Unlicensed designers ARE insurable..even in Florida!

Another nail in the Florida Cartel’s coffin!

As you know, one of the FL cartel’s many scare tactics has been their assertion that only licensed designers are insurable.  Well, this too has been disproved – see letter from Suncoast Insurance.

Other FL cartel myths that have been disproved:

• Interior design licensure protects the public.   Disproved here and here.
• Only architects will be able to practice commercial design.  Disproved here and here.
• Deregulation will cause the current licensed designers to lose work.  Truth — only if their work is inferior (here).
• The current law in Florida is a voluntary licensing program – no one is forced to become licensed. Disproved here.
• Regulation creates jobs (no — it restricts competition; deregulation opens new job opportunities).
• 26 states believe the safety their residents requires that interior designers be regulated.  Disproved by Institute for Justice here.
• Regulation offers consumers more choices (wrong… the Federal Trade Commission concluded that regulation raises consumer costs and provides fewer choices.
• Colleges will close if deregulation occurs (47 other states with some of the finest interior design colleges in the country haven’t closed — in fact, enrollment has been up in recent years)
• Students degrees will be worthless (students attend college for an education, not for licensure; among other benefits, their degree provides them with a leg-up on competition right from the start)
• Students will not be able to pay off their school loans (right now, they can only work for the 2,500 licensed interior designers; if deregulated, they will be able to work for many thousands of other designers or start their own business. The result is more opportunities for employment/entrepreneurship will facilitate paying off school loans faster).

As long as ASID/IDAF continue to make their blatantly false statements, IDPC will be right there to hammer out the TRUTH!

Please support our crusade to pound out anti-competitive interior design regulations!

AIA [finally] Weighs in on Florida Interior Design DEregulation

AIA Letter to Florida Senators

On Thursday, April 14th, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) hand-delivered a letter to all members of the Florida Senate outlining their position on deregulation of Florida’s interior design law.

In his letter, CEO Robert Ivy asserts that the statements being made by ASID/IDAF which expressly state that if deregulated, only architects will be able to practice commercial interior design, are not true, and that passage of the deregulation bill will result in “little to no impact” on how Florida architects conduct business.

Mr. Ivy also affirms to the legislature, “We applaud you for the proposed elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy.” 

IDPC has publicly and in numerous private lobbying sessions with key members of the House and Senate, corrected the false statements made by ASID/IDAF by providing factual, statistical and empirical evidence that deregulation (1) will create more job opportunities, and (2) will still allow licensed interior designers the ability to submit plans that do not impact lifesafety, as they do today.

We agree with and congratulate AIA on their public position on interior design deregulation.

IDAF shoots itself in the foot… again

They never miss an opportunity…..

The Cartel’s assertion that if deregulated, only architects will be able to submit plans for permitting has been thoroughly debunked by IDPC. 

FACT:  The Florida Building Code does not require that designers be licensed in order to submit drawings.  Deregulation will make it possible so that all interior designers may, if required by a permitting body, submit plans for the issuance of a building permit for interior construction excluding design of any structural, mechanical, plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, ventilating, electrical, or vertical transportation systems or that materially affect lifesafety systems pertaining to firesafety protection such as fire-rated separations between interior spaces, fire-rated vertical shafts in multistory structures, fire-rated protection of structural elements, smoke evacuation and compartmentalization, emergency ingress or egress systems, and emergency alarm systems.

The Florida Building Code Guidebook[6] completely defers to local building authority as to whether or not construction documents must be prepared by an architect or an engineer or may be prepared by anyone else including a registered or any other interior designer.  This is exactly the procedure in 47 non-regulated states, without issue.

        Read full rebuttal here:

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

Well, well, well, it appears that even Janice Young, president of IDAF admits [albeit unwittingly] that IDPC is right in her April 7, 2011 update letter to IDAF supporters:

“Local building departments can also ask for additional information and documents since it is up to them (local and last prevails) to determine that what is in the document is correct, adheres to issues of life safety, and accessibility and will produce a safe interior environment that will be appropriate for their community and citizens. They get the last word OVER the statutes and the code as long as they ask for MORE not less than the Codes dictate.” (emphasis added)

Thank you, Janice.  This is exactly what we have been saying, and is the procedure by which 47 states practice commercial interior design very nicely without governmental interference.

Why should Florida be any different?  We can’t think of a single, legitimate reason.

Patti Morrow, IDPC Director

FL amendment to remove interior designers DIES!

