Patti Morrow/IDPC: Michigan design community — protect your rights!

Michigan design community, wake up and smell the coffee:

 Your right to earn a living is in jeopardy!

A RESTRICTIVE PRACTICE ACT IS BREWING AGAIN!

Once again, the Coalition for Interior Design Registration (CIDR) has re-introduced legislation, SB 974, which would prohibit you from marketing yourself as an “interior designer” and make it illegal for you to practice some aspects of interior design.

This proposed law — essentially the same one we derailed in 2007 — is nearly identical to the practice law in Florida — the most restrictive interior design regulatory scheme in the country.  If you are not familiar with the situation in Florida, you need to be!  We have a whole page dedicated to Florida on our website, due to the absolutely devastating effect it has had on the Florida design community.  In the last five years, over 600 honest, hard working citizens who either practiced some aspect of interior design or marketed themselves as interior designers have been the victims of Florida’s ruthless prosecution, resulting in heavy fines or having to sign affidavits which means that they will forever show up on internet searches as having violated the law.  Businesses have been destroyed and lives have been ruined in Florida because of the practice law. 

And the same thing will happen in Michigan if you do not take action.

Click here to read more:

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs060/1102107213116/archive/1102839863149.html

Pennsylvania “Designing Freedom” Lobby Day

Pennsylvania design community:

IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO PROTECT YOUR OWN PRACTICE!

The Interior Design Legislation Coalition of Pennsylvania (IDLCPA) is once again planning a Lobby Day at the state capitol in Harrisburg on October 5th to try and re-ignite interest in their restrictive, anti-competitive practice act.

But guess what?  SO ARE WE!

IDPC, in conjunction with Liberty for PA Designers and the National Kitchen and Bath Association, and other allied organizations will also be at the capitol on October 5th for:

DESIGNING FREEDOM LOBBY DAY

Click on link below for flyer with time and details:

http://www.idpcinfo.org/PA_Designing_Freedom_Lobby_Day_2009.pdf

It is extremely important that your legislators see that the design community does not want or need to be regulated.  And we cannot do it without YOU 

• Help us stop IDLCPA from hijacking the interior design profession. 
• Help us stop the destruction of our profession — your profession.
• Help us ensure that the design community maintains their First Amendment right to free commercial speech and Constitutional right to occupational freedom.

 With your support, we CAN stop IDLCPA’s monopoly attempt. 

 Best regards,

Patti Morrow

Executive Director, IDPC

Patti Morrow enlists help of another staging association

 

New organization joins pro-freedom crusade

  

Another new organization has officially joined IDPC in our mission to protect the rights and livelihoods of ALL in the interior design community. 

 

The Academy of Staging and Redesign 
 
Barbara Jennings, director of the Academy of Staging and Redesign and the International Staging and Redesign Center is the  author of 13 books for the staging and redesign industry.  They also have a Certification Program for stagers and one for redesigners.

 

WELCOME ACADEMY OF STAGING AND REDESIGN!

Patti Morrow [IDPC] “sets the stage” for truth about interior design regulation

TRUTH vs. MISINFORMATION

Stagers’ Statement, Part II

A few months ago, one of the staging trade associations put out a message regarding stagers and interior design regulation which was fraught with errors – it was evident that the writer really did not understand how stagers could be impacted by such regulation.  Because the gist of their message was to discourage stagers from becoming pro-active in learning about and/or resisting government-imposed regulation which could potentially hurt them, IDPC published a detailed position paper entitled, The Collateral Effect of Interior Design Regulation on Real Estate Stagers, which provided stagers with the basis on which they could take part or at least become educated on this issue.  Directly following the dissemination of our statement, we were flooded with emails from stagers and re-designers, thanking us for bringing this issue to their attention.

Subsequently, in an attempt to defend their position, the staging association in question went to the one source where they will never hear the truth – ASID.  Of course, everyone knows you don’t ask the fox if he’d like to share access to the henhouse.  Unfortunately, stagers who may be misled back into apathy could one day find themselves victims of ruthless prosecution in a state that has enacted licensing, like Florida.  ASID is a biased source with an agenda to impose anti-competitive, unnecessary licensing in every state – they did nothing more than repeat the same old unsubstantiated rhetoric and party line.  In this staging association’s own words, they went to the party “responsible for legislation pertaining to the Interior Design industry.”  Going to ASID for unbiased information on licensing was neither “responsible,” “accurate,” nor “reliable.”

Click on the link below to read the corrected answers to the additional misleading information distributed to stagers:

http://www.idpcinfo.org/Stagers_-_Truth_vs._Misinformation.pdf

Patti Morrow: Info needed to stop Florida interior design witch hunt!

STOP THE FLORIDA INTERIOR DESIGN WITCH HUNT!

IDPC is in the process of investigating some issues that have affected (or soon may affect) the Florida interior design community.   

