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
 
 

Dear Oregon Designers, Contractors, and Suppliers:

Here is a sample letter that you can send to members of the Business and Labor Committee, and the bill's sponsor, Representative Paul Holvey (see specific instructions below the letter):

I am writing to voice my strong objection to HB 2491 that is before the Business and Labor Committee.  If enacted, HB 2491 would impose licensing on the design profession and limit the work that the majority of Oregon designers may do.  It would be the most restrictive, anti-competitive interior design law in the country and join only 3 other states in the last 40 years to regulate the practice of interior design (those were enacted over 20 years ago, and are now embroiled in legal challenges).

House Bill 2491 is a lose/lose/lose scenario….

•  It is bad for Oregon’s design community
•  In this difficult economy, Oregon should not pass new laws which would make it even more difficult for its citizens to earn a living
•  It is bad for Oregon citizens and the many small businesses that work in the building and construction industry (not only designers, but contractors and suppliers)
• There has been no public outcry for the regulation of interior designers "to protect the health, safety, welfare, or peace" of the general public

With a State unemployment rate at 10.6%, which exceeds the national average, and a budget deficit of over $3 billion, why would the legislature even consider a bill that would harm small businesses and make it harder for us to survive and continue to work?  No legitimate governmental interest will be served by the adoption of HB 2491.  I urge you to protect the livelihoods of many good citizens of this state and reject the effort of a few industry insiders who are asking the legislature to shut down their competitors.

Sincerely,

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Highlight and copy (ctrl C) the text  between "I am writing…" and "Sincerely,"
2. Click on the link to a legislator (see below)
3. Paste the text into the message body area
4. Type your name and address below "Sincerely"at the bottom of the text, then click the "send" button
5. Repeat steps #2-4 above for each one of the legislators listed

RECIPIENTS:

For MORE information about the proposed Oregon bill:

• Read the previous blog. 
• Listen to Diane Plesset's interview with Lars Larson on 2/22.

http://idpc-nw.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/diane-with-lars-larson.mp3

• Listen to Diane Plesset's interviews on "Today's Home™" with Patti Morrow and Addie Smith.
   

To learn more about negative effects of legislation, watch the short video. 

Freedom Fight in Oregon

Interior Design Legislation: 2/3/11 Update

HB 2491 is currently being reviewed by the Business and Labor Committee of the Oregon House.  The bill's sponsor is Representative Paul Holvey. 

Please read the bill — it's only five pages, with 20 sections.

Be on the lookout for contradictions, and purposely vague language, meant to lull you into believing that residential decorators and designers (and employees of retail establishments) are exempt, so you'll sit on the sidelines and let the bill pass. Compare Sections 1, 3, 5, and 11.  Section 14 contradicts itself with vague references to the Board of Interior Design Fund and the General Fund.  Where will the money come from?  Where will the money go? 

Be on the lookout for every clause that defers ultimate decisions about who can and who cannot practice interior design.  The proposed bill gives the Regulatory Board vast control without any provisions for overseeing by anyone.  Five people controlling the future of all Oregon designers?  "Board" is used 55 times in this bill!  Here's an example of the control that the Board would have:

"SECTION 3.  The Board of Interior Design may:

"(1) Adopt rules to enforce the provisions of sections 1 to 14 of this 2011 Act and to exercise general supervision over the practice of interior design in this state."

There's more!  Read Sections 12 and 13.  NO group of individuals should ever have that much control and power! 

Please take the time to read the Daily Journal of Commerce article, "Bill Would Define Interior Designers, Decorators".  Patti Morrow, the National Director of the Interior Design Protection Council, presented logical, factual comments to provide clear evidence that we need to defeat HB 2491 while it's still in committee.  Let's stop wasting valuable time and money on a bill that's not good for Oregon designers and Oregon consumers! 

Nothing about this bill protects consumers' health, safety, and welfare — oops, excuse me.  It's now peace, health and safety.  What?  Peace?  If this bill passes, will we have peace?  Please, give us a break!    Proponents can provide no evidence to support a real need for it, because there is none.  Join me in writing to the committee members, to let them know that we oppose HB2491.  Most of the work has been done for you; all you have to do is complete the e-mail with:

• Why you're opposed to the bill 
• Your name and city at the bottom  

Below is the committee members' contact information.  Take action now, and write them a short message, telling them that you oppose HB2491. 

