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
 
 

(It could be dangerous to your health, safety, and welfare)

Please take a few minutes to watch this video.  Pay special attention to the "bridged" answer when the reporter asked if there have been  specific instances where anyone has been injured by an unregulated interior designer.  This is what ASID teaches its spokespeople to do.  (Bridging is the art of answering a different question than the one that was asked, to change the subject back to the intended message, i.e., "spin").

What's your reaction to this report?  Do we  need to have regulation of interior designers, to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public?

Who is the major beneficiary of regulation laws?  The "target" designer (who was forced by legislation to abandon her successful career) answered this question at the end of the segment. Here is the link:

http://reason.tv/video/show/throw-pillow-fight

Displaying a pink slingshot she had concealed behind her back, she began speaking. “When I first founded IDPC and told people what I was doing, I was met by horrified gasps. They could not believe I was taking on ASID* – a giant in our industry. Sure, it’s a bit of a David vs. Goliath fight,” she continued, “but, perhaps like David, I look at it from a different perspective. If they’re so big, how can I possibly miss! And our results have been astounding.”

Patti Morrow, the Executive Director of the Interior Design Protection Council, made a special trip to Seattle, at the request of Tami Michaels. Recently, Tami, a dynamic force in her own right, was hand-selected by Ms. Morrow to be the Chairperson for the Washington operation of IDPC’s new Northwest Chapter. Their goal is to fight — and kill, not just stall — interior design legislation that’s been plaguing Washington State for many years.

Ms. Morrow had everyone on the edge of their seat as she talked about her numerous battles with state coalitions all across America, who are the “front” for ASID’s push to control the interior design profession through regulation. Since 2006, she has been successful in preventing 100 efforts to expand or enact new interior design regulations. Legislation would end the careers of possibly hundreds of thousands of designers, and affect the future of interior design if states adopt the model bill that requires specific education, experience, and examination, otherwise known as “The Three ‘E’s’”.

“I have three goals for tonight: Educate you about what regulation is and what it does, Encourage you that your voice makes a difference, and Empower you to shape the future of our industry.  She laughed.  This is my version of three E’s”.  She spoke with the passion and conviction that has made her the absolute leader of the grassroots movement to fight ASID*, IIDA*, CIDA*, and NCIDQ*, which she calls the Cartel. She provided honest, reliable facts to discredit information contained in bills, public statements by the cartel, and misinformation that’s publicly displayed on the cartel’s websites.

One graphic that coalitions in favor of legislation continue to rely on, which is easily disputed, is a map of the United States, showing the number of states that have passed Title and/or Practice acts for interior designers. “They say there are 26 states that have enacted a government-imposed regulatory scheme, but that number includes Puerto Rico and Washington D.C., which are not states, and Colorado, which has only a permitting statute.  Their tally doesn’t include the states where acts have been struck down. The actual number of states with laws regulating the practice of interior design is only 21, and only three of those states have Practice acts.” [Pause] “Why do they continue to say 26 states?” [Longer pause]

Ms. Morrow looked around the room. No one had the answer. “Because they can tell legislators that the majority of states have passed legislation –  and they should, too.” With reliable facts like this, it’s clear why she has been so successful, even in states where she and Ed Nagorsky, the legal counsel for NKBA*, have been the only ones to testify against legislation.

She held the audience’s attention throughout her presentation, and finished on a very powerful note, but I’m not going to tell you what she did or said. You’re going to have to attend one of Ms. Morrow’s seminars to get the full impact of her message. It is everything she promises — and more. Everyone attending the meeting left with enlightenment and educational information about why interior design legislation is bad for everyone. She did empower us to fight for our right to freely work as interior designers.

The best way to protect your career is to join IDPC. You don’t have to fight legislation by yourself. You are not alone! Tami Michaels described IDPC beautifully in her closing comments. “It (IDPC) is the spine, the backbone of the national grassroots movement against legislation. We are the arms, the local chapter of this organization, to reach out and embrace everyone in our profession, to fight for our rights as a team.”

Proposed legislation defines “interior design” to include furniture dealers, stagers, commercial decorators, office equipment and furniture dealers, home improvement centers, and design-build firms. It proposes to limit the practice of “interior design” to people that are registered or certified, who meet stringent requirements for many years of education at specific schools, followed by extensive supervised internship, and successfully passing the NCIDQ examination.

To get more information about the issues and why it’s important to understand what’s at stake, visit the IDPC blog: http://idpcinfo.wordpress.com. Become a member of IDPC today. It’s easy, and the best investment you can make for your future: http://idpcinfo.org/membership.

*Footnotes:
ASID = American Society of Interior Designers

CIDA = Council for Interior Design Accreditation

IDPC = Interior Design Protection Counci

IIDA = International Interior Design Association

NCIDQ = National Council for Interior Design Qualification

NKBA = National Kitchen and Bath Association

Would you jeopardize your career and your financial future, based on statements from an organization whose main purpose is to gain control of your profession to arbitrarily benefit only those they deem worthy?  The American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) and the International Interior Designers’ Association (IIDA) are telling us that they want us to get on board to support interior design legislation. They say we don’t need to worry about our future. When we ask honest questions about the difference between “first class” (i.e., professional) members and “coach class” (i.e., allied) members, their replies are vague, and they rely heavily on pat answers about Grandfathering. Or they change the subject. When we ask about their intentions  to provide a safe career journey for everyone, they offer to sell us insurance in the form of certification, and tell us that we have to buy this insurance from their selected agent (the National Council for Interior Design Qualification, NCIDQ).  They provide no other options for us to get to our career destination successfully.

Pilots rely heavily on their instrument panel to help them safely fly a plane. We rely on the pilots’ training and experience, and his knowledge of the instruments to take us safely to our destination. What would happen if the pilot disregarded everything that his instruments told him? He would lose control of the plane, and it could go into a tailspin.

The pilot has two choices as soon as he loses control of the plane. He can continue disregarding the reliable information, which will result in the plane crashing. Or, he can acknowledge that the messages are correct, and pull out of the tailspin. This may be where “Straighten out and fly right” came from.

Leaders of the three organizations have been flying the pro-legislation planes for years, totally disregarding their members’ needs and the obvious warning signals from legislation opponents. They have crashed many planes, although they will never admit to making any mistakes. The most successful flight for them was a trip to Florida in 1994, but thousands of innocent designers’, contractors’, and suppliers’ earning ability were seriously injured or killed when they landed. Finally, there is a group of people, headed by attorneys from the Institute for Justice and  Patti Morrow, the Executive Director of IDPC, who want to hold them accountable for their single-minded, greedy actions.

You don’t have to fly with “Cartel Airlines”. You don’t have to believe everything they tell you about interior design legislation. Ask yourself, “What’s their benefit, and what’s my benefit?” If your reply is, “It’s okay because they told me so,” read what they’re actually proposing in legislation before you decide to get on that flight. To them, you’re just another number, and they really don’t care where you’re going, as long as you fly with them. Isn’t it better to sit safely on the ground, wishing you were on the plane, than sitting on the plane, wishing you were on the ground?

If you are disillusioned, disgruntled, and dissatisfied, and want to know the truth about ASID, IIDA and NCIDQ, join the Interior Design Protection Council (IDPC) today. We are here to help you have a successful journey through your entire career. http://www.idpcinfo.org/Membership.html

Closing message to ASID, IIDA, and NCIDQ:  Change your flight plan now.  Heed feedback from your members and the opposition.  Straighten up and fly right!