1. Probable Cause Hearings.  If you were charged with unlicensed activity and attended a probable cause hearing, we want to hear about your experience. If you did not attend the hearing or your case was dismissed, we want to hear about how your case was resolved and whether you had to pay a fine as settlement.
2. Cease and Desist Order/Signed Affidavit.  If you were issued a Cease and Desist Order and signed an Affidavit in order to avoid further prosecution or fines, we want to hear from you about the contents of the affidavit and the amount of the fine or nature of the prosecution you avoided by doing so. 
3. Suspicious Phone Calls.  If you have been receiving phone calls that either (1) ask you if you would be interested in designing some sort of commercial space (hotel lobby, waiting room, dining area, condo common area, etc.), or (2) ask to view your marketing materials (the link to your website, advertisements, articles, etc.), please consider following this procedure:

• Before providing any information whatsoever, ask for the caller’s name.  If the caller refuses or says something like “this is an anonymous phone call,” respond that you are a professional business and do not operate on that basis.  The caller will probably hang up.  Check to see if there is a number on your caller ID.  If so, call the number to see if it is an individual, a business or an organization and then provide both the number and name of the person/business/organization to IDPC.
• If the caller does give you a name, write it down and immediately ask for the caller’s phone number.  Check to see if the name and phone number given matches the info on your caller ID.  If the caller refuses to give you a phone number, or the caller ID says “unknown caller,” our advice is to discontinue the conversation as the caller could very likely be fishing (or baiting) for violations.
• If the caller gives you a name and phone number, and you trust the caller and want to call back, that’s up to you.  However, if you are not a licensed interior designer, we recommend that you employ extreme caution with the information you give. Do not use any of the words that may be considered by the BOAID to be prohibited under Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, for use by persons without licenses, and do not agree to perform (or discuss past performance of) any kind of commercial work, because the board has construed Chapter 481 as allowing only licensed interior designers to engage in commercial projects.

Please contact info@IDPCinfo.org with any information.

DESIGNING FREEDOM by Patti Morrow

DESIGNING FREEDOM by Patti Morrow

While reflecting on an important event that led to our country’s valued liberty - the Boston Tea Party - I was surprised to find many comparisons that could be applied to the current push for interior design regulation.
 
Like Great Britain of old, ASID is large, powerful and militant.  Both chose to serve as the partner to select businesses and groups useful to accomplishing their purposes.  Both dismiss the injustices they create as collateral damage for the ”public good,” while refusing to acknowledge the destruction of lives they leave in their wake.
 
Great Britain’s Tea Act was supposed to solve problems, not inflame them.  But passing the Tea Act granted exclusive marketing privileges and created a monopoly.  It was a violation of freedom, and resulted in the mobilization of large segments of merchants, traders and activists.
 
Interior Design Practice/Title Acts create a similar negative environment.  They have the capacity to put hundreds of thousands of designers out of business or place them at an unfair competitive disadvantage.  Such laws do not serve any public benefit, but instead create a monopoly in which only a small handful of elitist insiders would have control of all the business.  These laws are anti-competitive, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.  
 
They are un-American.

Patti Morrow: Student coercion swept under the [designer] rug

AIP officials sweep interior design coercion under the [designer] rug.

In a letter responding to multiple requests from the Interior Design Protection Council (IDPC) requesting action on an inappropriate assignment, the Art Institute of Pittsburgh (AIP) has indicated that they consider the matter resolved and are not open to further discussion.

At issue is instructor Laura Musulin’s extra credit assignment entitled “IDLCPA Support” in which she offered to award students 20 extra points if they provided proof that they’d lobbied legislators to support Pennsylvania HB 1521, a bill to license interior designers that is currently before the House.  “It is totally unethical for a teacher to use such heavy-handed intimidation to influence impressionable students into supporting their own personal political agenda, in this case to support licensure proposed by the Interior Design Legislative Coalition of Pennsylvania on whose board Musulin sits.” said Patti Morrow, executive director of IDPC, “especially since no alternatives were offered, nor any information provided on the negative implication such legislation could have.” 

Morrow, who first broke the story on June 11th, has made repeated attempts to persuade AIP administration that swift and corrective action to educate students about the improper assignment should be initiated by the school.  Under pressure from Morrow and others, AIP President George Pry finally admitted the “nature of the extra-credit assignment offered is inappropriate,” but according to students, not a word on this issue has been mentioned to them.  “It is of paramount importance that these students be issued an apology and an explanation of exactly why Ms. Musulin’s actions were inappropriate,” added Morrow.

Public reaction has been nothing short of outrage.  “This represents a gross perversion of the education system, the students’ grading process, and general tenets of intellectual freedom,” commented Bill Barrett, executive director of the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design.  “Whether you support or oppose such legislation, no one should be using students’ grades to generate support for a proposed law. Students should be encouraged to investigate the issue from all sides and make up their own minds. In this case, they were not. They were bribed.”