Amendment DIES!

The amendment filed by Rep. Saunders which would have removed interior design from the list of occupations to be deregulated failed to pass the House floor this afternoon.

Read details in Orlando Sentinel here. 

We are one step closer to getting rid of Florida’s job-killing interior design law!  Next stop, the House will vote on passage of the entire deregulation bill.  

IDPC is working hard to restore YOUR right to earn a living!  Please support our work!  Donations can be made here.

Patti Morrow, Director IDPC

FL dereg: Who can practice, and Tea Party joins in

Exactly WHO would be able to practice commercial interior design if deregulated?  The answer is in this Press Release sent to all members of the House, designers, students, and the media. 

http://www.idpcinfo.org/Students-Architects-Commercial_Design.doc

The Florida Tea Party joins IDPC’s crusade to open commercial design, create more jobs, and stimulate Florida’s economy!

http://mim.io/87bdf

 

10 Organizations Join IDPC Brief to Take Down Unconstitutional Interior Design Law

Freedom Movement Allies Unite to Restore Design Freedom in Florida

The Interior Design Protection Council (IDPC) was joined by ten other interior-design and allied organizations in filing their Amicus (“Friend of the Court”) Brief in the 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the appeal filed by the Institute for Justice last month. 

These like-minded organizations include:

1. Alabama Decorators, Artists, and Designers
2. Association of Design Education
3. Association of Interior Design Professionals
4. Decorating Den Systems
5. Designer Society of America
6. Foodservice Equipment Distributors Association
7. Interior Design Society
8. Interior Redesign Industry Specialists
9. North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers
10. Real Estate Staging Association

Among other things, these organizations agree with the fundamental principle that interior design regulations have nothing to do with protecting the public and everything to do with protecting industry insiders from fair competition. 

“Patti Morrow and IDPC share our views on legislation of the interior design profession,” said Adrian Small, president-elect of the Association of Interior Design Professionals.  “AIDP is committed to actively oppose any existing or proposed legislation that seeks to regulate the ability of interior designers to practice their trade. There is a time when we must join forces with our peers to insure that the voice of the majority of the interior design community is heard.”  Continued Small, “This is that time.”

Natasha Lima-Younts, founder and president of the Designer Society of America, was one of over 600 members of the Florida design community victimized by the Board of Architects and Interior Designers’ ruthless witch hunt.  “We are thrilled to support IDPC in this brief and in funding their important work,” declared Younts.  “Yes, interior design involves creativity and critical thinking, but limiting who can offer interior design services to only a small, self-anointed handful provides no additional public protection, but instead results in fewer choices and higher prices for consumers.”

The Interior Design Protection Council is the only national nonprofit organization exclusively formed to protect the rights and livelihoods of the interior design community.  Founder and director Patti Morrow has been instrumental in beating back over 100 efforts to expand or enact new interior design regulations.  “What is so insidious about a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme is that it not only negatively impacts interior designers, per se,” said Morrow, “but many other allied and ancillary industries as well.”  Morrow claims that in Florida – Ground Zero in the fight for design freedom – people in more than 20 occupations were disciplined for violating the restrictive, anti-competitive interior design law, including office furniture dealers, restaurant equipment suppliers, workrooms, stagers, various retailers, kitchen designers, remodelers, real estate developers, art and antiques dealers, yacht design, and even a florist.  “It’s time for the sun to set on the Florida interior design cartel!” avowed Morrow.

Also joining the fray are the National Kitchen and Bath Association and the Office Furniture Distributors Association, which each filed their own Amicus Brief. 

Click here to read the Amicus Brief of the Interior Design Protection Council et al: http://www.idpcinfo.org/Amicus_Brief_of_Interior_Design_Protection_Council_.pdf

Patti Morrow, Executive Director IDPC

IDPC files brief in Florida unconstitutional interior design lawsuit

 

Institute for Justice/Interior Design Protection Council Join Forces to Take Down Interior Design Cartel

 The Interior Design Protection Council (IDPC), joined by ten other interior-design and allied organizations, has filed an Amicus (“Friend of the Court”) Brief in the 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the appeal filed by the Institute for Justice last month.  At issue is a Florida law that requires a government-issued license to perform commercial interior design work.  Given that there has never been a documented instance of harm from interior design in the 47 states that do not regulate the practice of interior design, it is quite clear that licensing interior designers has nothing to do with protecting the public and everything to do with protecting industry insiders from fair competition. 

