Legislative Testimony for LB250: Voluntary interior design registry

Legislative Testimony for LB250: Voluntary interior design registry

Chairman Brewer and members of the committee, my name is Laura Ebke. I am the Senior Fellow at the Platte Institute, and I am pleased to be here today to testify in favor of LB250 as introduced, and in general support of the compromise that was forged in AM43.

The Platte Institute has maintained a firm position in opposition to new licensing—absent clear and compelling public safety concerns—in the interest of reducing barriers to employment and encouraging the free market to work. We recognize, though, that we do not live in a vacuum. Occasionally, some government imprimatur is needed to PREVENT barriers to employment and give consumers full-service options.

We thank the Interior Designers for reaching out to us almost two years ago to explore ways of achieving their goals, short of creating a new practice act. LB250, as introduced, satisfies both the goals of the Interior Designers and the desire that many of us have to limit unnecessary regulation.

In this instance, Interior Designers sought the ability to stamp or sign their design plans to be recognized by local building inspectors, rather than needing to seek separate check-off by architects or engineers. What you see before you for consideration is a means for Interior Designers wishing to practice within that scope to voluntarily register with the state, upon proving their certification by a national competency examination.

AM43 achieves these goals by placing registration under a newly renamed board of Engineers, Architects and Registered Interior Designers. It also gives Registered Interior Designers a voice on the board, with two seats.

Not all Interior Designers will choose to become registered, and this bill does not seem to exclude them from using the term “Interior Designer”—it merely prevents the use of “Registered.” It will not allow them to stamp or sign their plans independently if they are not registered.

LB250 is a fine example of an effort to use “least restrictive means” by the proponents of this bill to accomplish the goals desired. We thank Senator Hunt for introducing this bill, and urge your favorable consideration of LB250 and AM43.

I would be happy to entertain any questions you might have for me.

Want more? Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox.

Thank you, we'll keep you informed!