RulesComm

Puzzled about interior design regulation? We can help.

Live Free and Design!

91 Reserve Place, Concord NH 03301

www.livefreeanddesign.org livefreedesign@yahoo.com

November 9, 2007

The Honorable Terie Norelli

Chair, Rules Committee

New Hampshire House of Representatives

Legislative Office Building

33 North State Street

Concord, NH 03301

Re: Withdrawn LSR 2209: Certification and Regulation of Interior Designers

Madam Chair,

I am writing to you on behalf of Live Free and Design! an organization of the majority of interior designers who do not want or need to be regulated. While we have a considerable list of fact-based reasons for opposing regulation (attached), we understand that the Rules Committee’s function is not to make decisions based on the merits of the bill, but rather on whether or not the rules have been violated.

We understand that you have before you a request from sponsor Rep. Jane Wood to reverse the ruling of Legislative Services that LSR-2209 is in violation of House Rule 35. As you know, Rule 35 prohibits introduction of a bill that is “substantially similar” to one that was voted inexpedient to legislate the year before. LSR-2209 is substantially similar to HB-881, which was deemed inexpedient this past Spring.

The clear purpose of Rule 35 is to avoid having the legislative calendar clogged up with new bills on issues the Legislature already had considered and rejected. In March, the Legislature was asked to regulate interior design and correctly chose not to. Once again, the legislature is being asked to regulate interior designers – albeit in a slightly different manner, by regulating what they may call themselves instead of who may do it – but the underlying policy objective is still the same: namely, not clogging up the legislative calendar with legislation that in substance has already been considered and rejected.

In comparing the two bills, you will quickly ascertain that but for the substitution of “certified” for “licensed” the bills are nearly identical. Both bills offer a subdivision to RSA 310-A, both use identical definitions in all pertinent respects. The proposed sections 310-A;163 are 90% identical. The proposed sections 310-A:164 are identical. The proposed sections 310-A:165 through 173, 175 and 177 are, with two small exceptions, identical. Proposed sections 310-A:174 are with two exceptions identical. Most notably, LSR-2209 retains in large part the “Exemptions” of proposed section 310A-176 despite the obvious fact that a certification only statute does not require exemptions: you either can or cannot call yourself a “certified interior designer.” This last similarity serves to underscore that LSR-2209 is the fraternal twin of HB-881.

As documented in Designing Cartels and elsewhere, it is quite clear that proponents of "certified title acts" like LSR 2209 have always viewed them as a step towards full-blown practice act regulations. Seen in that context, it is clear that LSR-2209 is simply a slightly "watered down" version of HB 881, designed as a first step to full regulation, making it "substantially similar" not only in language but, as importantly, in purpose and (ultimate) effect.

Attached please find a comprehensive listing of the bills’ similarities. Thank you for considering this request. We look forward to hearing your decision.

Very sincerely,

Patti Morrow

for Live Free and Design!

On December 11, an appeal was made before the House Rules Committee by Rep. Jane Wood, Sponsor of LSR-2209 to request that the decision of Legislative Services to withdraw this bill be overturned. According to Carol Holahan, Director of Legislative Services, LSR-2209 violates House Rule #35 which prohibits introduction of a bill that is substantially similar to one that was voted inexpedient to legislate in the last House session.

Rep. Jane Wood testified as to her recollection of the subcommittee hearing last spring, but as she began to outline some of the merits of the bill, was halted by the Rep. Terie Norelli, Chair of the Committee/Speaker of the House, who then requested testimony from Director Holahan. Holahan stated, "Sometimes you have to make a judgment call because it's so close; however, this one was not difficult," and went on to explain the similarity of the licensure and certification bill and how when you apply Rule 35, it clearly falls within the parameters of violation.

Chair Norelli proceeded to call for a vote. The vote was unanimous to uphold the decision of Legislative Services.

The bill will cannot be re-introduced in the January 2008 session! A few members of NHIDC present at the hearing, visibly unhappy with the Committee's decision, were seen commenting to Director Holahan as they exited the room.

Representative Jane Beaulieu, a supporter of keeping interior design free from unnecessary and anti-competitive regulation, attended the hearing.