Kelly Spewock, AIP Interior Design Department Chair, initially responded to the complaint, stating, “Students had the opportunity to research and evaluate opposing views.”  However, according to Johnny Matia, a student in Musulin’s class, that assignment was only offered a week after the controversy exploded, and was never formally announced by Musulin, but just quietly posted on the school’s student server a few days before the semester ended.  “At the very least, this certainly gives the appearance of a cover-up,” claimed Morrow.

President Pry contends that the matter has been “sufficiently investigated, addressed and resolved.”  Morrow disagrees.  “Since the students have not been addressed, and until such time as they are made aware of Ms. Musulin’s impropriety, the matter is most definitely not resolved.”

A request has been made for Barrett and Morrow to jointly address AIP students on October 14^th.  To-date, AIP has not responded. 

“We’ve known for a while that student indoctrination was occurring,” added Morrow.  “We are just beginning to see how blatant and widespread it is, and we are considering launching a major nationwide investigation.  This could prove to be the proverbial Pandora’s box of interior design regulation.” 

IDPC Letter to AIP 06-15-09: http://www.idpcinfo.org/IDPC_to_Pry-AIP_061509.pdf

IDPC Letter to AIP 06-17-09: http://www.idpcinfo.org/IDPC_to_Pry-Spewock_061709.pdf

IDPC Letter to AIP 06-19-09: http://www.idpcinfo.org/IDPC_to_Pry-Spewock_061909.pdf 

AIP Unethical Assignment: http://www.idpcinfo.org/AIP_Extra_Credit.pdf

Patti Morrow responds to AIP denial of heavy-handed influence

Thank you, Ms. Spewock, for your response (comment #10 posted with original article below) to the article “Coercion at a CIDA College”, clarifying that the Art Institute of Pittsburgh has not taken a position to support the latest proposed practice act in Pennsylvania and your commitment to informing students how to research so that they will be equipped to make informed decisions about important issues impacting their futures.  On that we agree. 

However, it is clear that Ms. Musulin went far beyond inviting students to research this issue, and clearly did not adhere to your policy that “all extra-credit options are presented with equal consideration.”  Her extra credit assignment (click on this link to read:  http://www.idpcinfo.org/AIP_Extra_Credit.pdf ) only offers the 20 additional points to those students who undertake lobbying in support of legislation.  In fact, the assignment is actually entitled “IDLCPA SUPPORT.” (emphasis added).  Nowhere on this assignment is there an opportunity to “research and evaluate opposing views” and according to the student in question, when Ms. Musulin was approached and asked for that opportunity, it was denied.  It is absolutely unethical to use this kind of intimidation and heavy-handed influence to push her personal political agenda! 

I understand that subsequent to the publishing of our article, the concerned student has received an assignment to receive extra credit points.  Kindly provide the nature of the assignment, and whether or not the rest of the class also received an “equal opportunity” to do this assignment.  If this assignment was given only to the concerned student in a surreptitious manner, it would certainly give the appearance of impropriety – that of bribing his silence, which I’m sure you would not condone.  Unfortunately, under-the-radar techniques are the hallmark of the pro-regulation camp, and as the overseer of vulnerable students, you would obviously want to shield them from such tactics.

In addition, it is one thing for impressionable students to hear the facts about licensing (provided both sides are presented); it is totally another thing for them to be force-fed baseless propaganda.  The introductory section on the assignment in question contains the following inappropriate and blatantly false statements:

• The bill now has a number and needs to move quickly through the House.  It is inappropriate to imply to students that a fair legislative procedure involves “shoving” a bill through the process.  Declaring it has to “move quickly” implies a deceptive practice whereby the other side will not have equal access to a fair hearing or due process.  Is that how we want our students to be first introduced to the legislature?  I think not.
•  Only a registered design professional” may implement the IBC code.  This statement is absolutely false.  Again, students should hear the facts, not counterfeit propaganda.  Since Ms. Musulin is a board member of IDLCPA, she should certainly be aware that IDPC has written extensively on this issue, providing the actual language of the IBC, which contradicts Ms. Musulin’s and IDLCPA’s statements.  If Ms. Musulin wishes to cling to false information, that is her right, but allowing misinformation to be presented as fact certainly does not “present students with a clear understanding of the issue” in compliance with AIP’s mission. Click here for accurate information about the IBC: http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs060/1102107213116/archive/1102303468639.html

Diametrically opposed to your statement of AIP’s position, Ms. Musulin DOES “wish to influence its students toward a particular “side” of the issue.” Manipulating her students and using them as pawns to accomplish her political objective is shameful and the national design community is outraged.   This information was sent out to approximately 30,000 designers throughout the country, which after the pass-through might well have exceeded 100,000 designers.  I’ve already received numerous emails from across the country about this situation and the AIP.  This is a serious matter, Ms. Spewock, that needs to be addressed head-on, and not with glossy platitudes about freedom of thought which don’t comport to the facts.  Ms. Musulin should be held accountable for her actions.

