On March 4th, the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) released a letter, along with an FAQ statement, in an attempt to convince its members that ASID is protecting their interests, as well as to calm their concerns that the "ASID legislative strategy may be harmful to their businesses." Because many members of the National Kitchen & Bath Association received these letters, the NKBA would like to clear up any misconception that the legislative goal of ASID has somehow changed. The documents were carefully drafted to create the impression that ASID has shifted its unyielding support of design licensing in the hope of maintaining a membership base that has become much more vocal in opposition to the organization's discriminatory legislative initiatives. A careful reading of the documents, however, reveals that the attitude of the ASID leadership in Washington remains as committed to licensing as ever.

ASID now states that it no longer supports legislation that limits the use of the term "interior designer" or "interior design." This is merely an acknowledgement of what the courts, state attorneys general, and legislatures have already made clear—the words "interior designer" and "interior design" are in the public domain and cannot be co-opted by ASID for its own exclusive use.

The "new" position statement says that ASID supports legislation to legally recognize the interior design profession and the requirement of formal interior design education and experience and passage of the NCIDQ exam. This is exactly the same legislative position that ASID has always held.

The letter and FAQ make reference to "allowing" interior decorating services such as selection of colors, materials, and finishes, or the selection of furniture, fixtures, and equipment, but these exemptions were already included in virtually all previous interior design bills, so again, ASID's position is the same as it has always been.

ASID states that its legislative efforts are intended to "create opportunities for designers to practice to the fullest extent of their capabilities." This is merely code for distinguishing between the qualifications of those who are fully "capable" of practicing interior design (i.e., those who have formal design education, experience under the direct supervision of a licensed designer or NCIDQ certificate holder and the NCIDQ certification) and those who are "capable" of only providing interior decorating services (everyone else). Once again, ASID's position hasn't changed at all.

The true reason behind ASID's release of these statements was not to clarify the "mixed perceptions" of ASID's purposes and ultimate goals, but rather to disguise the unchanged licensing agenda of ASID behind carefully crafted sound bites. Due to the efforts of the National Kitchen & Bath Association and its allies throughout the industry, ASID has had virtually no success in passing practice acts since the late 1990s despite spending millions of its members' dollars in an effort to do so. And in one rare instance where a practice act was actually passed in Alabama, the act was later declared unconstitutional. ASID's attempts to pass title legislation likewise have been rejected repeatedly year after year—in just the last few weeks, we've defeated title acts in Colorado and Nebraska.

To stem the defection of a large portion of its membership, ASID has had to implement "damage control." The NKBA hopes that the leadership of ASID will finally recognize the futility of their efforts to divide the design community, but unfortunately, ASID's letter and FAQ do not demonstrate that understanding. Instead, all ASID has done is try to improve the public perception of its legislative agenda through artifice and deception, without actually changing the true intent of that agenda.

Sincerely,

Don Sciolaro
NKBA CEO