Rep. Paul Holvey (Bill sponsor):  rep.paulholvey@state.or.us

Rep. Bill Kennemer, Co-Chair:  rep.billkennemer@state.or.us

Mike Schaufler, Co-Chair:  rep.mikeschaufler@state.or.us

Margaret Doherty, Co-Vice Chair:  rep.margaretdoherty@state.or.us

Sal Esquivel, Co-Vice Chair:  rep.salesquivel@state.or.us

Jason Conger:  rep.jasonconger@state.or.us

Val Hoyle:  rep.valhoyle@state.or.us

Mark Johnson:  rep.markjohnson@state.or.us

Greg Matthews:  rep.gregmatthews@state.or.us

WATCH OUT FOR THAT THROW PILLOW!!

(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

It’s July 4, 2010, a day when most Americans get together with family and friends for a barbecue. Millions of Americans watch fireworks shows, and listen to patriotic music. It’s one day when all of us can openly celebrate what it means to be an American. I’d like to challenge you to take a few minutes to read the documents that established this country: The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights. Please take time to reflect (and talk about) what these manuscripts mean to you.

In September, 1954, my parents sold their Mom ‘n Pop grocery store in Northeast Portland. They purchased a brand new charcoal and salmon Chevrolet, with the intention of driving around the United States to visit my mother’s family and to reconnect with Navy friends from World War II. I had just started attending third grade at Kennedy School. My mother promised my teacher and the principal that they would make this trip a living history lesson, and she assured them that I would study my math book.

Mom and Dad delivered on their promise. We stopped at every historical marker along the way, as we traveled through the northern states: Idaho, Montana, South Dakota (to see Mt. Rushmore), Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, on our way to the East Coast. U.S. history came alive for me, because my parents explained the significance of everything we saw. As long as I live, I will never forget the thrill of walking through Independence Hall, where our visionary forefathers fought over every word as they created the foundation of our country. I touched the crack of the Liberty Bell. Yes, the metal was cold, and the fall weather was crispy, but it was the thrill of touching a symbol of freedom that gave me goosebumps. How many other fingers had also touched the same spot I was touching?

Inside Independence Hall, my father lifted me up, so I could see the Declaration of Independence as he read it. He was a naturalized citizen, born in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. My mother was a first-generation American, whose parents had immigrated from Portugal at the turn of the century. Often, I’ve wondered how they felt when they saw the Statue of Liberty. They understood the importance of being proud Americans; Thank God they took the time to help me understand, so I can continue their wonderful legacy.  In five months, we traveled over 25,000 miles through 27 states and Washington, D.C.  “America The Beautiful” is particularly significant, because I got to experience it firsthand, from sea to shining sea.

It hurts, and I get angry when I learn about any injustice in my homeland, especially when  individual freedom is affected by the greed of companies, other individuals, and organizations.   Ours is still a young country, by world standards. We are experiencing growing pains, similar to a pre-pubescent child who doesn’t understand all of the changes that are occurring. There is so much I can and should do to help our country, but there aren’t enough hours in the day to become thoroughly informed about all of the issues affecting the United States and the entire world.   I’m following my mother’s example:  To become active in one or two causes that mean a lot to me, and to work hard, so my efforts will have a positive impact on others.

Almost four years ago, I became aware of  the battle to protect the rights of Americans who chose to become interior designers.  Everyone in this country is granted the freedom to pursue happiness, which includes the right to follow a career path.  Until then, I had been lulled, like so many other interior designers, into believing what the American Society of Interior Designers and the National Council for Interior Design Qualification had been saying, i.e.,  “Legislation to regulate interior designers is inevitable, and it’s needed to establish minimum competency standards for the profession.”

After I studied two proposed bills that had been introduced,  I was taken back to the days that my father read the Declaration of Independence to me, and when I saw the Bill of Rights and the Constitution while we were in Washington, D.C.  “This isn’t right!” was all I could think.  With hundreds of hours of research completed in the subsequent years, I’m more committed than ever to end the injustice being imposed on interior designers all over the country.  I have learned that the proposed legislation not only hurts designers, it hurts everyone that designers work with professionally, including consumers.

Independence Day, 2010.  I renew my vow to fight unfair, unwarranted, unreasonable legislation.  Please join IDPC, so we can celebrate freedom together.

"Let Freedom Ring"

With a smile on her lips and a twinkle in her eyes, wearing a “good guy” white business suit, the petite lady with long blonde hair stood in front of a capacity audience gathered at the Designer Furniture Gallery in the Seattle Design Center on Tuesday evening. She could have been there to discuss latest trends in decorative tassels, or how many accent pillows are appropriate for a bed.
But she was there for a more important reason.

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