IS THE BILL A "ZOMBIE"? 

IS IT TRULY DEAD?

Several weeks ago, the general consensus was that HB2491 was dead in committee.  Then I received an e-mail from one of our members, informing me that proponents of the bill had requested (and been granted) an Informational Hearing about the proposed legislation.

Unable to attend the hearing personally — 8:30 on a Monday morning, at the Oregon Capitol, you've got to be kidding! — I watched the streaming video.  And took copious notes.  Later, I listened to the audio archive.  Jay and I were able to record the hearing, so we could make it available to you.  Jay has already uploaded the file, and it's available on the site, so you can listen to it at your convenience.  The hearing is exactly 30 minutes long.

Because the hearing was to clarify misinformation contained in HB2491, no one from our side spoke.  But, I felt it was important to make a record for the committee members and you, so I wrote the following rebuttal to comments made during the hearing:

Dear Committee Members:

Thank you for taking time to read this rebuttal to comments made during  the Informational Hearing by Alicia Snyder-Carlson, Troy Ainsworth, Sheri Leisinger, Sandra Friend, and Sermin Yesilada.  I was not able to attend, but did watch the streaming video, and listened to the audio archive.  

    1.  Proponents have yet to provide any evidence to support their claims that licensing and regulation of commercial interior designers will protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, or that the public needs/wants such protection.   Proponents have never proven the need for additional laws governing life-health-safety issues already regulated by existing codes.  Examples used parenthetically during the meeting, with no supporting evidence:
        •  Indoor air quality
        •  Americans with Disabilities Act
        •  Nursing homes
        •  Hospital ICU and CCU
        •  Schools and universities
        •  Government buildings
        •  Office buildings

    2.  Only three states have practice acts (FL, LA, and NV).  19 states have title acts (AL, AR, CN, GA, IL, IA, KE, ME, MD, MN, MS, MO, NJ, NM, NY, OK, TN, TX, VA).  The statement “…one-half of U.S. states have similar licensure” is blatant misinformation, because the legislation proposed in Oregon is a practice act.

    3.  Proponents have faIled to show any evidence that licensing or regulation of commercial interior designers will generate job opportunities.  The comment made “ . . .to create competition in a down economy” is not only unsubstantiated, but contrary to observed fact.   Evidence from Florida proves that regulation of the profession benefits a small handful of designers who meet NCIDQ requirements of education, experience, and examination.  Proponents provide no evidence that interior design licensing is good for the profession and the state.1
    
    4.  Inappropriate selection and use of finishes, fixtures, and furniture by building owners cannot be prevented by licensing and regulation of commercial interior designers.  Anecdotal stories and examples are used regularly by proponents of legislation to achieve their goals.  The fact remains that proponents provide no evidence to support the anecdotal stories.
 
    5.  Decorative finishes, fixtures, and furniture are not regulated by codes.  Regulation of the interior design profession will not change this fact.  Elimination of the perceived problem is best achieved through consumer education (see Comment #8 below).    

    6.  It was admitted during the hearing that professional liability for inadvertent human mistakes is not affected or changed by licensing and regulation of commercial interior designers.  There is evidence to support the fact that after states have passed laws regulating interior designers, there is an increase in the number of lawsuits against designers, NOT for malpractice, but for contract disputes.2

    7.  During one section of the hearing, 17 references were made to “interior designer” when the speaker was talking about the need for licensing and regulation.  There was reference to the roles and responsibilities of an interior designer, not just commercial interior designers.  While proponents claim that they are only trying to control the field of commercial interior design, they admit that it is difficult to clarify and define specific characteristics of commercial interior design as totally distinct and separate from other fields of practice within the profession.

    8.  I believe that the proponents’ goals would be better served by educating consumers about the advantages of hiring a designer with specific education, experience, and examination.  Around the United States, and in Oregon, the organizations supporting interior design legislation have spent millions of dollars.  I contend that it would take less time, money, and effort to achieve consumer education.  We would not be wasting your valuable time with this issue if ASID, IIDA, CIDA, and NCIDQ had chosen a different tactic 25 years ago.

In closing, I ask the following questions about interior design legislation that was not covered in the Informational Hearing:

    •  What’s broken?  What needs to be fixed by legislation?  
             •  Is legislation the last-resort solution?
             •  What, if any, other solutions have been explored and/or tried?  
    •  Who really benefits from interior design legislation?
    •  How much is the creation and operation of a regulatory board going to cost?  Who’s going to pay for it?  Can Oregon afford it — now, and in the future?
        (NOTE:  It was admitted during the hearing that there are only 299 qualified interior designers currently in Oregon.  Is this group large enough to financially support and sustain a regulatory board?)
    •  What are the short-term and long-term effects on contractors, suppliers, consumers, and the majority of interior designers, if legislation is enacted?

Thank you, again, for taking time from your busy schedule to read this rebuttal.  Please contact me if you want further information.

                            Respectfully submitted,

                            
                            DIANE PLESSET, CMKBD, NCIDQ #13029, C.A.P.S
                            D. P. Design + Associates
                            Interior Design Protection Council Board Member
Informational Hearing Rebuttal Notes
April 25, 2011
Page 3

INFORMATIONAL HEARING: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

1  Florida’s Interior Design Regulation:

Wall Street Journal Article (link): 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703551304576260742209315376.html?KEYWORDS=arian

Letter In Support of Deregulation (link):  http://www.idpcinfo.org/FL_CoalitionLetter.pdf

2  Institute for Justice Studies:
    Designing Cartels (Link):
        http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/economic_liberty/Interior-Design-Study.pdf
    Designed to Mislead (Link):
        http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/designedtomislead.pdf
    Designed to Exclude (Link):
        http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/economic_liberty/designed-to-exclude.pdf