Interior Design Protection Consulting

January 17, 2012

Meet the “new” IDPC!

The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.” ~Mark Twain

The Council may be closed, but I am still alive and kicking.

Let me introduce you to my new enterprise:  Interior Design Protection Consulting.

In this new capacity, I will be working exclusively with groups – not individual designers – to protect design freedom.

These changes were necessary and are more of a restructuring than an ending.  The old model of trying to solicit individual memberships to fund the corporation along with all the administration of a nonprofit were too burdensome for one person and taking much too much time away from what I do best – fighting anti-competitive regulations.

I am reenergized and enthusiastic about continuing to fight for design freedom!

You can – and need to – continue to take part in the process to protect your right to earn an honest living.  You can still have access to information and assistance in keeping your state regulation-free.

If you were previously a member of IDPC and have a group that would like to work with me, please contact me at pmorrow.IDPC@gmail.com for more information.

 

August 25, 2010

Absurd ASID link to safety in bedroom design

Another ridiculous ASID post…

In their August 20th Eye on Design newsletter, ASID gives us yet another example of their desperation to grasp at anything to try to justify their health, safety and welfare argument.  Or I should say, non-argument.

In their latest ludicrous effort, ASID advocates and links to an article which they renamed “Personal safety key to bedroom design” http://www.researchdesignconnections.com/content/evolutionary-bedroom-design-08-13-10

This article enlightens us that “it is desirable for people to feel comfortable” in their sleeping spaces.”  Wow.  Radical.

It also informs us of conclusions we could certainly never have reached via common sense without ASID’s assistance, such as people preferred their bed positioned in such a way that “allowed them to see the door.”  Very cutting edge and “evolutionary.”

But my favorite phrase was where the researchers started by saying they “found that when a window was included on the floor plan. . .”  Here’s a newsflash: windows in bedrooms are not optional; a “legal” bedroom must have not only a window, but a certain sized window, by code, to allow for egress and fire safety. 

Amazingly, even a non-NCIDQ designer knows that.

ASID invites designers to their “planet”

PLEASE [LET US] CONTROL YOUR WORLD!

Well, we’ve been saying it all along, “ASID, what planet are you on?”  Their use of member dues to push their elitist licensing scheme is out of touch with the position of the majority of interior designers.  And not just across the country, but even within their own organization where the majority of their paying, practicing members – the so-called “Allied” (“un-professional”) members don’t even meet the arbitrary qualifications they wish to impose on the entire design community! 

Now, in a truly desperate attempt to stop the hemorrhaging of designers who are flowing away from ASID:

1.  Because of the economy (their dues/legislation assessment of nearly $450 per year are among the highest of any design association), and/or

2.  Because they vehemently object to having their own dues used to fund legislation what will harm them,

ASID has sent a mass-distribution flyer to designers inviting them to:

CONTROL YOUR WORLD. 

JOIN OURS. 

JOIN ASID.

But what the flyer should have said is:

LET US CONTROL YOUR WORLD. 

JOIN OUR PLANET. 

JOIN ASID AND FUND YOUR OWN DEMISE.

So who will inhabit their planet?  Not the so-called “decorators” (any interior designer who is not NCIDQ-certified)!  Goodness, no, it’s a planet where only Wannabe Architects are welcomed and respected.

Are you one?  If not, perhaps Planet ASID is not for you. . .

 

PLEASE COME BACK!

A mass email was simultaneously distributed to former Allied ASID members, begging them to return to the old and limping mother ship.  Are they kidding?  These highly successful and talented designers left ASID because they were tired of being treated like second class citizens.  How gracious of ASID to allow their Allied category to tag along with their “professional” members as they “continue to develop their interior design career.”  In other words, as they progress towards all becoming NCIDQ Stepford wives (or husbands). 

“What separates the truly great designers from the mediocre is artistic vision, not a superior ability to place air conditioning units where they will not obstruct wheelchair access.”[1]

ASID’s solicitation to former members claims they “have a track record of taking concrete steps to support designers on a national and local level.”

More like they put concrete shoes on their Allied members and throw them overboard into the proverbial licensing river!

 

AN ORGANIZATION IN DECLINE?

We’ve heard from ASID members across the country that chapter memberships are down approximately 50%…

We’ve even heard about comments allegedly made by ASID’s national leadership admitting that they are “struggling.”

They are offering a $100 discount for people to join now or take $100 off the reinstatement fee.  Such a deal!  For a limited time, it will cost only $350 instead of $450 to get yourself put out of business and/or placed at an unfair competitive disadvantage.  If you’re considering this “deal” all I can say is I have a bridge I’d like to show you. 

According to an unbiased, third party online website tracking company, a comparison of the number of unique visitors to the ASID website for 2009 vs. 2010 has shown a considerable decline, some months nearly reaching a 50% decrease.

