|
To those NCIDQ certificate holders who have received a recent letter from NCIDQ dated
December 15, 2004 expressing concern over CCIDC's decision to no longer participate in the NCIDQ Council of Delegates, the following is the CCIDC Board of Director's response:
The recent NCIDQ letter regarding the CCIDC Board's wish to no longer participate in the
NCIDQ "Council of Delegates" is somewhat misinformed and misrepresents CCIDC's position on the matter. The CCIDC Board chooses what organizations it wishes to belong to, and what it does not
want to belong to, based upon the merit and value to the CCIDC Board, Certified Interior Designers, and Consumers, as appropriate. This is the sole decision of the CCIDC Board. The criteria the CCIDC
Board uses to make these decisions is often wide and varied and entails lengthy thought and discussion and is not taken lightly. In the past several years the CCIDC Board has chosen to eliminate its
membership in several organizations, for a variety of reasons notwithstanding economic ones, as well as the NCIDQ Council of Delegates, that it deems no longer serve the goals and purposes of the CCIDC.
All memberships in other organizations that the CCIDC participates in are regularly evaluated as to their merit and value to the CCIDC.
Basically, NCIDQ has stated that it wants to be the only examination for interior
designers in the United States and Canada, and essentially wants to monopolize entry into the interior design profession. California's lawful position on multiple examinations undermines NCIDQ's goal as
being the only examination to qualify interior designers in California. In the view of some, the NCIDQ may be considered the best examination for qualifying interior designers, but it is not the
"only" examination that fulfills the requirements of the law in California.
Under Section 139 of the California Business & Professions Code a policy directive on
examinations has been issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs that sets a standard for all examinations used in California. CCIDC, as requested by the California legislature, adheres to this policy
which requires all examinations to submit to the standards required by said policy. CCIDC does not have to submit to the requirements of examining bodies like NCIDQ, rather it is the other way around,
the examining bodies have to submit to the requirements of California law through CCIDC if they wish to continue to have their examination accepted in this state.
NKBA and CQRID do not have a "Council of Delegates" like NCIDQ, which is not the
same as the NCIDQ "Board of Directors". The NCIDQ "Council of Delegates" have little or no authority in influencing the policies or financial activities of NCIDQ, which are directly
administered by the NCIDQ Board of Directors and staff. The NCIDQ Council of Delegates only meets once a year at the NCIDQ Annual Meeting. It should also be noted that out of the 24 or so states (not
including Canada) that currently regulate interior designers, not all of them belong to the NCIDQ "Council of Delegates". In fact as of 2003 only 14 states in the U.S. out of the 24 that
regulate interior designers in some form or another belong to the NCIDQ "Council of Delegates". This does not include California which would have made it 15.
Under California law (Section 139), if they want their examinations to be used in
California, all three current and acceptable testing agencies (CQRID, NCIDQ, and NKBA) are required to submit their test results every year, and their occupational analysis every 5-7 years to CCIDC for
evaluation to ensure they are in compliance with California's legal requirements for examinations. This does not require CCIDC to be a board member, or delegate, of any testing agencies, or to be on a
surreptitious delegate board that has little or no authority over the examination, or the respective organization itself.
Also not mentioned in the NCIDQ letter is the considerable expense associated with being a
(delegate) member of the NCIDQ "Council of Delegates" and the fact that the delegates essentially underwrite a significant portion of the cost of the the NCIDQ Annual Meeting where most of the
agenda has very little to do with the actual examination itself, but instead focuses on issues of little interest or concern to CCIDC such as the "legislative updates" presented by IIDA and
ASID, and panel discussions devoted to "Strategizing for the Future of Interior Design Legislation" or "Raising the Standards of the Interior Design Community". These are issues more
conducive to CLCID and CIDA in California which are involved in lobbying and legislative activities, not CCIDC which is forbidden by its 501(c)(3) non-profit status under the IRC from engaging in such
activities, and in accordance with the California legislature's wishes should be focused entirely on certification and consumer protection.
The CCIDC Board unanimously voted in public at its May 8, 2004 board meeting to not to
participate in this annual exercise as it no longer served their mandate from the California legislature to serve and protect the consumer in California, and not to be exclusive in any way to all current
and prospective members of the interior design profession in this state. The Board chose to direct the considerable expenses involved from being a delegate to NCIDQ to the CCIDC outreach program
promoting the benefits of hiring a CID to the consumer, which is of far more value and benefit to CID's.
CCIDC has an official letter dated November 6, 1997 signed by an officer of NCIDQ under
the authority of the NCIDQ Board of Directors granting a waiver to all CCIDC candidates who wish to apply to become Certified Interior Designers and take the NCIDQ examination without the NCIDQ education
requirement, which fulfills the 8 years of experience category under California law in Section 5800 of the B&P Code. This was granted "unconditionally" by NCIDQ so that it met California
law and would not invalidate its examination in this state. It now appears that NCIDQ wishes to renege on this commitment, and is basing its reasons on the fact the CCIDC is no longer a delegate to NCIDQ
which was never a condition in the original agreement letter of November 6, 1997. By taking this position NCIDQ could be jeopardizing the validity of it examination in California. As a side note, both
the NKBA and CQRID have 7 and 8 year education waivers respectively for experience only candidates in accordance with California law.
The last sentence in NCIDQ's letter suggests that it is their "sincerest hope that
interior designers in California will once again have a voice within NCIDQ". It should be noted for the record that certain factions with the NCIDQ "Council of Delegates" in 1999 at the
NCIDQ Annual Meeting in Scottsdale, Arizona, created a resolution No. 1199-02 that proposed to remove CCIDC from the NCIDQ "Council of Delegates" because it was in the process of looking at
adopting multiple examinations. This resolution was narrowly defeated at that time thanks to the effort of the CCIDC representatives present who managed to deflect the criticism against CCIDC for abiding
by its legal obligations in California. It is somewhat ironic that NCIDQ has now chosen to campaign to keep CCIDC as a part of its Council of Delegates now that CCIDC has officially resigned.
The NCIDQ "Council of Delegates" has little or no voice in the administration of
NCIDQ, or its examination, which is the sole legal and fiscal responsibility of the NCIDQ Board of Directors.
Top
|