On February 4th, Federal District Judge Robert L. Hinkle declared unconstitutional the portion of the Florida law that prohibited people without a license from referring to themselves as interior designers, as well as sharply narrowed provisions of the law restricting the practice of interior decorating in commercial buildings by unlicensed persons. “This ruling is an important first step to getting Florida’s unconstitutional interior design laws struck down entirely,” said Clark Neily, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that litigates nationwide on behalf of entrepreneurs facing anti-competitive state licensing laws like Florida’s interior design practice act.

IDPC is a nonprofit organization whose sole mission is to protect the rights and livelihoods of interior designers and related occupations, by educating, organizing, and mobilizing grassroots opposition.  Its brief argues that the court’s decision failed to understand that interior design is really a fundamentally expressive activity, compounded that error by ignoring the severe burdens that Florida’s statute imposes, and disregarded conclusive evidence that interior design licensing serves no countervailing public interest.

“Interior design is a dynamic profession that celebrates innovation, creativity and diversity, and consumers directly benefit from the multiple pathways into the field,” said Patti Morrow, founder and director of IDPC.  “Florida’s one-size-fits-all occupational licensing scheme could not be more contrary to those values, and that’s why ten major organizations have signed on to support our brief.”  IDPC is spearheading the movement to resist the efforts of a small, elitist faction of interior designers that is attempting to cartelize the industry through arbitrary and unreasonable occupational licensing laws.  In doing so, IDPC has helped beat back over 100 different attempts to impose or expand restrictions on interior designers around the country in the past four years. 

The court of appeals is expected to hear oral arguments in the Florida interior design appeal (Locke v. Shore, No. 10-11052-EE), in 2010 or early 2011.

“The district court’s ruling that Florida’s statute is ‘not subject to First Amendment scrutiny’ because ‘there is a ‘personal nexus’ between the interior designer and the client’ represents a dramatic and unwarranted expansion of the professional speech doctrine,” wrote attorney Robert Kry of Molo Lamken, L.L.P., Washington, DC, author of IDPC’s Amicus Brief.  Kry is among the country’s foremost authorities on the so-called “professional speech” doctrine, which effectively eliminates First Amendment protection for certain kinds of vocation-related speech.  As Kry explains in the IDPC brief, “Where the First Amendment is at stake, proponents of licensure must do more than concoct overwrought hypotheticals about exploding fabric finishes and furniture-placement deathtraps for the disabled. Yet for all their years of trying, that is all those proponents have been able to muster.”

  “Arguing that the State’s power to license doctors or lawyers implies a power to license interior designers is like arguing that the State’s power to license motor vehicle operators implies a power to license the press,” continued Kry.  “It makes no sense.” 

Click here to read the Amicus Brief of the Interior Design Protection Council et al:  http://www.idpcinfo.org/Amicus_Brief_of_Interior_Design_Protection_Council_.pdf 

Patti Morrow Exec Dir

Patti Morrow-IDPC: “Florida interior designer names to be expunged!”

“Interior Designer” names to be expunged! 

As you know, over the last several years hundreds of interior designers’ constitutional rights were violated by Florida’s ruthlessly prosecuted interior design law for alleged title violations which prohibited interior designers from truthfully using a title which accurately described the services they were legally performing. 

Hundreds of interior designers were disciplined and prosecuted, received Cease & Desist letters and/or fines, and their names were put on the Smith Thompson website where Google and other Internet search engines had a field day, resulting in lost business and damaged reputations.  

On February 4, 2010, Judge Robert Hinkle declared that the Florida restrictions on the title “interior designer” and other, unspecified “words to that effect” are unconstitutional and enjoined any enforcement of that provision. 

Subsequent to the judge’s decision, IDPC sent a letter to the DBPR requesting that they take prompt, corrective action in instructing the Board and the Smith Thompson law firm to remove the alleged title violation names from their website. 

Click here to read IDPC letter to DBPR: http://www.idpcinfo.org/DBPR-Liem_040210.pdf 

On April 15th, IDPC learned that the Board has agreed to REMOVE these names and has instructed Board prosecutor David Minacci of the Smith Thompson law firm to begin the process. 

 A HEARTY CONGRATULATIONS  FLORIDA INTERIOR DESIGNERS!  

 

AND ANOTHER NAIL IN THE IDAF’S COFFIN!  

