No Design Legislation

Opposing interior design legislation everywhere

Plan Check Denial in Los Angeles?

CCIDC needs your help


We are looking for Certified Interior Designers who have been denied plan check for their non-structural, non-seismic interior design plans by the Los Angeles Dept. of Building & Safety (LADBS) and

If you reside in the City of Los Angeles and are willing to contact your Los Angeles city council member, our goal is to set up a meeting with the LA Dept. of Building & Safety (LADBS) to discuss their overly restrictive policy as it relates to their document number P/BC 2002-073, (Policy on Signed and Wet Stamped plans).

Thus far, attempts to meet with LADBS to discuss their policy have been rebuffed by their Chief Building Officer (CBO). If you have had this experience of being denied plan check for relatively simple interior design plans, and are willing to go to your city council member to request a meeting with the head of the LADBS, please E-mail Doug Stead, CCIDC’s Executive Vice President, at doug@ccidc.org. Thank you.

Advertisements

August 18, 2009 Posted by | California, CCIDC | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CT Law Ruled Unconstitutional!

The Institute for Justice has scored another victory in our Campaign for Economic Liberty, our multi-year effort to elevate economic liberty to national prominence like we did with the issues of school choice and eminent domain abuse.


In this lawsuit, we challenged a Connecticut state law that allows anyone to perform interior design services, but dictates that only those with government-issued licenses may call themselves “interior designers.” Besides unconstitutionally censoring truthful commercial speech, “titling laws” like Connecticut’s serve as precursors to full-blown occupational licensure (the ultimate goal of a small, well-funded faction within the interior design industry).


IJ’s strategic research has shown such regulations result in higher prices, less variety, and fewer employment opportunities, especially for minorities and older mid-career switchers, without any benefit to public health or safety (the standard by which all such regulations should be judged).

It is these types of occupational regulations that are the target of the Campaign for Economic Liberty and that we will litigate against to restore constitutional protection for the right to earn an honest living.

Below is our news release on yesterday’s court decision. Thank you for making this and all our work possible.

Chip

________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

June 30, 2009

Federal Judge Declares Connecticut Interior Design Law Unconstitutional

New Haven, Conn.—A federal judge today struck down a state law that unconstitutionally censored the free speech of interior designers in Connecticut.

In a thorough, clearly worded 23-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz systematically considered and rejected each of the state’s arguments in support of the challenged law, a so-called “title act” for interior designers. Title acts are laws that regulate only the speech, but not the work associated with a given occupation. Thus, in Connecticut—as in 46 other states around the country including New York, Massachusetts, and California—anyone may work as an interior with no license or other special government oversight of any kind. But since 1983, Connecticut law has prohibited anyone not registered as an interior designer with the Department of Consumer Protection from referring to himself as an “interior designer,” even when that term accurately describes what he does.

Interior design laws are the product of a decades-long lobbying effort by an elitist group of industry insiders seeking to limit competition by driving other interior designers out of work. That effort, led by the American Society of Interior Designers, is documented in an Institute for Justice study entitled “Designing Cartels.” Another study from IJ called “Designed to Exclude,” released in February 2009, shows that interior design regulations like Connecticut’s not only increase costs for consumers but also disproportionately exclude minorities and older career-switchers from the interior design industry. Both studies are available online: www.ij.org/interiordesign.

“Shortly after I began practicing interior design twenty-five years ago, a woman from the Department of Consumer Protection showed up at my business and ordered me to stop calling myself an interior designer,” said Susan Roberts, one of the three plaintiffs who successfully challenged Connecticut’s interior design law. “That is an outrageous act of censorship on the part of the state, and I am thrilled that I can now tell the world that I am what I have always been since I started doing this work—an interior designer.”

As Judge Kravitz explained in rejecting the state’s legal arguments, “the term ‘interior designer’ is not a term of art and it is not inherently misleading.” Moreover, “[i]f the State were seeking to convey the existence of a regulatory regime in this field, then a term such as ‘licensed interior designer,’ or ‘registered interior designer,’ would far better serve that interest.”

“When it was enacted in 1983, Connecticut’s interior design law represented the cutting edge of a concerted effort to cartelize the interior design industry for the benefit of ASID and its members,” said Clark Neily the Institute for Justice senior attorney who led the successful court challenge. “Along with several grassroots and industry groups, we have brought that campaign to a halt and are systematically dismantling the barriers it has erected to fair competition in the interior design field. We are confident that when the dust settles, consumers in every state will be able to choose the designer whom they think best suits their needs, and interior designers themselves will be free to go as far as their ambition, talent, and dreams will take them.”

This message was sent from Chip Mellor to. It was sent from: Institute for Justice, Institute for Justice 901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900, Arlington, VA 22203. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.

Email Marketing by
iContact - Try It Free!

