massage and bodywork professionals

a community of practitioners

The Massage Therapy Alliance of America - A New Alliance For Therapists!

We are so excited for Massage Therapists!!!  But, instead of re-explaining it here, go to the source at http://www.mtaamassage.org 

 

Some of the debate that will take place on this topic will be heated. If opposing sides discussing issues is not your cup of tea, just visit the website. FYI!

Views: 518

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on February 15, 2011 at 10:55am

I agree with you Emmanuel. There is a need to organize and create standards, no doubt. But when statements made like these:

 

Bodhi - There is one voice in Canada  (When he is only talking about one stakeholder voice- CMTA). That's like saying America speaks with one voice - AMTA. And we all know that definitely is not the case.

you want to keep the profession in the dark ages (calling our existing system the dark ages will get lots of folks to listen.)

 

Susan - We would love for you guys to catch up and surpass our brilliance

Oh yes.. and you are following because we are leaders.

I am saying that massage therapy should probably be a degree course

Spa therapist..yes we dropped the ball

Let the people who want fuff and buff go to their spa oil rub by 1000 hour trained therapist.

I want to start a career and only put in 500 hours and tell people I can palpate their anatomy and tell them whats up?  Not likely.

And yes. You should do what me and Bodhi want.  It is good for our profession.

We don't "imagine" that we feel things

 

These are attitudes that set others off. And are signs that this will exist to a larger degree in America, if we change our system to theirs. Do we want to go this far? Do we really want to divide the profession?



Emmanuel Bistas said:

Sorry; I just naturally assumed you were familiar with the concept of "allusion". I apologize for misjudging that, and will stick to strictly literal discussion, should there be any future interactions with you.

 

"Oh, ho, ho, allusion! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here.", to quote another fictional character.  What we do get quite often here is pompousness, and that I do recognize!

 

"In addition to my practice, I teach. Students and graduates talk to me. There is a real hunger out there to know more about massage, about the world around us, and about how to use that knowledge to serve patients/clients better. You may not see it, but it is real. Many students want better than what they've traditionally been offered."

 

I am glad you teach and, of course, there is a real hunger out there, nobody argues the obvious.  What is not obvious is what you choose to leave out of your argument: that the suggestions that have been made on several online boards over the past couple years have not been accompanied by any evidence that they would work in the US or that they serve the interests of MTs in the U.S. 

 

I'm saying I talk to those students and graduates a lot about what they want for themselves; you're saying they don't exist ("that's not what we have here"). That's fine; they don't need your validation. But denying their experience does put you in kind of a bad light.

 

I have not met you in person, and don't know if I should assume that you are joking, or if you would like me to break down my statement in sub-sentences so that it makes sense.

 

"Um, this is America. Since when has earning a good amount of money selling your opinion been anything wrong in a capitalist system?"

 

I love capitalism, dear Ravensara, and I would not be in this country if I didn't.  However, would you agree that it is pretty shitty to do, to sell to someone something that will harm them?  The "buyer beware" thing doesn't work when your audience is in a dark room all day long doing massages and does not have access to the information that you do.  And won't even be an even shittier thing to do, to sell them something that not only harms them but it enriches you?  I understand that it is an ethical question and don't expect you to agree with me.

 

"Just because *you* don't like their ideas doesn't make it a conflict of interest--that's not enough. ."

 

Wrong assumption again Ravensara!  I never said that I don't like their ideas.  What I said is that I would like to see evidence that what they are proposing would work in the U.S.  They are the evidence-based group and they cannot even produce a shred of evidence that those ideas would work here.  What is immediately obvious is that they - those with the proposals- would benefit from these changes, and they are already receiving benefits from making those proposals.

 

"What makes it a conflict of interest is the use of power or an institutional structure to profit unduly or to exert undue influence over other people. "

 

Well said, although it does not have to be institutional structure.  You as an MT, referring your client to someone who provides you with a referral fee, is  a conflict of interest.  Conflict of interest is a conflict between the private interests of an individual in a position of public trust and the official responsibilities that this person has.  It is obvious that you cannot see what conflict could potentially exist between an accredation consultant who lobbies for schools to be accredited, or for someone who makes his living in reasearch for more research, or for someone who seems to have a pretty good time working the national lecture scene to want to increase it.  Nothing wrong with any of those activities as long as they create value for the therapists and the profession, but that is where the debate is.