However, we have not been supplied with a date for completion, and even though Mr. Minacci should have precious little to do for the Board now that he can’t prosecute people for using the title “interior designer” or for providing commercial decorating work (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/31809022/SPIN-CYCLE-Floridas-Interior-Design-Licensing-Cartel-Gets-Hung-Out-to-Dry), we have no reason to believe that he will grant this matter the urgency it deserves. 

HERE’S WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP:  

1.  Send an email to Tony Spivey, the Executive Director of the Board of Architecture and Interior Design at Tony.Spivey@dbpr.state.fl.us and request that the names of alleged title violators be removed immediately! Their constitutional rights were violated — this is a very serious matter that deserves PROMPT action!  

• If you were the recipient of a Cease and Desist, state that up front in your email. 
• Even if you were not disciplined at all, as an outraged citizen and member of the Florida interior design community, you have a right to have your voice heard about a serious matter that impacts your profession and your state.

2.  Copy pmorrow@IDPCinfo.org on the email!  We want to keep track and a paper trail for all emails sent to the Board.  It would be nice if they were honest and up-front about your requests, but frankly, that’s not their M.O.  If they do nothing, IDPC will send a follow-up request on your behalf to the DBPR which will include copies of all your requests to Mr. Spivey.

3.  Forward this email to your colleagues – ESPECIALLY anyone you know who was disciplined for an alleged title violation.

4.  Please support  IDPC’s ongoing efforts to protect the Florida design community’s rights and livelihoods by becoming a member or by making a donation of your choice.  We are a team, and you support enables us to continue to fight on your behalf. Click here for new payment options: http://www.idpcinfo.org/Membership.html.

“The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.”    ~Albert Einstein
 

Best regards, 

Patti Morrow

Patti Morrow-IDPC: Lie Detector – IDAF’s Big Box Misinformation

Lie Detector

Issue #1 – IDAF’s False Information on Big Box Complaints 

This issue begins our Lie Detector series, where we will expose the cartel’s deliberate attempts to mislead the design community, students, legislators and the public; we will provide truthful and factual documentation as to why their claims are false. 

Background 

Historically, the Interior Design Associations Foundation of Florida (IDAF) has disseminated false information; IDPC has consistently invalidated their assertions: 

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/30559513/IDPC-Rebuts-IDAF-False-Statements  http://www.docstoc.com/docs/30560070/IDAF-Website-Inaccuracies 

As a direct result of our bringing IDAF’s egregiously false and inflammatory website material to the attention of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulations, the IDAF link was removed from the DBPR website Board of Architecture and Interior Design page and no longer recognized as a legitimate resource.  (http://www.idpcinfo.org/DBPR_IDAF_Link_Removal.pdf) 

Unfortunately, public rebuke has produce neither remorse nor retraction from IDAF, and the flow of misinformation continues, so over the next few weeks, IDPC will, one by one, strike down their falsities and provide the design community with well-supported information. 

1.  Big Box Complaint Source 

Clark Neily, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, filed the Locke vs. Shore lawsuit in Florida on behalf of the plaintiffs.  He absolutely, indisputably did NOT file a complaint against Staples, OfficeMax or Office Depot.  In his deposition of David Minacci, prosecutor for the Board of Architecture and Interior Design, he asked him whether it was a “violation” for Staples to offer space planning services on its website without a certificate of authority.  Minacci confirmed that, yes, that is a violation of §481 Fla. Statute.  Neily then followed up with a written Interrogatory showing that OfficeMax and Office Depot were doing the same thing[1]  and asked (1) what actions, if any, the Board had taken with respect to those apparent violations and (2) if not steps had been taken to investigate those apparent violations, why not.  Neily’s inquires merely pointed out the hypocrisy that the Board was not going after large corporations in the same aggressive manner that they were prosecuting small business entrepreneurs.  This is just another example of the disingenuous, deliberate spread of misinformation that has been standard operating procedure on this issue. 

See link below to read Interrogatory (No. 22); you can also find the Minacci deposition on the IJ website.[2]  Again, as you will clearly see, all Mr. Neily did was point out that Staples, OfficeMax, and Office Depot are all providing exactly the same kinds of services (including particularly “space planning”) that mom-and-pop office furniture dealers all over the state have been prosecuted for doing.  

It’s pure foolishness to consider it to be a crime for Staples to do business in Florida – in exactly the same way as they do in 47 states – and neither Mr. Neily nor IDPC have any complaints about how they do business.  But it is certainly inappropriate for the Board to only pick on folks that can’t fight back, which seems to have been its M.O. until Neily called them out.  