July 1, 2009 Posted by | California, Connecticut, Institute for Justice, Massachusetts, New York | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

ASID: Consumers Very Satisfied Working with Interior Designers

In 2005, ASID did a study indicating that consumers are “very satisfied working with an interior designer”.  According to Anita Baltimore, FASID, the then-president of ASID, “The new ASID study shows that most homeowners who work with interior designers recognize the value of their services once they see the results” (emphasis added).

More and more households are using designers, too.  In 1997, consumer use of designers was estimated at about 4% of households with an annual income of $70,000 or more, which comprised 6% of the US population.

By 2005, that percentage had increased to 14% of that population hiring an interior designer, with 34% having household incomes between $125,000 and $200,000, although the study also says that they are just as likely to have incomes between $75,000 and $125,000 as between $200,000 and $400,000.  Age-wise, clients are mostly between the ages of 35 and 65, and gender distribution is 64% females vs 36% males.

According to the article, “The most common projects for which a designer was hired were to remodel or redecorate a kitchen or bath, a living or family room, or bedroom. Almost one-fourth (23 percent) of those who hired an interior designer completely remodeled or redecorated an entire home, compared to about one-fifth (19 percent) of those who did not. The most frequently mentioned responsibilities for the designers on these projects were space planning or arranging (67 percent), consultation for aesthetic advice (56 percent), selecting furniture or other products (49 percent), improving functionality (39 percent), remodeling (33 percent), and managing the project (30 percent)”.

So what does this have to do with legislation?

Everything.

The sponsors of this study are the same group of people who are screaming bloody murder that the public needs to be protected from the consequences of having the widest range of options possible because they can’t tell the difference between a competent designer and Betty Decorator who has no clue what she’s doing (regardless of what label they use to describe themselves, by the way).

But this demographic is not a stupid group of people – obviously.

Anyone earning a minimum of $70,000 in this country in this day and age is pretty much by definition highly intelligent and competent, or they wouldn’t have reached that level in their occupations that would bring them to that income level.  That is even more true of those in the higher income ranges cited.  I think it’s safe to assume that many of these people are in highly responsible jobs where all kinds of critical decisions are made, requiring high levels of analytical skills.  These are upper level managers, entrepreneurs, doctors, lawyers, etc. – the captains of industry who run this country, the people who take care of the rest of us.  It’s the highly educated, not the high school dropouts.

By the age of 35, it’s also pretty safe to say that these folks have lived a slice of life enough to be able to figure out for themselves how to find competent help in all areas of their homes as well as their business, inluding in the selection of their interior designers.

What’s more, you know darn well that people at this level professionally are also often involved in the selection of designers for their offices, many of whom are then brought home to do the houses, or vice versa.

So, are we to assume that this group of people leave their intelligence and analytical skills at the doors to their homes?  That they suddenly become incapable of assessing quality of services or products for their own residences, as opposed to in their jobs?  That the skills that have helped them to the tops of their professions don’t extend to the ability to even select a good, competent designer for their businesses, without governmental assistance?

I think not.

And notice the percentages.  Far and away most of these people surveyed hired designers for what can most accurately be described as “decorating” kinds of services.  “Arranging”, “aesthetic advice”, “selecting furniture or other products”.

Duh.  We know this is what the public thinks designers do – and those creative elements are definitely a part of it.  A big part.  So why are ASID and other pro-legislation people trying to downplay the importance of this aesthetic side of what we do?  And create a credentialing process that doesn’t even take it into account?

The reality is that creativity and aesthetics are just as important as technical knowledge.  It’s no good to have either one without the other, and in the best projects, they are seamlessly integrated.

But the numbers are also significant for those who hired designers to do much more extensive remodeling, which is where a professional designer, however he or she comes by her knowledge, can really be of benefit to clients.  Just by nature of the overall increase in utilization of interior design services, and the not insubstantial percentages of people utilizing a designer to execute a complete remodel, space planning, project management, etc., I think we can safely say that these people recognize the existence  and value of the skills of a professional designer.  With a more than threefold increase in the utilization of design services, it’s probably safe to say that the utilization 0f these more extensive services has increased similarly, along with the increase in use of more decorative services.

Now, if these designers had not been competent, just how many building permits do you think would have been issued for the remodeling work that they specified?  And how many of their clients would have been “very satisfied” with their work?

Not too many.

So, we have an increasing number of highly intelligent and succcesful people hiring interior designers to provide a very broad scope of services, including extensive remodelling, and even ASID says that on the whole, they are indeed “very satisfied” with the work of these designers.

So why does ASID still claim we need legislation?  To protect people from… what?  Being already satisfied with the work of the designers they obviously already know how to successfully select and hire?

We need licensing and credentialing, then, for… what, exactly?

And let’s not forget that Michael S. Smith, one of the most talented, successful, and celebrated interior designers of our times, has been hired by no less a client than President and Mrs. Obama to redo the White House.  He’s not licensed, not a member of ASID, did not graduate from any kind of design school, etc.  And yet, somehow, he’s still good enough for the President of the United States, and apparently no one in the current administration believes that in any way the lives, health, or safety of the President or his family will be at risk, as Michael Alin, the current president of ASID, not-so -subtly suggested in his presumptuous January 2009 letter to the First Couple in Interiors & Sources.

