Ships passing at night and their radio signals miss because of different frequencies. So went the "great debate" between NFDA's John Carmon and ICFA's Paul Elvig on March 12 at the ICFA annual convention held in Las Vegas. With missed signals and different messages, Carmon's effective delivery and Elvig's overzealous prosecutor approach at the most created an interesting and entertaining hour. It also clearly magnified that NFDA and ICFA are ideologically as far apart as Carmon's residence in Windsor, Connecticut and Elvig's residence in Seattle, Washington.
NFDA President John Carmon began the debate with his allocated 10 minutes of opening remarks. Carmon defended the FTC rule as not being predicated on complaints but rather "to give consumers more information upon which to make informed choices about an infrequent purchase that may be hard to understand, and one that often took place at a difficult emotional time." His statement went onto point out that the marketplace that exists today in providing of funeral services and merchandise bears no resemblance to the marketplace at the time of the original 1984 FTC rule. Today, funeral goods and services may be purchased from cemeteries, casket stores, and over the Internet. Only when consumers purchase from a funeral home are they covered by the FTC rule. In closing for his opening statement, Carmon stated, "The rule should be expanded to all sellers of funeral goods or services &endash; a free market place is only free when everyone competes on a level playing field."
ICFA Executive Secretary Paul Elvig opened his remarks much like an overzealous prosecutor by stating that Carmon did not go on his early morning jog for fear of "falling on his face." Instead he saved that for the debate. He went on to state that "19 years ago that the FTC accused funeral ╔ homes . . . of 'bundling,' yes John, bundling." "John, you never learned. You tried to 'bundle' a lot of things together here."
Mr. Elvig then went on to note some inconsistencies in the NFDA's position on state and federal regulations such as preferring state laws to federal laws citing NFDA's testimony before the FTC and the Senate Committee on Aging. He also stated that cemeteries have NEVER bundled charges.
The opening presentation by Mr. Elvig set the stage for what could be expected throughout the debate: animated presentations and gestures, personal attacks on Mr. Carmon, attacks on NFDA, and finally the desire to work together to eliminate the FTC rule altogether.
In his rebuttal, John Carmon asked Paul Elvig what if the tables were turned and cemeteries were subject to the rules and funeral homes were not. In his reply later in the debate Elvig finally gives his answer: "It is a rotten rule and I wouldn't propose to spread the rot around." Mr. Carmon continued using an example where a family he is serving has bought a casket from a cemetery, and he is not able to charge a handling fee. He goes on to state that if the same family buys a vault from him, the cemetery will charge a $250 installation charge, a $100 documentation fee, and a $50 inspection fee.
In his rebuttal, Paul Elvig again attacks Mr. Carmon rather than the real issue of consumer protection. Comments such as "lets get consistent, John" or "lets get real, John" echo from Elvig's mouth several times. He even attempts to belittle NFDA's position by linking him to the FCA and AARP; "You and Lisa and AARP propose to expand that funeral rule to cemeteries. . ."
I could go on with the actual details of the debate, but a summary would serve the same purpose in fewer words.
After shooting itself in the foot at The Senate Committee on Aging hearings, failing to take a stand on the replacement of $84 million of preneed dollars in Florida with a surety bond, and failure to properly respond to a recent preneed segment aired by ABC News; NFDA needed an excellent performance in an open forum. John Carmon provided that and more! He truthfully defended NFDA's present position on the FTC rule and it's recently passed "Sacred Trust" policy. He presented in a clear and professional manner sound reasons for expansion ofthe FTC rule to all sellers of the same funeral goods and services.
Paul Elvig is a most entertaining speaker, but his animated approach, personal "digs" at John Carmon, and taking a position to repeal the FTC rule in its entirety appeared to miss the point of having an enlightening discussion or debate with Mr. Carmon and NFDA's position.
Mr. Carmon made his point well: Funeral service has lived and thrived under the FTC rule, and it has given consumers choices. He also reminded the audience that NFDA spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting the original FTC rule and working with the FTC to create a fair rule is the correct position to take. Mr. Elvig's position of ridicule and repeal of the FTC rule is a step backwards. For public protection and for funeral service we can only move forward.
We called ICFA and asked for a comments on Beacham's review and here is what ICFA's Communication Director wrote back
In a message dated 3/28/01 1:26:44 PM, lacorn@icfa.org writes:
John, Beacham, Marilyn and Diane,
Thanks for your great coverage of the ICFA Convention! I'm glad to hear you had such a great time, and we really enjoyed having you there. This event was a huge success for the ICFA -- we broke our attendance record, and everyone seemed really pleased with the educational program and the Expo.
I do want to respond briefly to Beacham's review of The Great Debate, because I certainly don't want your readers to think Paul Elvig or the ICFA would have treated NFDA's John Carmon unfairly. We were extremely grateful that John agreed to participate in our Convention and were very pleased with his "performance."
Both speakers had been asked to keep the debate lighthearted, and before the debate Paul had given John a hint of what was to come, saying he wanted to make sure John had a thick skin. Beacham's review doesn't mention it, but as you showed in one of your photos, John started off the session by putting on a wig and commenting on Paul's generous head of hair. This little gag set up the whole tone of the event, which was intended to be entertaining yet informative. Our audience seemed to think both John and Paul succeeded in doing that.
Both men also brought up a lot of good points demonstrating their respective associations' positions. I know Beacham thought John served up some stronger arguments, but I can also assure you that the attendees who agree with the ICFA's position were extremely pleased with Paul's representation of their viewpoint. Both men got a much-deserved standing ovation.
Again, thanks for the reviews and all the great photos! Hope to see you next year in Orlando (April 24-27)!
Linda Budzinski lacorn@icfa.org
Communications Director
International Cemetery and Funeral Association