Based on these statistics and the large number of the designers who forwarded me the recent ASID solicitations with comments like, “when hell freezes over,” “yeah, right,” “they must really be desperate,” “I’m not going to renew,” and the like, I’d say these two latest campaigns which frantically attempt to pull the design community back into their hemisphere lacks the gravitational pull necessary to accomplish this feat. 

Perhaps it’s not Planet ASID at all, but just a nebula (a diffuse mass of interstellar gas).


[1] IDPC Amicus Brief in Locke vs. Shore, No. 10-11052EE (11th Cir). 2010 available at http://www.idpcinfo.org/Amicus_Brief_of_Interior_Design_Protection_Council_.pdf

July 30, 2010

ASID Pouts Over CCIDC Board Seat

On July 20th ASID sent out a press release stating they had withdrawn from the Board of Directors of CCIDC (California Council for Interior Design Certification).  They have been at odds with CCIDC ever since California codified the IDEX exam as the qualifier for their private, voluntary Certified Interior Design process, leaving ASID’s precious-but-unpopular NCIDQ out in the cold.

What is so amusing is, how can one leave when one never joined?  CCIDC was formed by the hard work and donations of many “individual” Californians (and a few corporations), some of which were ASID members at the time, which is why there was a designated seat for ASID on the CCIDC Board, just like all the other associations whose individual members donated time and money as well.  (more…)

July 29, 2010

ASID Tennessee’s Scare Tactics for Interior Design Legislation

President’s letter just more unsubstantiated rhetoric

The president of the TN chapter of ASID recently sent a letter to their members which consisted of nothing more than name-calling, speculation and erroneous information in an attempt to scare them into supporting their restrictive practice act.

Among their absurd claims are:

  • The design community is reporting lower 1st quarter profits because architectural firms do not specify in-state providers.  What a ludicrous and unsubstantiated statement!  Profits are down for nearly everyone due to the abysmal economic conditions.  Where’s the data, statistics or empirical evidence to back up their “theory?”  Answer: there are none. (more…)

July 20, 2010

ASID publication blames child neglect on bad design!

  ASID’s June 9th Eye on Design featured the article, “Child safety campaign warns of home design hazards.”

http://www.jpost.com/HealthAndSci-Tech/ScienceAndEnvironment/Article.aspx?id=180457

Sounds beneficial, right?

Wrong!

The article asserts:

 “One of the reasons why 75 children die and 15,000 more are taken to emergency rooms during the two months of summer vacation is that homes are not designed with youngsters in mind.  It [home] is not safe unless parents invest thought into making it safe.”

Among the recent home accidents involving unsupervised children were a two year- old boy who suffered a serious head injury when he fell from the third to first floor in the hall of his apartment building; a six-year-old boy who was seriously burned on his upper body when fire broke out from a candle he lit at home while alone; a four year- old girl was moderately injured when a glass entry door exploded on her head; and a three-year-old girl who choked on a peanut left on the floor and had to have it removed from her lungs.” (emphasis added)

SERIOUSLY???!!!???

This is probably the most ludicrous interior design article I’ve ever read.  Leaving toddlers and young children home alone without proper supervision is the reason for ALL the injuries listed – NOT improper or inadequate design choices.  Parental irresponsibility and/or neglect is the issue here, not unregulated interior design or absence of “official standards,” as is the article’s position.

Can someone, anyone, please explain to me what a 3 year old choking on a peanut has to do with interior design standards?

Here’s my absolutely brilliant, rocket-science, brain-surgery advice:

Want to prevent small children (2, 4 and 6 year olds!) from accidents. . . ?

STOP LEAVING THEM HOME ALONE!!!  Good grief!

Good job, ASID, advocating this article.  We can always count on your gung-ho and rather desperate efforts to try to justify your push for anti-competitive regulation to deliver fodder for ridicule right to our doorstep.   Can hardly wait for your next faux pas.

Patti Morrow, IDPC Director

July 19, 2010

Two statements from NCIDQ that render their own exam irrelevant

The following unsubstantiated statements from the NCIDQ website need to be exposed and addressed:

“While it is important to possess more than health, safety and welfare knowledge to be a competent practitioner, the public is concerned only with the core attributes. Subject areas, such as furniture styles, aesthetics and architectural history do not affect public health and are therefore not tested in the NCIDQ Examination.”[1]

These statements effectively serve to render the NCIDQ irrelevant on two different levels:

  • As usual, NCIDQ fails to cite any bona fide research or empirical evidence to support their assertion about “public concern.”  The truth is, the public is NOT at all concerned that unregulated or non-NCIDQ designers are placing them in any form of jeopardy whatsoever.  There has been NO public outcry from consumers indicating that they have been unfairly treated, physically harmed or that they are confused about interior design services.