Methinks that his ability to keep the First Family safe will have been scrutinized down to the nth degree by the people responsible for keeping them safe and sound, and clearly he has been found competent, by what is most like the most excruciatingly detailed examination any designer anywhere is likely to have to face.

If an unlicensed, uncredentialled designer who did not complete any form of professional formal schooling is good enough for the White House, then why aren’t they good enough for everyone else?

So what is it, ASID?  Are consumers satisfied with the current offerings and way of doing things or not?

Because if you are going to still crow about how unsophisticated consumers are, how much they need to be protected from the consequences of allegedly uninformed opinions and the clutches of designers who have no clue what they are doing, then why are you also reporting unprecedented levels of satisfaction with this very group of people you want to regulate?
Which of these opinions/groups of facts are actually true?  Because you are speaking with forked tongue to promulgate both opinions, which completely contradict one another.

If, indeed, consumers really are already satisfied, then what’s wrong that actually needs to be changed?

The fact of the matter is that the system ain’t broke, folks.  It doesn’t need fixing.  It’s just fine the way it is.

People who want to be able to highlight their educations and experiences should be allowed to voluntarily, like we do it here in CA.  There’s no need to require this kind of validation – and multiple studies by both the Institute for Justice, the Reason Foundation, and others have repeatedly shown this.

It’s time to end this nonsense of endless attempts to regulate this profession – an effort that has met with spectacularly little success, despite more than 30 years of attempts to pass legislation to control what we do and who is allowed to do it.  Legislators as a group aren’t stupid, either.  Over and over again, ASID and its legislative coalitions in many states have met with spectacular failure to convince the majority of them that there is any compelling need whatsoever to regulate this profession in any way, despite millions and millions of dollars (of members’ dues money!) being poured into exactly this effort.

In just the past year alone, something like nearly 60 attempts have met with crashing failure to convince legislators that there is any value whatsoever in regulating interior designers, and in just a little more than that time frame, successful Constitutional challenges to existing laws in at least three states have been mounted, striking down several such laws as completely unconstitutional.

Thirty years of failure – and yet these people persist.  Think about it.

The definition of insanity is widely held to be doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  Why won’t these people learn from their own endless failures?

And why won’t they look at the results of their own studies showing that consumers are already highly satisfied with the way things are?

It boggles the mind, and only reinforces the obvious conclusion that this is nothing but a cartelization effort of a small group of people who are hoping to keep a bigger piece of a growing pie for their own selves, and to shut out the competition.

May 30, 2009 Posted by | ASID, California, Institute for Justice | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 19 Comments

CA – *Zero* Complaints about Health or Safety in 17 Years

Thanks to David Wagner of CCIDC for the following information.

Clearly even being certified or licensed doesn’t stop unethical designers from doing things like embezzling money and violating other laws within the industry, though, so so much for the argument that sitting for the NCIDQ and getting some official credential will automatically make one more “professional” or knowledgable than anyone else.

====================================================

I sit on “The Board of Directors” of “The California Council for Interior Design Certification”. Our website is http://www.ccidc.org. The State of Califoria mandates that we keep accurate records of all complaints filed against Interior Designers whether Certified or Not. Here are the “FACTS”.

Since we began keeping records in 1992 we have not received even “ONE” complaint regarding the issues of Health and Safety. “NOT ONE COMPLAINT” I can’t begin to tell you the amount of complaints we have received regarding Clients Welfare.  These complaints are relegated to embezzelment, acting as a General Contractor and other complaints generally regarding monies. Every State and most Cities have Civil Courts where these matters are ajudicated.

Considering that California has certified over Four Thousand Interior Designers and has Thousands of Non-Certified practicing Interior Designers, I feel the FACTS I have presented in this forum speak for themselves. Not “ONE COMPLAINT” regarding clients “Health or Safety” has been submitted in almost “SEVENTEEN YEARS”.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration……

David Michael Wagner, CID
Wagner Kitchen Design
Long Beach, California
Independent Director
California Council For Interior Design Certification.
http://www.ccidc.org

April 7, 2009 Posted by | California | Leave a comment

Why Even Have Interior Design Legislation – Meeting 3/19/09

Why indeed? Read what’s on the IDPC website, this blog, and the other blogs listed in the links section, and you are likely to come to an entirely different conclusion than what ASID will be discussing. Do attend this meeting to let them know how many more people are opposed than in favor.

Why Even Have Interior Design Legislation?

Come to an interactive discussion sponsored by the Interior Design Coalition of California. What is the core reason for any interior design law and what has California learned from other states?

Learn how to navigate your way through this important topic and find out how legislation affects you.

