASID membership requirements with those of the IIDA, it is obvious that the only significant difference between the two is that the NCARB examination is acceptable for full "professional" membership in the IIDA, while ASID does not accept the NCARB examination. Members of the "other" nationally recognized interior design organization, the IIDA, are therefore denied the same rights and privileges as NCIDQ / FIDER interior designers, only because they have taken a different, equally valid route to practice in their profession, which may include becoming a licensed architect.

Practically every architect in the United States takes the traditional route to licensure, including attending an NAAB accredited school and passage of the NCARB examination. This route qualifies architects to apply for full professional membership in the IIDA, a national association of interior designers. Why, then, is an architect's educational and examination not acceptable for certification as an interior designer?

Many Architects practice as interior designers, even if they do not call themselves interior designers. Whether they choose to seek certification or not, licensed architects are just as capable of providing interior design services as are interior designers, perhaps more so in terms of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public. Therefore architects are just as qualified to use the appellation "Certified Interior Design" as any NCIDQ / FIDER accredited interior designer.

We ask that the Board consider a regulatory model that allows NAAB-accredited degrees and passage of the NCARB's examination as acceptable for the educational and examination requirements for certification.

We recommend that the Board consider licensure as an Architect, by virtue of their having obtained an NAAB-accredited degree and having passed the NCARB examination, as acceptable educational, examination, and experience criteria for certification as an interior designer.

Architects are deprived of professional and financial benefits of certification.

The regulations acknowledge that nothing prevents architects from practicing interior design. Why then do the regulations preclude us from using the same designation, "Certified Interior Designer", deriving the same financial benefits and affording any additional protections to our clients that certification as an Interior Designer might provide? If no such benefits accrue from certification, then why is certification necessary?

Why would architects need to show more than minimal competency to formally recognize their ability to design that which we are allowed to design by virtue of our current architectural license, much less to design that for which our license is not required?

The regulations should allow any registered architect, present or future, to use the designation "Certified Interior Designer" as of right, based on their educational and examination requirements. This right should not be limited to current architectural license holders. There is no reason to prohibit future architects from deriving the same professional and financial benefits available from certification as an interior designer. To do so would deny future architects the right to practice on a level playing field, with the same level of recognition of their design talents that current practitioners of architecture and interior design will have under these proposed regulations. To deny this opportunity will cause undue financial hardship to future architects by restricting their practices unnecessarily with no perceptible benefit to the public.

Restraint of Trade

By denying that Architects are also competent interior designers with the same capabilities as those qualifying under these proposed regulations is patently unfair. Denying licensed Architects the opportunity to become certified, despite being equally if not more competent in health, safety and welfare issues, should be prohibited as an unfair restraint of trade that offers no benefit to, or protection of, the public.

Under the proposed regulations, the Interior Design sub-committee of the State Board of Architects, will control and can determine on a case-by-case basis whether a designer's education, examination, and experience qualify them to be certified, all without any direct input from a single architect practitioner of interior design.

Since the practice of interior design was not even regulated at the time these regulations were being promulgated, nothing should have precluded architect practitioners of interior design from being considered for membership on that committee. The composition of the membership of the interior design sub-committee without the inclusion of a single architect practitioner of interior design does not reflect a representative sample of the entire interior design community.

In order to create a more representative sampling of those involved in the field of interior design, we feel that the sub-committee must include licensed architects that also provide interior design services. These architect interior designers are, after all, capable of offering the experiential requirements necessary for certification to intern architects and intern interior designers.

Moreover, placing the power to decide whose qualifications are acceptable without truly inclusive membership on the committee takes objectivity out of the equation, creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, and should be deemed a restraint of trade.

The Board should recognize that architects have traditionally practiced what has now been defined as "interior design"; and therefore, by virtue of their license to practice architecture, should be allowed to call themselves "Certified Interior Designers".

Continuing Education

AIA and its affiliated Continuing Education providers offer continuing education courses in interior design geared to members of both the architectural and interior design communities. These organizations should be allowed to offer courses to those seeking continuing education for certification as an interior designer. After all, an interior designer can gain experience toward certification by working under the direction of an architect. This is the purest form of "continuing education".

