Conservative ideals and free markets are under attack in Virginia under a misguided attempt at de-regulation.
On Tuesday Governor McDonnell’s Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring issued a recommendation to de-regulate Interior Designers and Landscape Architects.
This suggestion while sounding innocuous carries with it serious consequences which eliminate free market competition and risks the elimination of hundreds of small businesses and potentially thousands of jobs in Virginia. Under the guise of reducing barriers to business, this suggestion in fact establishes barriers and selectively chooses winners and losers in what is currently an open marketplace.
This recommendation is in effect “selective” de-regulation. The end result of which includes the removal of select players from a marketplace which currently sees open competition between professional services whom share overlapping scopes of services. For example, under current law architects and interior designers compete in the open market for small scale projects. This competition is established solely through the regulation of professional services which creates a level playing field for Architects, Engineers, Land Surveyors, Landscape Architects, and Interior Designers to compete where regulations have established overlapping scopes of services. The leveling agent is the legal ability to submit drawings for permit – a privilege regulated by state law, and tied to professional licensure, certification, and state regulation.
This competition is both good and necessary for a vital economy. It supports hundreds if not thousands of jobs, and it provides consumers with greater choice. Selectively eliminating one or more professions from this regulatory body allows the remaining professional services to maintain a monopoly over the marketplace.
Of primary concern are the requirements under state law which govern who may or may not sign, seal, stamp, and submit drawings for permit. And who may or may not practice design services including construction documentation and administration among other services. Without regulation of interior design, certified interior designers can no longer perform this critical and core business function. This leaves behind only architects who may perform these services. With “selective” deregulation, competition has been selectively eliminated in favor of one professional service over another.
In terms of the question of government reform I must also put forth the question of what will be gained by this attempt at “selective” de-regulation?
I have shown that barriers to business will not be improved, rather new barriers will have been established de-facto by the selective de-regulation of one marketplace competitor in favor of another. I will show as well that this cannot be a fiscally motivated suggestion, in that little or no monies will be saved.
The Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation manages and maintains the licensure and certifications of professional services including architecture, engineering, land surveyors, interior designers, and landscape architecture among many others. Through the APELSCIDLA board, this organization ensures that professionals meet the common standards required to practice and submit drawings for permit within the state. These standards include nationally administered licensing examinations and nationally accredited education. The “selective” de-regulation of one or more of these professions will have a negligible effect on fiscal conditions within this organization, as the primary focus of architecture and engineering will remain. Additionally, much of this boards work is self-funded through application fees and maintenance dues paid to the state by certified and licensed professionals. In regards to Interior design and landscape architecture specifically, the commissions own report indicates that these specific professions require few if any actions by the board which may incur cost or litigation.
This move does not save money. Instead it is rather a poorly disguised attempt to remove a competitor from the marketplace. Virginia is only the latest target of this type of effort, most recently Florida endured a long and costly legal battle to stave off de-regulation of interior design. Lobbying groups funded by those with a distinct horse in the race, namely the American Institute of Architects have fought hard, but to little avail, to eliminate competition from their smaller, more nimble, and cost effective competitors – interior designers.
De-regulation as a libertarian and conservative ideal is intended to make government smaller, more efficient, less expensive, and more accessible to the people. One would assume de-regulation attempts would establish end results that match those ideals. This attempt, in a wave of great irony, serves the opposite agenda as it will result in decreased competition, closed markets, and the selective removal of an entire industry of competitors from the marketplace.
Short of de-regulating the entire architecture and engineering industry, a move which I would steadfastly argue against in that it would endanger the public and eliminate distinct protections for the health, welfare, and safety of our citizens of our commonwealth; any attempt to selectively de-regulate one or more professional services providers is nothing more than an attempt at consolidating power and eliminating competition from the marketplace.
Beyond these grave consequences include many other concerns, and issues relative to the regulation of professional services. A few examples include the fact that state law requires that interior designers who have been hired by the state to perform design services, be in turn – certified by the state. This ensures that the state is spending its own money wisely through the hire of qualified design professionals, and that these qualified professionals have the ability to submit solutions for permit. Additionally, the ability to practice interstate commerce as a professional service is dependent on regulation by the state. These are just a few of the unintended consequences put forth by this misguided attempt at decreasing regulations, and budgetary cost savings.
De-regulation is not the enemy. “Selective” de-regulation of one party in favor of another most certainly is.
I urge anyone and everyone who has an interest in eliminating barriers to small business to stand against the de-regulation of interior design and landscape architecture.
Contact any of the following organizations to share your support, or contact your local state representative.
The American Society of Interior Designers
http://www.asid.org/legislation/resources/
Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation
http://www.dpor.virginia.gov/dporweb/ape_main.cfm
The Virginia General Assembly
http://conview.state.va.us/whosmy.nsf/main?openform
Christopher M. Good, CID, ASID, LEED AP is an Associate Principal at KSA, an award winning interior design firm located in Glen Allen, Virginia, and blogs at Good Design.