WHEN: Thursday, March 19, 2009
5:30 – 6:00 pm Networking
6:00 – 7:00 pm Presentation & Discussion

WHERE: The Tile Shop
1005 Harrison Street
Berkeley, CA
(510) 525-4312

WHO: ALL Interior Designer Practitioners, Students and Industry Partners

COST: No Charge

asid header small

The ramifications of having legislation or having no legislation will effect the future of this profession.

Come and discuss!

RSVP:

415.626.2743 or asidcan@earthlink.
net

Forward email

Safe Unsubscribe

This email was sent to by asidcan@earthlink.net.

| Instant removal with™ | Privacy Policy.

Email Marketing by

American Society of Interior Designers | California North Chapter | 2 Henry Adams St. #301 | San Francisco | CA | 94103

March 18, 2009 Posted by | ASID, California, Interior Design Legislation Opposition | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Press Release – Group Resignation from ASID

Press Release

superheroGROUP RESIGNATION FROM ASID

SENDS A STRONG MESSAGE:
STOP THE PUSH FOR REGULATION

On December 19, 2008, Michael Alin, Executive Director of the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) was sent a letter via Fed Ex with the signatures of 27 Allied and Professional members resigning their membership with ASID, designated as “Group One.”

Among the reasons outlined in the letter was the groups’ pronouncement that legislation supported and funded by ASID is not in the best interest of the Allied members, and has requirements so restrictive that they would be denied the right to practice. Allied members in states where licensing has been enacted have suffered terrible persecution and lost their right to earn an honest living. The group expressed concern that in a failing economy such as this, ASID should be using all its resources to support and market designers, not to destroy them through legislation.

The group resignation was coordinated by Jayne Rosen, a long-time Allied ASID member, in response to colleagues voicing their desire to resign. Rosen commented that she has seen ASID’s focus shift from education and networking to pushing a legislative agenda that does not include their own Allied members and that she feels is dangerous to the future of the profession.

The Interior Design Protection Council (IDPC), a nonprofit organization whose mission is to protect the rights of interior designers, has led the national movement to expose and neutralize ASID’s lobbying efforts to monopolize the interior design industry. “Interior design is a dynamic profession that celebrates innovation, creativity and diversity,” stated Patti Morrow, Executive Director of IDPC. “ASID’s attempt to impose its one-size-fits-all occupational licensing scheme on the profession is not only contrary to those values, but also hurts Allied Members, the majority of ASID’s own constituency, who while successfully working as professional designers, do not possess or wish to poses ASID’s self-mandated credentials which it claims are necessary to be considered a “professional” or to work as an interior designer.”


Diane Plesset, a “professional” member of ASID who resigned her membership earlier this year also added her name to the protest letter. “I’ve passed the NCIDQ exam required for licensing, but I cannot in good conscience support legislation that will put many honest, hard working designers out of business,” said Plesset. “A true professional is always confident enough to compete based on the merit of the work they produce.”

Rosen expects the news of the multiple-signer resignation will be a wake-up call to ASID’s Allied members, and could even be the catalyst for more resignations to take place before the December 31st renewal deadline. “The more resignations, the stronger our message becomes,” said Rosen. “ASID has neither a right nor a mandate to dictate who may or may not practice interior design.” ASID members interested in participating in another group resignation can reach Rosen at libertyforpadesigners@yahoo.com.

Morrow reported that she has been flooded with emails from Allied members indicating they do not intend to renew their 2009 memberships. “Allied ASID and independent designers need to wake up and smell the coffee,” said Morrow. “2009 could be a financial disaster for them if they do not support and join IDPC’s effort to stop the insidious spread of anti-competitive interior design regulation that may put them out of business.”

Click here to read the Resignation Letter sent to ASID.

ASID Renewals Lapse

chartIn our last newsletter, we extended an invitation to anyone not planning to renew their ASID membership to tell us why.

We have been astonished at the incredible number of responses flooding our office! Even more amazing is that unbeknownst to each other, most designers said basically the same thing. You can read a small sampling of these messages in our Letters to the Editor section below.

If you are also not planning to renew your membership in ASID, please feel free to voice your concerns and opinions at pmorrow@IDPCinfo.org. Your name and email address will be held strictly confidential and used only for IDPC internal survey purposes.

If you are interested in adding your name to an additional group resignation letter to send a message to ASID, please contact libertyforpadesigners@yahoo.com.

ASID President’s Letter
December 18, 2008

superheroIt appears that IDPC’s newsletters are reaching thousands of their Allied members, causing them great concern and prompting them to contact the ASID national offices. ASID recently wrote to their members attempting to assuage the growing fears of their membership. As usual, ASID provided nothing substantial or empirical as backup to their rhetoric. Below are some of their statements followed by IDPC rebuttal.

“ASID is working tirelessly to advocate for the right regulation that enhances your right to practice.”