Upon leaving the hearing, Patti Morrow approached Jane Wood on behalf of Live Free and Design! to tell her that although we disagree on this issue, we appreciate her hard work and dedication to our State.

From: LiveFreeandDesign! [mailto:livefreedesign@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 6:31 PM

To: 'terie.norelli@leg.state.nh.us'; 'maryjane.wallner@leg.state.nh.us'; 'michael.whalley@leg.state.nh.us';

'marjorie.smith@leg.state.nh.us'; 'eatonsstore@juno.com'; 'dave.hess@leg.state.nh.us'; 'linda.foster@leg.state.nh.us';

'maureen.mooney@leg.state.nh.us'

Cc: Ann Marie Irwin, Chair

Subject: Hearing tomorrow on Interior Design bill

Importance: High

Honorable Members of the Rules Committee,

Tomorrow, you will hear an appeal to reverse the ruling of Legislative Services which withdrew LSR-2209 because it violates House Rule #35 which states that in the second-year session, no bill shall be introduced if it is substantially similar to any legislation which was voted inexpedient to legislate in the first year session.

This bill is the same in substance.

Upon reviewing a side-by-side analysis of LSR-2209 and HB-881, you will note:

70 sections are exactly the same

7 sections are essentially the same

2 sections are substantially similar

The challenge of “substantially similar” is met, over and beyond the established House criteria.

This bill is the same in intent.

As admitted by Maria Perron, president of NHIDC (the proponents of the bill) in a December 10th writing, “LSR is a rewrite of the initial licensure bill HB-881” and “the criteria is the same as it is a professional bill for certification.” The intent is clearly another attempt to regulate interior design, as was determined by Carol Holahan, Director of Legislative Services.

Historically, states that have begun with certification regulation have been used to get a “foot in the door” in which the proponents come back later with a full-blown licensing law. This is without any doubt the intent behind this bill. Attached is a letter from NHIDC stating, “since NH isn't the most agreeable state toward licensure, it was added that we may want to begin with a title act and move inconspicuously toward a practice act within a few years.” (see attached letter, page 2)

In addition, we offer the following corrections to false information which was recently presented in writing by the proponents of the bill:

“Assertions were made in subcommittee to allow the bill sponsor to bring it back as a certification bill in the next session.” False. Rep. Velez of the ED&A Subcommittee expressed interest in having the bill “retained” to try to reach a workable compromise. However, it was duly noted that because of the wide philosophical differences and the fact that unregulated interior design poses no harm to the safety of the public, the Subcommittee’s recommendation was ITL. If the Subcommittee intended there to be a certification bill introduced in the next session, it would have retained the bill for this purpose. It was the NHIDC lobbyist, Tim Fortier, not advice from the Legislature, which prompted them to bring forth a similar bill in this session (see attached letter). Further, the ED&A Committee clearly advised that they did not want to get involved in a turf war, a statement which has been ignored.

“With added exemptions. . . the bill differs vastly from the first.” False. As you will note, Exemption criteria HB-881, Section 310-A:176 and Exemption criteria LSR-2209, Section 310-A:176 are substantially similar.

“6 states have practice acts.” False. 3 states have practice acts – Louisiana, Florida, and Nevada. On October 12th, the Alabama Supreme Court declared their practice act unconstitutional and ordered it removed from the books. This information can be easily verified, should you desire to do so.

“12 states are in pursuit of regulation.” This statement is moot as there is no guarantee they will succeed. Indeed, in 2007, 14 states pursued regulation, yet at years’ end, none of them have been enacted, most of which (like HB-881) are dead.

“3 are changing from title to practice acts.” False. There are currently no bills before the Legislature of any state in the U.S. that propose changing a title act to a practice act. Again, this can be easily verified by visiting each state’s website to see what bills that have been introduced.*

Substitute “certified” for “licensed” and the bills are nearly identical.

Thank you very much for reviewing our input. We look forward to hearing your ruling at the hearing tomorrow, which a few of our members will attend.

Very sincerely,

Patti Morrow

Director

Live Free and Design!