Again, no complaint was ever filed by Clark Neily.  Period. 

2.  Majority Complaint Origination 

The IDPC has obtained a list of all the Board’s investigatory files, and I can tell you that IDAF’s assertion that “most complaints filed against interior designers ” come from building officials, consumers, or clients – is 100% FALSE.  

As the current president of IDAF, Janice Young is responsible for insuring that their website contains truthful information; we hereby publically request that Ms. Young: 

1.  Provide documentation of a formal request to investigate Staples et al originating from Clark Neily or remove that blatantly false information from the IDAF website. 

2.  List the factual basis she has for asserting where the filed complaints originated, including links to the information so that we can confirm what she’s saying is actually true – or remove the blatantly false information from the IDAF website and stop misleading the public.   

Patti Morrow Executive Director

For frequent updates, be sure to check: 

Florida page (http://www.idpcinfo.org/Florida.html) on IDPC website

The Home page (http://www.idpcinfo.org/index.html) on IDPC website

The IDPC blog (http://idpcinfo.wordpress.com/)

---

[1] Interrogatory No. 22 http://ij.org/images/pdf_folder/economic_liberty/fl_interior_design/additional_docs/exhibit-5.pdf 

[2] Minacci deposition http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/economic_liberty/fl_interior_design/additional_docs/deposition-david_minacci.pdf

Click here to download a printable copy of this article: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/33112261/IDAF-Big-Box-Misinformation

Bldg. codes NOT a hindrance for FL interior designers

“Applicable building codes” are NOT a hindrance to performing commercial interior decorating services in Florida

April 2, 2010

As you know, on February 4, 2010 Judge Robert Hinkle declared Florida’s title act unconstitutional and created significant new opportunities for nonlicensees to work in commercial settings. 

Shortly after the decision came down, Janice Young, ASID, former president of IDAF, and leading advocate in the (largely unsuccessful) effort to preserve Florida’s anti-competitive and unconstitutional interior design law, began scrambling to limit the ruling by insisting that commercial “decorating” work is still regulated under applicable building codes (§481.203.15, Fla. Stat.) and therefore off-limits to nonlicensees.

“I have read the piece (again and again) and while the Judge says interior decoration can be done without a license in non-residential setting (page 9), the statutes have always qualifies [sic] the items relating to interior decoration as those ‘not subject to regulation under applicable codes.’” (emphasis added)  (February 10, 2010 email from Janice Young to BOAID General Counsel Mary Ellen Clark)

Unfortunately for Ms. Young and the rest of the cartel, it doesn’t look like anybody’s biting. In her 2/8/10 email, Ms. Young asked BOAID prosecutor David Minacci for his opinion.  His reply:

“I think Judge Hinkle’s decisions allow those services defined as “interior decorating” in a commercial setting.  Bottom line, the practice act was saved, but really had the legs taken out from underneath it.”

Documents obtained by IDPC show that Ms. Young met with Jim Schrock, who serves on the Florida Building Commission.  Mr. Schrock further undermined Ms. Young’s attempts to avoid the plain fact that the February 4 court decision opened up substantial opportunities for nonlicensees to perform commercial interior design work in Florida.  Summarizing her conversation with Mr. Schrock about the Florida and Jacksonville building codes in an email to Bragg, et al dated February 18, 2010, Ms. Young notes:

Thus, it appears that the city of Jacksonville does not require a permit for commercial “decorating” and does not require a permit for interior design unless it involves “construction.” 

Ms. Young has been pushing for an interpretation of the court decision that allows nonlicensees to provide “interior decorator services” in commercial settings, but only when those services relate to items that are “not subject to regulation under applicable building codes.”  (See §481.203(15), Fla. Stat.).  As her exchange with Mr. Schrock indicates, even that crabbed reading of the court decision (which is mistaken for reasons I have explained elsewhere) opens up substantial opportunities for nonlicensees to perform design work in commercial settings because Florida’s definition of “interior decorator services” is quite broad, encompassing “surface materials, window treatments, wallcoverings, paint, floor coverings, surface-mounted lighting, surface-mounted fixtures, and loose furnishings”—all of which Mr. Schrock indicates will rarely be covered by an “applicable building code” and are thus fair game for nonlicensees, even in commercial settings. .

Click here to read Ms. Young’s entire email account of her meeting with Mr. Schrock:  http://www.idpcinfo.org/Young_-_Permit_Requirements.pdf

Patti Morrow, Executive Director