Wrong. ASID, through the coalitions it funds, initiates and funds legislation which puts their Allied members’ right to practice in jeopardy. Just look at the laws already in place as well as every single bill proposed. They have three lobbyists working to enact and expand legislation, and they charge a $15 mandatory assessment, whether or not you agree with their agenda

“ASID is actively recruiting Allied members and welcomes new Allied members into ASID each and every day.”

Of course they do! Dues from Allied members make up the majority of their income. If Allied members decline membership, the money available to push for licensing drastically declines.

[ASID provides] “Listing on the national designer referral service.”

Until recently, the ASID website had been changed so that the default said “Show Professionals Only.” Clearly, this was demeaning to Allied members, demoting them to second-class status, and made it difficult for consumers to find the Allied listings, not to mention subliminally indicating to consumers that they would be choosing an “unprofessional” designer.

IDPC brought this matter to the attention of the design community, many of which are Allied ASID, and in response to what must have been (should have been) outrage by the Allied members, it appears that the default has now been changed back to “Show All Practitioners.”

Another victory for IDPC, the only national organization that truly looks out for all designers!

“Use of the ASID Allied Member appellation” [as a benefit]

We have received copious amounts of email from Allied members as well as unaffiliated designers stating that their clients neither know about nor care whether they are ASID members. They care only about the quality of work they produce.

“Each state is defining interior design – and no two definitions are the same.”

Misleading and disingenuous. There are of course subtle differences to comply with the detailed process in each state where ASID is supporting legislation. But in virtually every proposed bill, the requirement for licensure, registration, or certification has and continues to be passage of the NCIDQ exam. Most successful, practicing Allied designers do not possess the criteria needed to even sit for the exam, thus excluding them from qualifying.

“We have not and do not seek to restrict others’ livelihoods.”

The legislation they support and fund HAS and DOES restrict the livelihoods of the majority of interior designers in this country who are not NCIDQ certified, including ASID’s own Allied members. Just take a look at the situation in Florida, as just one of many available examples. Many, many Allied ASID members and independent designers in Florida have been fined or ordered to Cease and Desist. Their names will appear on Google forever as having been prosecuted. This is a foreshadowing of what will happen in every state if practice acts are allowed to be enacted unchecked.

“Currently, interior designers in many jurisdictions are prevented by existing laws from offering services within their scope because the profession is not legally recognized.”

Absolutely false. As we have reported many times, the IBC’s actual language is: “[C]onstruction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed.”

The International Building Code (IBC) establishes common code and other safety requirements for various building types. It does not regulate any design profession, nor does it require that any design profession be regulated or not be regulated. Nor has the International Code Council (ICC) ever taken a position to the effect that “interior design services must be regulated in order to protect the public.” It is telling that there is no citation or reference whatsoever supporting the false statement that it has.

For detailed information on why the IBC is a non-issue, click on these two newsletters:

Don’t Let Codes Scare You

10 False Statements About Licensing

“If your state does have an interior design law on the books, it may not affect you or the type of work you do.”

Nonsense! States with a practice act take away your occupational freedom to practice to the full scope of your abilities — they allow only work with “surface materials,” i.e. “decorating.” States with a title act take away your free speech right to accurately describe your work or yourself, thus making it more difficult or impossible to market yourself

“Our Society is what it is today because of you.”

The membership dues and mandatory legislative assessment you pay to “your Society” ARE FINANCING THE LOBBYING EFFORTS THAT MAY PUT YOU OUT OF BUSINESS!

Isn’t it time for YOU to stop “YOUR” society from using YOUR dues to push an agenda YOU do not agree with?

Isn’t it time for you to join IDPC?

Tattletales
And other despicable creatures..


ratDid you know that under the Florida interior design practice law, licensed designers are legally required to turn in other designers, decorators, architects, employers, co-workers, competitors, anyone they see or know of who is just trying to earn a living but is in violation of the Florida law?

That’s right. Here’s the statute:

455.227 Grounds for discipline; penalties; enforcement.
(i) Failing to report to the department any person who the licensee knows is in violation of this chapter, the chapter regulating the alleged violator, or the rules of the department or the board.

Is this how you want your life to be? Constantly looking over your shoulder for (1) someone to turn you in for just trying to put food on the table, or (2) in constant fear that they’ll come after you, in spite of your license, because you failed to rat out one of your colleagues…?

This is the kind of KGB-like state you will be faced with if the cartel is successful in getting more practice acts like Florida’s.

And it doesn’t only affect interior designer and decorators — the office furniture and restaurant equipment industries are also being targeted and prosecuted in Florida!

It’s time for Florida designers, decorators, office furniture dealers, restaurant equipment dealers, kitchen and bath designers, architects, etc. to join our movement and help us create a plan for your state for 2009.

It’s time for the design community in the rest of the country to join IDPC and stop practice acts from getting enacted in your state.

Your future is in your hands.