We appreciate your commitment to provide an excellent and fair learning environment at AIP and look forward to hearing that (1) this important issue has been resolved, and (2) it will not recur in the future. 

If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me.  I would welcome the opportunity to have a dialogue on this issue.

Patti Morrow

Executive Director, IDPC

Patti Morrow: “Students should NOT be “forced” to support licensing!”

Coercion at a CIDA College

A recent development at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh (AIP), a CIDA-accredited institution, has opened a new crack in the ever-eroding façade of interior design regulation.

Lauren Musulin, an interior design instructor at AIP, recently gave her Revit (AutoDesk) class an extra credit assignment that could potentially count for as much as 20% of their final grade.  That assignment: lobby your legislator in support of passage of the licensing bill. (Read assignment here: http://www.idpcinfo.org/AIP_Extra_Credit.pdf) Musulin sits on the board of IDLCPA (Interior Design Legislation Coalition of Pennsylvania), the group behind repeated attempts to enact practice regulation in Pennsylvania.  When approached by a student who had researched the licensing issue and concluded that licensing is detrimental to the profession, Ms. Musulin responded that no extra credit would be given for any other point of view.

Sadly, intimidating impressionable students to march in lock-step with the instructor’s political, pro-regulation agenda is all too common, not to mention unethical.  In the 30-year push for licensing spearheaded by the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID), in conjunction with the National Council for Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ) and the Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) – commonly called “the Cartel” – students across the country have been indoctrinated to believe that licensing will benefit them. 

Upon graduation, however, many students are finding exactly the opposite to be true.  The criteria that they must serve a 2 to 4 year internship (a.k.a. “indentured servitude”) under another NCIDQ certified designer before they can even sit for the certification exam, has effectively kept the number of new “certified” interior designers low.  In a difficult economy, few designers are financially able to hire even a lowly-paid graduate.  And even in a thriving economy, many practicing designers are simply unwilling to train their would-be competitors.  So after spending sometimes upwards of $100,000 on their education, students in states that have enacted practice laws, are proclaiming that they’ve been thrown under the proverbial bus, and that they are unable to practice in their chosen profession.

Any institution worth the paper they print their diplomas on should allow their students unfettered access to information critical to their future, in this case, whether or not they will support or oppose the restrictive, single-entry method into the field. Institutions would be well-advised to dismiss the paternalistic assumption that students will not be able to weigh the evidence and the credibility of the various messengers and come to their own conclusions.  With such censoring, how can a student make an intelligent, informed decision without having equal access to all the facts?  Yet, groups like the Interior Design Protection Council (IDPC), a nonprofit organization holding the view that regulation is unnecessary and anti-competitive, are rarely invited or allowed to address interior design students.  “Students should NOT be coerced into supporting legislation or a political agenda that is ultimately not in their best interest,” said Patti Morrow, executive director of IDPC.

Johnny Matia, an AIP student, brought Musulin’s extra credit assignment to the attention of Kelly Spewock, the Interior Design Department Director who told him she would look into the issue and provide parity, and also agreed that IDPC would be invited to speak at their town hall meeting next semester.  Matia has vowed to open a student chapter of IDPC at AIP.  “If they have ASID, they should also have IDPC,” said Matia.  “Students need to hear both sides.”

Perhaps this is the beginning of a whole new era allowing students access to a fair and open exchange of information about the free market system this country was founded upon. 

Or perhaps it’s just wishful thinking.

Do interior design licensing laws impact real estate/home stagers?

The Collateral Effect of Interior Design Regulation on Real Estate Stagers

Patti Morrow, IDPC, June 1, 2009

Recently, we became aware of positions and statements originating from the staging profession purporting that regulation of interior designers does not affect real estate/home stagers and they should not become pro-active in protecting their freedoms.

This is not only far from true, but is a dangerous position that could potentially place real estate stagers at great risk.  Practice laws in states like Florida and Alabama have been a detriment to real estate stagers, and if similar practice acts are allowed to be enacted, stagers will continue be impacted.  Sadly, the advice which has been given to stagers recommending that they do not look into this issue lacks a clear understanding of the nuances of regulation, and it appears that the objective lies in self-promotion rather than member protection, and serves only to encourage stagers to withdraw back into complacency instead of continuing to actively engage in this important issue that has and will continue to impact staging professionals if left unchecked.

Click on this link to read entire paper (downloadable and printable):  http://www.idpcinfo.org/IDPC_Stager_Statement_060109.pdf