 

"Citation please. After seeing how Bodhi's posts were grossly mischaracterized... "

Really? Grossly mischaracterized? I will give you citations and tell me if they are mischaracterized...

 

"Actually, I would agree with you that the current state of schools is not such that more exposure to them would necessarily make a better massage therapist. However, I expect that the argument is actually for more and *better* schooling, not just more of the status quo. "

 

Yippee!!!!! this is something that we agree on.  More of the same won't do a thing.  It is about competencies, not about number of hours.  It is about improving schools.  It's not about more of the status quo, it's about having a real discussion instead of arrogant comments like "we make loads of cash" (on massageproessionals, today)

 

"I think you are confusing advocacy with conflict of interest, frankly."

 

Frankly, I don' t think we speak the same language.

 

Here are some citations for you, and I gotta move on.. its been fun.

 

  • On why massage therapy needs degree programs: "Why massage therapy needs degree programs", facebook note by Bodhi Haraldson.  It was not meant as a white paper, but I still can't find the explanation.
  • A note from Susan Chappele just this morning on massageprofessionals.com to illustrate the "forcing" attitude: "And yes. You should do what me and Bodhi want.  It is good for our profession.  "
  • On accreditation in a post by Jason Erickson on massageprofessionals.com in the group Minnesota MTs: "In the long run, shouldn't all schools be striving for accreditation? If not, why would that be considered acceptable?"  That defeats any prior reasoning I have heard on the topic.
  • On "you are either with us or you dislike education" mindset by Sue Shekut in Bodhi's note above: " However, those of you that dislike education may not like the result. Because I predict it would show that the public does not like the MT with 500 hours as expert model."
  • On explaining how RMTs get paid in Canada (I don't know how that translates in the U.S. where we don't have national insurance) by Bodhi Haraldson on massageprofessionals: "again the province (not state) here pays for some (not all) RMT work, Workers insurance pays for RMT rehab work, car insurance pays for some of our work, private insurance pays for most of or work....... There are many players and many avenues for payments."
  • On the concept of diversity by Bodhi on Massageprofessionals.com: "The existence of competing national entities can prevent the profession from speaking with one national voice"
  • There is also one more citation that I cannot find, also on massageprofessionals, where Bodhi explains that sure there are spa therapists but RMTs with 2,200 hours are 'competent'.. which I take to mean they have passed the competency exam..

There are so many more, and several of them on EBT, but I really have to go....Please let me know if you need additional explanations, I can take a day off from work and look for them. Again, my issue is not with the suggestions, it's with the evidence.  Until these guys show me that MTs will benefit, I think they only are doing it for themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on February 15, 2011 at 11:58am

Frankly, I don' t think we speak the same language.

 

I think you've hit on the real problem here. We are obviously talking past each other.

 

And I would prefer it if you didn't call me "dear Ravensara".

Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on February 15, 2011 at 12:18pm

Do we really want to divide the profession?

 

I'm not sure that that hasn't already happened. I don't see, for example, how one profession can contain both medically-oriented practitioners as well as DNA- and infectious-disease denialists (yes, I have encountered both belief systems in the MT world).

 

I see several possibilities, and I don't see how they fit under the same professional umbrella:

 

1. MT A wants the rights and responsibilities that come with working in a hospital setting, including subscribing to biological reality, and is willing to invest in the education and conforming to licensing requirements in order to do so.

 

2, MT B wants only to work in a spa, and wants the freedom to express personal beliefs that are not constrained to biological reality, such as mercury in vaccinations causes autism, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and diseases do not have a genetic component.

 

3. MT C wants to work in a hospital, but does not want to subscribe to biological reality, nor to take extra education.

 

Bearing in mind that these contradict each other, so they are not all simultaneously possible, which of these models is "the profession"?

 

Perhaps, a recognition that we really are *not* one profession could be a better and less destructive way to proceed than these endless arguments between people who will never talk the same language are. It may also be that we aren't going to make that decision so much as that history has already made it for us.

 

I think we need to have this discussion openly and honestly.

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on February 15, 2011 at 12:36pm

Honestly?