ANTI-licensing article
Insurgence of the Independents by Patti Morrow

Window FashionWindow Fashion Vision is the second national, unaffiliated magazine this year to publish an article from the point of view of the resistance movement. Click here to read Insurgence of the Independents, an exposition on why unaffiliated designers — the vast majority of practicing designers — are resisting the effort led by ASID to regulate the profession, in the November issue of magazine.

Click here to subscribe to Window Fashion Vision.

www.wf-vision.com

Letters to the Editor

“I am not planning to renew my ASID Allied membership. They have not listened to my objections to licensure. I have made my voice clear for twenty years and they are still trying to regulate a profession that does not need it. I have also felt that they haven’t given me anything for my dues money as an Allied member. Clients and prospective business contacts never ask about my membership, so what’s the point?”

* * *

“All this licensing really comes down to is money. Money for NCIDQ, money for ASID, money for the legislation………and lots of it! It would take over $2,000 for me to get my license (with the STEP course, hotel and travel, the test, registration fees, and purchasing extra practicums and templates – from ASID, of course). It’s not worth it at this point in my life to become licensed. It will benefit me none. I believe my work speaks for itself. Plus, the multiple choice part of the test material is irrelevant to real-life daily practice…even in the commercial world (for which I work). They do not deserve my hard-earned money. I do not currently believe in this process to be licensed.”

* * *

“I am one of those allied ASID members who is NOT renewing my membership. The economy is only part of the problem. I do believe that ASID’s push for legislation is self-serving, and does not help me, as I am always on the bottom of any referral lists, because I have not sat for their exam, although I graduated at the top of my Interior Design Curriculum. I have NEVER been asked by a client whether or not I belong to ASID. My work and referrals speak for themselves.”

* * *

“I have decided not to renew for a few reasons, most importantly because I do not agree with their proposed legislation of interior designers. Secondly, I do not feel that it is currently worth $400+ for the benefits that they offer.”

* * *

“I have chosen to not renew my ASID membership this year. The high membership dues in this economy are coupled with the fact that I do not feel that I am getting anything out of my membership. That is magnified by their apparent lack of concern for allied members (with the legislation they are pushing for, etc). It is outrageous that a professional organization like ASID supports a move toward licensing that excludes those who have chosen to take an alternate path of education, and practical, professional experience, rather than paying to take an exam to become a ‘Professional Member’ of ASID.

Thank you for the thoughtful and researched material. I plan to forward this e-mail to design & construction colleagues who are affiliated with other professional organizations”

* * *

“I’ve been a professional designer for 30+ years (Allied Member ASID for about ten years) and have never been responsible for any harmful circumstances to my clients. It seems to me that this is an attempt to make the public view Interior Designers as having expertise beyond our scope of training/education/experience…such as architects/electricians/plumbers and building contractors……Not so!!! If those are the credentials they want to present, then they should achieve the education/training and accredidation necessary to qualify them to attach those titles to their names…..passing the NCIDQ does not nearly come close to filling that level of expertise.”

* * *

“Why align myself with an organization that is costly to maintain and may put me out of business?”

* * *

“I am not renewing my ASID membership for 2009 because ASID has done nothing to promote my business or assist me in any way. I just read the list of ten reasons a licensed interior designer is necessary and I laughed it was so absurd. I am not licensed and I am fully aware of all code requirements, ADA specifications, etc. as I regularly pull permits for jobs. Every time I read something from the IDPC I get madder! I will be joining your organization in January. Thank you for all you do.”


-Letters may have been edited for length only-

Special thanks

superheroOn behalf of the Board and Staff of IDPC,

we’d like thank our

troops and veterans

for their selflessness and courage in protecting that which we hold most dear:

OUR FREEDOMS

Please do not let their sacrifices be in vain. Do not let the pro-regulation Cartel take your economic liberty from you without a fight. Help IDPC protect your Constitutional rights to occupational freedom and free speech.

giftAsk for a membership to IDPC for Christmas.

Or better yet, why not give yourself the gift you richly deserve?

$100 a year for Members of the design community and supporters

$ 20 a year for Students

CAN YOU AFFORD NOT TO JOIN?superhero

Happy holidays and a prosperous and regulation-free new year.

signature-black
Executive Director
Interior Design Protection Council

info@IDPCinfo.org

In This Issue

ASID Allied Resign

ASID Renewals Lapse

ASID’s President’s Letter

Tattletales…

ANTI-licensing article

Letters to the Editor

To our Troops and Vets

Quick Links

Our website

About Us

Rebuttal to ASID Strategy

Join IDPC!

logo

The next job we save could be YOURS!


Membership Information

Case Statement

Recommended Reading

Insurgence of the Independents

Designing Freedom

Designing Cartels through Censorship

Misinformation

Lawsuit in Connecticut

Design Regulation: Coming to a State Near You?

Lawful Enterprise

Watch Out for That Pillow

Wallpapering with Red Tape

The New Unions

Don’t Regulate Interior Designers

Join Our Mailing List

Please forward this email to every interior designer, interior decorator, student, vendor or industry partner who would be negatively affected by regulation

Who is IDPC?