Interior Design Magazine and Architectural Digest (ironically, the International Magazine of Interior Design) both recognize that the work of architects includes the practice of interior design, and solicits entries from architects for its design competition(s) and magazine articles.

Clearly, most architects do not stop designing at the "building shell" as some interior designers would like to think, but their practice includes interior finish selections and specifications, color selections, furniture selections and layouts, lighting specifications, location of electrical fixtures, and fabric selections; that is, all the things interior designers claim to be a separate and distinct profession from architecture. Clearly these things are not separate and distinct from the practice of architecture, nor should they be.

[Note: Perhaps what is necessary is a re-definition of the "practice of architecture" in the regulations, beyond protecting the right to sign and seal construction documents. Our liability already extends well past the creation of documents to support a construction permit. The regulations should recognize that fact. And with increased risk should come increased reward.]

While ASID claims in their publications to be the "leading provider of education for design practitioners" this claim cannot be substantiated. This representation is misleading, as it does not account for architects who incorporate interior design in their architectural practice and who already satisfy their requirements for continuing education toward licensure by taking interior design related continuing education courses through other professional organizations and continuing education providers, such as the AIA. Self-serving, false representations should not be used to determine which programs are the only legitimate sources of continuing education courses dealing with the subject of interior design.

Continuing Education is a significant source of revenue for professional trade associations. ASID should not be given an exclusive right to offer interior design continuing education for certification. Choice and competition cannot be denied the consumers of interior design continuing education. To do so would put the AIA and other legitimate professional associations and educational institutions at a severe financial disadvantage with no clear benefit to the public.

We recommend that the regulations explicitly include all continuing education sources that are currently, or will in the future be, approved by the New Jersey State Board of Architects, including but not limited to those offered by AIA, the School of Architecture at NJIT, CSI, and others, as they pertain to and are directly related to the practice of interior design, be deemed and specifically mentioned in the regulations, as acceptable sources of continuing education for certification as an interior designer.

With this current rule adoption cycle behind us, and in order to avoid any further confusion surrounding the issue of interior design legislation, we plan on undertaking a renewed effort to revise the "Building Design Services Act" poster that was previously published through the combined efforts of our friends in the Coalition of Design Professionals, the DCA, the State Board of Architects and other regulatory boards.

Any comments you may have about this issue can be directed to David Del Vecchio, AIA, Chairman of the Interior Design Task Force.

Scheduled Bills Report

Three bills of interest are currently being monitored by the AIA New Jersey Legislative and Government Affairs Committee.

S2355: Establishes $2 surcharge upon building permits for payments to Community Health Law Project.

S2702: Establishes prevailing wage standards for State building service contracts.

S2729: Provides for creation of special permits to serve alcoholic beverages in certain smart growth development projects.

Recent Bills Signed into Law

The following bills were passed into law during 2005.

A3983 Prieto (D32); Cohen (D20); Vas (D19); Scalera (D36)
Changes licensing requirements for home inspectors
08/18/2005 - Signed by the Governor P.L.2005, c.201.

S1937 Doria (D31); Asselta (R1); Wisniewski (D19)
Provides uniform period for certain contracting entities to issue changes or addenda to bid advertisements.
08/18/2005 - Signed by the Governor P.L.2005, c.191.

S2101 Adler (D6); Cruz-Perez (D5); Gregg (R24)
Requires contracts between local governments and private inspection agencies to comply with "Local Public Contracts Law."
08/29/2005 - Signed by the Governor P.L.2005, c.212.

S2133 Rice (D28); Allen (R7); Weinberg (D37)
Provides for educational requirements for planning and zoning board members.
07/07/2005 - Signed by the Governor P.L.2005, c.133.

Other Recent Rule Adoptions

Title and practice regulations are not the only rule adoptions the L&GA committee monitors. Several other rule adoptions have recently been published. Information about these rule adoptions is available on the internet.

Uniform Construction Code: Live load requirements for attics; trusses
Uniform Construction Code: Enforcement Responsibilities
Uniform Construction Code: plumbing subcode.
Office of Smart Growth: transfer of development rights real estate market analysis: extension of comment period.
Schools Construction Corporation Project Rating: administrative correction and extension of comment period.
Board of Public Utilities: Energy Competition Standards: renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Community Affairs: Division of Housing: Neighborhood Preservation Balanced Housing Program