legislation (www)

Sample Letter & Key Legislators:

DATE

The Honorable LEGISLATOR’S NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE ZIP

I am a professional interior designer in your district -- a small business struggling to make a positive contribution to our state’s economy by helping to make the home buying/remodeling/building process more pleasant for my customers.   It has come to my attention that some other designers, united under the IDCW (Interior Design Coalition of Washington) banner, will be pushing a bill this coming session that I oppose. The bill, part of a national push supported by the ASID, NCIDQ and some others in the design community is designed to limit competition. This bill would set up a limited certification/registration process for the practice of interior design that would literally put thousands of legitimate designers out of business in Washington State. Similar bills were introduced in the 2008 session and were defeated (HB 2895 and SB 6707)
The proponents of this legislation state that it is necessary for the “health, safety and welfare” of the public, but in fact, a 2005 Washington State Department of Licensing Sunrise Review found:
a)    That no state licensing of interior designers be required at this time since there was no clear evidence that the unregulated practice can clearly harm or endanger the health, safety, or welfare of the citizens of the state.
b)    The public can reasonably expect that an interior designer is a competent practitioner through certification, testing and experience as required by professional associates.
c)    The public can be reasonably protected by mechanisms currently in place such as the Attorney General’s Office, Business and Fair Practices Division.

The bill would make many current professional certifications (such as the certifications of the National Kitchen and Bath Association) useless. Instead, the only valid certification for the practice of Interior Design would be that offered through the ASID (American Society of Interior Designers) in conjunction with testing programs developed and offered by the NCIDQ, the National Council for Interior Design Qualification. Along with this, many current interior design programs currently offered at State and community colleges, and the Art Institute of Seattle, would be rendered worthless since they would not meet the qualifications for accreditation as defined by these two groups.
The practice of interior design is already bound by local building codes and ordinances. Everything that I design must be installed by a contractor who is also bound by these laws. Architects and engineers also review my work in many situations adding further consumer protection. A separate licensing or certification for interior designers adds no additional safeguards to the process.

Additional certification will, however, add significant costs to consumers of residential or commercial design and construction work at a time when our economy is already seriously stressed. The cost of the licensing fees alone could put many designers out of business during these tough economic times. It seems ridiculous to add these unnecessary costs to this stressed segment of our state’s economy, especially when the State’s own Department of Licensing said it is unnecessary and specifically stated that consumer safety is not at risk.

Licensing the practice of interior design will also add costs to the state, as indicated in the 2008 fiscal note which showed a deficit for this program. Why would we add another program to the state that will need computer resources and personnel resources when no consumer is at risk? Clearly, this money could be better used in some other area where the need is greater such as schools or health care.
I reiterate – this bill not to protect the citizens of Washington state, instead it is part of a national attempt to regulate an industry in order to limit competition. States across the country are undergoing this same battle – although many state governors have vetoed the acts and the Alabama Supreme Court threw out that state’s interior design practice act as unconstitutional. Research by the Institute for Justice has shown that the demand for regulation has come exclusively from certain industry leaders – not as a result of consumer harm or outcry.
An interior design practice act is not necessary and instead would put businesses out of business; severely limit competition in favor of a few; and harm the public by restricting their access to design services at a reasonable price. It is a waste of state resources, harmful to our state’s economy and not necessary for the protection of the “health, safety and welfare” of the public.
If you would like to talk further about the negative impacts an interior design practice act will have on my business, other designers and the economy – even if only limited to commercial projects, then please give me a call. I URGE YOU TO OPPOSE ANY BILL REQUIRING CERTIFICATION OR LICENSURE OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS AND URGE YOU NOT TO CO-SPONSOR SUCH A BILL.

Thank you,

YOUR NAME
YOUR BUSINESS
YOUR PHONE NUMBER

Thank you for your support.