The Interior Design Protection Council is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization whose mission is to protect the rights of interior designers, interior decorators, office furniture dealers, showrooms, suppleirs and other businesses who would be negatively affected by interior design regulation.

We also actively influence legislation germane to protecting the livelihood of our members.

For more information on IDPC, please visit our website at

www.IDPCinfo.org

Sponsors

Our ability to resist regulation depends on help from our partners in the design community.

Click here for information on becoming a sponsor.

Buttons

stop

Don’t miss the opportunity to attract attention to your grassroots meetings, rallies, meetings with legislators, town hall meetings and hearings!

Click here

to purchase

NO REGULATION! pins

Donations

Are gladly accepted!

PayPal

Click here to make a donation of your choice.

December 24, 2008 Posted by | California Designers Against Legislation (CADAL), Interior Design Legislation Opposition, Interior Design Protection Council (IDPC) | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ASID MEMBERS RESIGN IN PROTEST OF ASID LICENSING EFFORTS

We just received a copy of the letter below sent to ASID Headquarters. Thanks to the Interior Design Freedom Coalition http://www.interiordesignfreedom.org/blog.html for posting it.

Please see the links on this blog in the Interior Design Legislation Opposition section to the Interior Design Protection Council and the Interior Design Freedom Coalition for more information on licensing efforts and how to protect your real right to practice in your state, and how ASID efforts will put thousands of designers out of business.

=======================================================================================================
ASID RESIGNATIONS
-GROUP ONE-

December 19, 2008

Michael Alin, Executive Director
The American Society of Interior Designers
608 Massachusetts Ave., NE
Washington, D.C., 20002

Dear Mr. Alin:

Over the last several years, we have watched as ASID has recklessly spent our dues and MANDATORY legislative assessments on a failed policy falsely proclaiming to “raise the level of the profession” and to cull what you have decided are the “real designers” from those not following the path you dictate. The legislation you support has requirements so restrictive that most designers would not be able to comply and will therefore be denied the right to practice.

Over and over… we have watched as ASID’s president, members and board repeatedly mislead their own ASID colleagues about the EFFECT of legislation on our right to practice, while currying support from the very designers who would be put out of business by your legislative actions. And we have listened as Allied Members were described as the “Cash Cows” of the organization – too stupid to understand that we were being used to fund our own demise.

Over and over… we have watched as ASID betrayed its own ethics to push its own agenda – an ego-driven agenda that has the potential to destroy more than half of its own membership.

Over and over… we have listened as ASID members said sweetly, “We’re not trying to put you out of business.” [Subtext: as long as you forego your practice to go back to school for at least 2 years, do a supervised internship with an NCIDQ certified designer – if you can find one who also happens to be hiring – and intern from two to five years while being paid virtually nothing; then if you have any money left, pay about $2000 to take step workshops, purchase study materials, and take and pass the NCIDQ test (which is rarely passed on the first attempt), and then prove to the satisfaction of your own competitors that you actually are a designer, and comply with any regulations they happen to write.] But nobody’s trying to put you out of business; after all, there’s grandfathering. And from what we’ve seen of the way “grandfathering” is often written into the legislation, that’s just as bogus a claim as the rest of the pro-legislation argument.

Legislators have told us that representatives (either ASID and/or IIDA members) have misrepresented the content, objectives and design support for their legislation while governors of four states have clearly understood it to be anticompetitive and protective.

In states where practice acts have been enacted, designers have suffered terribly – persecuted for what they have done successfully for years, sustaining huge fines and legal fees for miniscule “infractions” and in some cases, bankrupted and driven out of the state in order to earn a living.

Florida designers bear witness to the travesty of your actions, and we hear more and more from them every day. The disgraceful behavior of Florida ASID members who deliberately work to expose and report their own members, as well as others, and help to put them out of business tells us what we need to know about ASID as an organization and about how legislation really works to
destroy designers’ rights to practice. And Florida is not the only state where this happens or has happened: try Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, Connecticut and others.

There are estimated to be between 200,000 and 400,000 interior designers in practice in the U.S. today. ASID claims membership of only about 20,000 practicing designers, the majority of
whom don’t even care about “raising the level of the profession”. Many are not even aware of your legislative agenda. They just want to practice design successfully as they always have.

We have personally spoken to Allied designers all across the country, and have found the vast majority to be opposed to your actions. As we’ve said before: the only designers who benefit from your tactics are the so-called professional designers who have passed the NCIDQ – and those are few and far between.

You do not represent independent designers as you have claimed, hence the title independent. They don’t want ASID’s interference in their right to practice, and have told us that they resent ASID’s efforts to dictate policy in which they have no say. Even ASID members are not welcome to disagree with your policies as the invitation to the Arkansas conference clearly shows, where attendees were carefully vetted to make sure that there would be no discordant voices.

