Why Texas, Why?

So I've been digging a little around the LD Licensing legislation in Texas. The latest, by the way, is that the bill was rejected in the other house and has been sent back for more work.

Some shallow Google work lead to this page and after reading it I put up a "but does anyone know why?" comment. That got this response:

The story goes (as reported by Deborah Frankhouser)

that Senator Kip Averitt received a complaint from presumably a donor type constituent who said a Lighting Designer was paid to do some work and ran off with his money. All of the sudden, this language appeared. It was clearly done with no knowledge or our industry or that even professional lighting designers exist. (regardless of their project types) Some disturbing rumors are that he was warned that the language would have unexpected implications and that this was ignored; but that is in fact rumor.

So next off I emailed the aforementioned Ms. Frankhouser and got this:

Thanks for your email. The history is as follows: There has been a long standing debate about the role of Engineers vs. Architects in Texas and subsequently several pieces of legislation have been written attempting to reconcile those differences. This bill, HB 2649 was originally written to establish the role of engineers particular to some issues regarding slabs.
It was written by Rep. Wayne Smith, and it did not contain any language regarding lighting. (For the record, it was endorsed by his fellow engineers and is considered to be a very appropriate piece of legislation.)

Senator Kip Averitt from Waco apparently received a complaint from presumably a donor type constituent who had a grievance with a lighting designer. The language defining lighting design and who could practice it was added into a revised Senate version. It was clearly done with no knowledge of our industry. There are rumors are that he was warned that the language would have unexpected implications and that this was ignored.

The threat it faces to theatrical lighting designers is that the language is extremely broad and does not exempt them. It is clear that they did not intend to include entertainment LD's in this, but from a lawyer's standpoint, there is no legal reason why they would be excluded with the current language.

This senator's issue is with those of us do Architectural Lighting Design (I do both, actually). It is obvious from all who have spoken with Averitt's office that they were completely unaware we made up any kind of professional group or that we have standards by which we are measured. We are not licensed, but depending on your preferences, you can be certified through the NCQLP (www.ncqlp.org), and/or become an IALD (www.iald.org) member which has a very strict code of business ethics and requires a committee review of projects for professional membership. Most of us also belong to the Illuminating Engineering Society, but there are no requirements for membership to the IESNA.

Historically, architectural lighting designers have fought licensing. This may have to be a debate we take up again, but for now, our goal is to get the language removed from the bill before it goes to Gov. Perry's desk. Because the bill originated in the House, the original writers have to approve this language before it can go forward, and we understand from Rep. Smith's office that they are working to remove it. It is a waiting game now, but we will know by tomorrow at the latest.

Also, anyone can get on our Yahoo site to follow the status.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NOHB2649/ The site contains excerpts from the bill as well as documentation published by the IALD, including legislative contact information. John Martin, Public Relations with the IALD and I are moderating the group and will be posting new information as it comes available. Anyone can post their ideas, opinions, or let us know what they have been told by the legislative offices. You can also just watch and select 'Daily Digest' in your settings so you don't get a lot of emails should we get busy. We have several out of state lighting designers on the site who are just interested in how this will unfold.

If for some reason the link doesn't work, anyone can email me for an invitation.

and then this:

Our effort to gather folks has been very successful and there is a conference meeting scheduled between Rep Smith's office, Senator Averitt's office and possibly the governor's office. They will be discussing altering or removing the language.

I have spoken with the public relations rep for the IALD, John Martin, and he feels it is very important at this point to back off and let them try to get it fixed. Rep. Smith DID NOT write the language pertaining to the lighting, but because he authored the original bill, his office has been overwhelmed with calls and some of them have apparently become rude. John is worried this will have a backlash on our efforts.

which suggests the legislators have gotten the message and are working on cleaning things up.

I also queried a consultant friend who works in that part of the country and got this:

The story from the legislators who proposed this is that they were trying to deal with substandard design work foisted on residential hurricane recovery projects... It is really the Architectural Lighting professionals (i.e. non licensed) who will be affected by the current language.

Apparently the backlash from the Architectural and Theatrical lighting design world has caught the legislature by surprise and word is that there will be some considerable re-writing in conference before this will reach the Governor for signature. Even Disney Theatrical is apparently upset and is threatening to pull their tours from the state.

Mostly this is all rumors so far. The first I or everyone else I know that heard of this was yesterday afternoon as the vote was underway in the Texas Senate.

and then this:

Update is that State Senator Kip Averitt of Waco added the LD amendment at midnight before the vote. Apparently he has a problem of some sort with "Lighting Designers" (the architectural kind.) He/his office appears to be intractable.

The legislation is likely to go through since it is very important to Sen. Smith of Houston who is trying to protect storm victims.

So there you go, a consumer protection law intended to protect hurricane victims potentially derails several other industries as collateral damage. Only in America.

Does sound like they understand what they did now though. Guess we'll have to watch and see what they do to make it right.