NCIDQ advocates that mandatory licensing via their exam is necessary; however, the public does not lack the ability to make informed choices about who they retain for design services; they are quite capable of reviewing portfolios and websites, interviewing potential designers, checking references and checking private certification credentials offered through various organizations to determine what level of designer fits their project.  They do not need, nor is it appropriate, for the government to take this decision out of the hands of the consumer and dictate who they may or may not hire.

In addition, the Federal Trade Commission concluded that interior design regulation (and by default, mandatory NCIDQ) would result in higher costs and fewer choices for the consumer.  Now THAT is something to be concerned about!

The public is NOT clamoring for regulation, nor do they care whether or not their designer is NCIDQ-certified.

  • The NCIDQ is widely considered to be irrelevant because it does not cover the actual work most interior designers perform on a daily basis, and is allegedly skewed 82% commercial.  They argue that “furniture styles, aesthetics and architectural history do not affect public health and are therefore not tested, even though proficiency in those areas clearly are integral components for the “competent practitioner.”

We repeat, since the neither the NCIDQ nor any other entity have ever presented any evidence to prove that non-NCIDQ or non-regulated interior designers have harmed the public, the entire basis for the NCIDQ is moot.

“What separates the truly great designers from the mediocre is artistic vision, not a superior ability to place air conditioning units where they will not obstruct wheelchair access.”[2]

For more information on how the ASID/NCIDQ/CIDA Cartel use their own self-anointed version of the so-called “Three E’s” to exclude fair and qualified competition, please read the only factual, thoroughly researched and documented industry white paper dedicated solely to this issue:

“Three E’s” Myth of the Interior Design Cartel

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


[1] http://www.ncidq.org/pdf/factsheet.pdf

[2] Attorney Robert Kry, IDPC Amicus Brief, Locke vs. Shore, US Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, http://www.idpcinfo.org/Amicus_Brief_of_Interior_Design_Protection_Council_.pdf

July 18, 2010

MA Legislator Rams Interior Design Bill Through House

Mass. H2999 will impact your FUTURE!

This “bidding bill” has passed all House Committees and the full House floor, and has now been referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.

How did this happen?

Click here to read the newsflash with details and how you can help: http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs060/1102107213116/archive/1103570747418.html

ACT NOW to protect your rights and livelihood!

Patti Morrow, IDPC

May 26, 2010

Interior Design Regulation: What’s in a Name?

 

What’s in a Name?  Apparently, a lot.

In a recent Interior Design Journal article, What’s in a Name?, Alison White, Ph.D. joins previous IDEC members[1] as they flounder about like fish out of water, stunned by the explosive success of the Freedom Movement in beating back their licensing scheme, and at an utter loss as to how to stop this moving train.

At the heart of the article is the conundrum of whether to continue their efforts to regulate the title “interior designer” or to surrender their claim and switch gears to gain exclusive right to use “interior architect.”  White outlines four possible scenarios (paraphrased):

  1. Licensure of interior design in all 50 states;
  2. Interior design continues to be one of several terms used, and the current diversified entries into the field are maintained;
  3. Interior architecture becomes their new term, restricted to those who graduate from a CIDA program and pass the NCIDQ;
  4. A split in the profession – interior design used for residential practice and interior architecture used for commercial practice.

Click here to read IDPC’s complete rebuttal to IDEC’s unsubstantiated claims and our suggestions for future actions: http://www.idpcinfo.org/What_s_in_a_Name.pdf


[1] A Single Interior Design Professional Association, Kucko, Turpin and Pable, Journal of Interior Design, May 8, 2009

May 11, 2010

Interior Design Freedom Movement

Establishing the Freedom Movement

 Not a week goes by that I don’t receive multiple inquiries as to why I became involved in fighting the interior design cartel and how the interior design Freedom Movement started.  I’m not an attorney, not a lobbyist, never wanted to be a political activist.  I’m just an interior designer who couldn’t bear to see the entire interior design industry destroyed.  Yes, interior design is more than decoration, but it’s also more than just being able to read codes.  All designers want their clients to be safe in their spaces, but our opponents’ drive to deny the aesthetic aspects of the profession smacks of lack of confidence in their ability, vision, and creativity.

I now find myself in a totally unforeseen career – educating, organizing and mobilizing grassroots and traveling the country with pink slingshot and pink boxing gloves in tow.

Last month, after sharing my story with a fellow designer, she said, “That’s so inspiring.  You should write a book.”  So after giving it some thought, I decided to craft not a book but instead a short autobiographical documentary which details my motivation, experience, and the pathway to protecting the design community’s rights to earn a living.

It’s been one wild rollercoaster ride, but second only to motherhood, no other endeavor has ever been so gratifying.  I know, we’re not curing cancer or solving world peace, but saving thousands of jobs, well, that’s a good thing.

The Beginnings of the Movement

The Establishing of the Movement

The Future of the Movement

Click here to read entire autobiographical article: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38330241/Patti-Morrow-and-the-Interior-Design-Freedom-Movement

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.