ASID HAS NO RIGHT AND NO MANDATE TO DICTATE TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DESIGNERS ALL ACROSS THIS COUNTY WHO WILL BE ALLOWED TO PRACTICE AND WHO WILL NOT. YOUR LEGISLATION IS BEING DEFEATED BECAUSE DESIGNERS DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR OBJECTIVES.

It is clear to us that ASID no longer advocates for all of its members. This is illustrated in the make-up of the board which is ponderously commercial, in the membership of your pro-legislation coalitions across the country, where the majority are often commercial designers and in your undue influence in the schools, where students are pushed toward architectural/commercial design and where residential design gets short shrift. Students have told us that ASID has misled them, pushing them into commercial/architectural design on the premise that jobs at the commercial or architectural firms would be awaiting them when they graduate, and that ASID would help them get those jobs.

Even before the economic downturn, commercial jobs were very hard to come by – by ASID’s own statistics, only 15% of the market – and the few students who manage to land those jobs do so without ASID’s promised-but too often undelivered assistance. Many students, unable to secure those jobs have wound up selling commercial furniture and other commercial products. And most residential designers cannot hire them, as designers who have, have told us that they can draft, but cannot do other things that are crucial to residential design.

ASID’s preferential conduct is also apparent in the way Allied Members are treated on the national website’s “Find a Designer” page, where potential clients searching for referrals are offered a choice of “Show Professionals Only” (listed as the default) vs. “Show All Practitioners” which they have to search for [note: this appears to just have been changed]. This is insulting and clearly shows a bias toward “professional” members, which is especially unjustifiable considering that many so-called “Professional” designers have never passed the NCIDQ test and have just been allowed in. Allied Members pay the majority of dues and mandatory legislation fees, are no less professional in their work, and do not deserve a lesser marketing effort than any other members.

Additionally, by promoting its single-entry method as the one true path to design, ASID has created a rift between practicing designers and those who take ASID’s EEE path, with the younger designers evincing rudely worded disrespect for their more experienced elders – a situation which is not conducive to job creation.

Interior Design is a creative field. Yet ASID is determined to legislate creativity out of it by restricting the many paths of entry into the field that have nurtured that creativity and vision for years, producing brilliant designers – down to one path that is engineered to produce – engineers.

In a failing economy such as this, ASID should be using all its resources to support and market designers, not to destroy them through legislation. And make no mistake, we completely understand your actions and your intent.

We are ashamed and deeply disappointed by this organization. We can no longer support a Society that deliberately destroys its own membership and endangers the future of design and designers in its unending desire for power and dominance. And because of your exclusive policies, we know there is no hope of changing the trajectory of your actions.

ASID had a slogan: PROTECTING YOUR RIGHT TO PRACTICE. You are, in fact, subverting your own raison d’etre by deliberately trying to destroy our right to practice. And that is unethical, unconscionable and unacceptable.

And so we are resigning.

Jacqueline Bazaar, #1533586, Pennsylvania
Margaret H. Benson, #1504190, Texas
Gayle Beyer, #1519494, Colorado
Loraine Brown, #1250453, Georgia
Christine Colman, #1534167, Washington
Ellen Fernandez, #1239917, Maryland
Diane Foreman, #61436, Oregon
Debbie Gersh, #1485135, Texas
Noreen Dunn Gottfried, #1502827, Pennsylvania
Carol Gumpert, 1550669, California
Karen K. Hartley, #75601, Georgia
Nancy Hartsing, #1559067, Arizona
Henrietta Heisler, #1859365, Pennsylvania
Elizabeth Kauermann, #97269, Pennsylvania
Nancy Phillips Leroy, #1231856, Pennsylvania
Christie Meehan, #1201627, Pennsylvania
Tonya Morrison, 1487732, Pennsylvania
Jayne Rosen, #78935, Pennsylvania
Rebecca Ruediger, #1250458, Missouri
Carly Sax, #1500172, Illinois
Anne-Marie H. Schimenti, #1504255, Florida
June Shea, #1486996, Virginia
Nadia T. Tanita, #1542001, Hawaii
Terri Temple, #18099, Connecticut
Mary Sue B. Wiedmer, #1215131, Pennsylvania

Resigned earlier this year for the above reasons:

Janice Onsa, Pennsylvania, former Allied Member
Diane Plesset, Oregon CMKBD, CID #5818, C.A.P.S., former ASID

cc: Bruce J. Brigham, President
Board of Directors:
Bruce Goff
Charrisse Johnston
Doug Hartsell
Lisa Henry
Mary G. Knopf
Rachelle Schoessler Lynn
Stephanie Clemons
Sybil J.B. Van Dijs
According to a survey by Interior Design Magazine as quoted in the New York Times, January 29, 1987

December 24, 2008 Posted by | California Designers Against Legislation (CADAL), Interior Design Legislation Opposition, Interior Design Protection Council (IDPC), ncidq certification licensing | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment