IF SB 1312 passes . . .

[My blog is now getting the attention of many people who have alot of experience and understanding in legislative matters. One such person wrote to me and wishes to stay anonymous.  The following is in answer to Bruce Goff's comment about NCIDQ/Int. Des. Experience Program where he said, ..."wrong again. the language only requires experience. ok ladies and gentlemen lets all get off the Q site and go back just to the bill. Q does not get to say what we do. end of story."]

Anonymous wrote:

“Tell that to those poor souls who have to deal with the letter of the law if this bill passes. What Mr. Goff doesn’t understand is that after a bill is chaptered into law it gets interpreted exactly as it is written, not how Mr. Goff “feels” it should after the fact. “Oh, that’s not what we intended, sorry!”

Section 5732 of SB 1312 says “The committee “may” issue a certificate of registration to a person who meets “both” of the following requirements”.

It doesn’t say “shall” which is more definitive, and it does say “both.

“1. May lawfully represent himself or herself as a “certified interior designer” pursuant to Section 5812″.

“2. Submits an application to the board before January 1, 2011″.

What he doesn’t realize is that will be only 2 years from the date of this bill becoming actual law [January 1, 2009] and that the state won’t even have an application form by that date. The board will have to go through all kinds of administrative and public hearings with stakeholders in order to determine fees, requirements, rules and regulations, etc.

“2b. The committee “may” issue a certificate of registration to a person who submits an application to the committee of one of the following:

1. Ten years of experience in interior design.

2. Eight years of experience in interior design and two years of education in interior design that is acceptable to the committee.

2c. A person registered pursuant to this section who has “not” passed the examination described in subdivision (e) of Section 5730  (NCIDQ) within the first two renewal periods shall, as a condition of renewal of his or her certificate of registration, show proof acceptable to the committee of both of the following:

(1) Passage of Section 1 of the examination described in subdivision (e) of Section 5730 (NCIDQ).

(2) Completion of 15 hours of committee approved continuing education coursework (etc.)

5733. Before being issued a certificate of registration you have to at your own personal expense travel all the way to Sacramento and appear before “the committee” and swear an oath.   —– Even doctors don’t do that anymore!!!

Basically this bill subjugates all those who wish to become, or have to become, an RID to the NCIDQ process one way or another. This bill does NOT subjugate the NCIDQ to state law or state will. No matter what Bruce Goff says to the contrary he, and the state of California have no control over the NCIDQ and they will do what they want, not what this “committee” or California wants. It will not matter one bit if California has a seat on NCIDQ’s delegates council because California will have only one vote .  THIS IS A LOSE LOSE LOSE proposition for California.

Sample letter OPPOSING SB 1312

THANKS to Patti Morrow of IDPC for this great letter opposing SB 1312. (Edited to suit blog)
FAX YOUR LETTERS BY MAY 28

THE SENATE WILL BE VOTING ON THIS BILL ON THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008.
THE HEARING STARTS AT 9:00 A.M. WHICH YOU CAN WATCH ON THE CALIFORNIA CHANNEL!!!!!
Download list of Senators here.

—————————————————————————————-

Re: OBJECTION to SB 1312 – Regulation of Interior Designers

Dear Senator ________,

I am writing to you to express my strong objection to SB 1312. This legislation does not meet the criteria of protecting the public health.

• SB 1312 is UNNECESSARY. The only reason to regulate an entire profession is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. There has been no evidence presented anywhere that the unregulated practice of interior design places the public in any jeopardy. In Item #14 of the CA Sunrise Report, the proponents were requested to “cite cases of or instances of consumer injury.” Not even one example was listed. Further, in Item #15 the proponents were asked how the proposed regulation would preclude consumer injury, and they replied, “There is no method to preclude injury from regulated professions.” In Item #36, in answer to the question “To what extent is public harm caused by personal factors such as dishonesty?” again, not one example was offered. Therefore, there is no reason, either evidentially or proactively, to regulate interior design.

• SB 1312 is UNTRUTHFUL, The claim by IDCC/ASID that they need this law because of their inability to get drawings approved with the new IBC is simply false. CA does not use the IBC; they use the CBC, and there has been no evidence that plans which adhere to the proper criteria have been rejected. The truth is, over 30,000 of 40,000 permits issued by LADBS each year do not require design by a licensed engineer or architect.

• SB 1312 is UNATTAINABLE. SB 1312 would be detrimental to students. The bill requires that they work under an NCIDQ-certified designer for 2 to 4 years before qualifying for the exam, but since there are not nearly enough NCIDQ-certified designers to hire the number of graduating students each year, the overwhelming majority of CA students would be excluded from providing any of the services listed under the scope of “registered interior design” and ultimately be forced to move to another state to practice their chosen profession.

• SB 1312 is UNWARRANTED. Consumers are already adequately protected by codes and inspections, which must be adhered to whether a designer is licensed or not. The Federal Trade Commission concluded that regulation of interior design would result in higher cost and fewer consumer choices.

• SB 1312 is UNECONOMICAL. This bill is not fiscally-neutral, but would have a negative impact on the California economy as it is a restrictive, anti-competitive and anti-consumer bill. Taxpayer funding of over $1.6 million would be necessary to implement and enforce SB 1312. That’s a lot of money for a program that is totally unnecessary.

• SB 1312 is UNFAIR. With the downturn in the housing market and the slowing economy, providing a state-sanctioned regulatory monopoly advantage for a small handful of designers would literally result in thousands of others being put out of business, thus taking their incomes right out of the economy and their tax dollars right out of the state treasury.

• SB 1312 is UNWELCOMED. The push to regulate interior design has come about not through public demand or legislative determinations, but mainly through the efforts of ASID and NCIDQ [founded by ASID in 1974]. Every other organization that is in any way involved in or with interior design opposes such legislation. See attached list of organizations.

• SB 1312 is UNGOVERNABLE. No matter what the state board sets as requirements, they have no control over what NCIDQ determines as its own qualifications to sit for the exam, creating a situation of de facto legislation, whereby an outside party is able to change a law without knowledge or consent of the legislature. ASID/NCIDQ may, for the sake of getting a foot in the door, set the requirements low, but please note that the proponents’ goal for criteria is “minimum of a bachelor’s degree to be eligible for accreditation beginning 1/1/2010.” (From Practice to Profession, ASID, page 27.)

• SB 1312 is UNSUPPORTED. Last year, 24 interior design bills were rejected by the legislature or governors. So far this year, every state that has considered interior design regulation has declined to enact. In his 2007 veto message, Governor Daniels of Indiana said that the “principal effect” of legislation would be to “restrain competition and limit new entrants into the occupation.”

California already has a very successful and voluntary Certified Interior Program in place which is serving the consumer well and is not taxpayer funded. Enacting SB 1312 would be a lose-lose-lose-lose proposition for designers, students, consumers, and the California economy.

I respectfully urge you to join legislators in other states who have considered and rejected anti-competitive, unnecessary regulation.

Very sincerely,