 

You have narrowed (pigeon-holed) therapists way too far. And I noticed it ALL certered around "HOSPTAL and disease". There are so many more aspects and types of therapists. Many cross-over between fields. Our present system allows that. Hospitals are responsible for who works in them. We should meet their standard if we want to work there.

 

So what are these "super duper educated therapists" going to call themselves? MD's without the MD behind their name?

 

There will be much more discussion.

Ravensara Travillian said:

Do we really want to divide the profession?

 

I'm not sure that that hasn't already happened. I don't see, for example, how one profession can contain both medically-oriented practitioners as well as DNA- and infectious-disease denialists (yes, I have encountered both belief systems in the MT world).

 

I see several possibilities, and I don't see how they fit under the same professional umbrella:

 

1. MT A wants the rights and responsibilities that come with working in a hospital setting, including subscribing to biological reality, and is willing to invest in the education and conforming to licensing requirements in order to do so.

 

2, MT B wants only to work in a spa, and wants the freedom to express personal beliefs that are not constrained to biological reality, such as mercury in vaccinations causes autism, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and diseases do not have a genetic component.

 

3. MT C wants to work in a hospital, but does not want to subscribe to biological reality, nor to take extra education.

 

Bearing in mind that these contradict each other, so they are not all simultaneously possible, which of these models is "the profession"?

 

Perhaps, a recognition that we really are *not* one profession could be a better and less destructive way to proceed than these endless arguments between people who will never talk the same language are. It may also be that we aren't going to make that decision so much as that history has already made it for us.

 

I think we need to have this discussion openly and honestly.

Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on February 15, 2011 at 12:42pm

I didn't say the three possibilities were exhaustive. I said these three examples strongly contradict each other. Given that contradiction, how does a single profession make a commitment (or not) to something like infectious disease theory?

 


Mike Hinkle said:

Honestly?

 

You have narrowed (pigeon-holed) therapists way too far. And I noticed it ALL certered around "HOSPTAL and disease". There are so many more aspects and types of therapists. Many cross-over between fields. Our present system allows that. Hospitals are responsible for who works in them. We should meet their standard if we want to work there.

 

So what are these "super duper educated therapists" going to call themselves? MD's without the MD behind their name?

 

There will be much more discussion.

Ravensara Travillian said:

Do we really want to divide the profession?

 

I'm not sure that that hasn't already happened. I don't see, for example, how one profession can contain both medically-oriented practitioners as well as DNA- and infectious-disease denialists (yes, I have encountered both belief systems in the MT world).

 

I see several possibilities, and I don't see how they fit under the same professional umbrella:

 

1. MT A wants the rights and responsibilities that come with working in a hospital setting, including subscribing to biological reality, and is willing to invest in the education and conforming to licensing requirements in order to do so.

 

2, MT B wants only to work in a spa, and wants the freedom to express personal beliefs that are not constrained to biological reality, such as mercury in vaccinations causes autism, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and diseases do not have a genetic component.

 

3. MT C wants to work in a hospital, but does not want to subscribe to biological reality, nor to take extra education.

 

Bearing in mind that these contradict each other, so they are not all simultaneously possible, which of these models is "the profession"?

 

Perhaps, a recognition that we really are *not* one profession could be a better and less destructive way to proceed than these endless arguments between people who will never talk the same language are. It may also be that we aren't going to make that decision so much as that history has already made it for us.

 

I think we need to have this discussion openly and honestly.

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on February 15, 2011 at 2:00pm

Professions are full of workers that have contradictions with protocols.

 

Let's start with your favorite the Medical Profession. Holistic, mind-body, alternative medical systems, iologically based thepapies, manipulitive and body based systems, biofields and bioelectromagnetics all have the same philosophies? Many contradict each other, but they are all part of the same profession.

 

If there is really a demand for this, we should create a massage college and send these folks there. That way you don't need as many instructors. The college could also offer what you call spa therpists that have the money additional training.

 

Ravensara Travillian said:

I didn't say the three possibilities were exhaustive. I said these three examples strongly contradict each other. Given that contradiction, how does a single profession make a commitment (or not) to something like infectious disease theory?

 


Mike Hinkle said:

Honestly?

 

You have narrowed (pigeon-holed) therapists way too far. And I noticed it ALL certered around "HOSPTAL and disease". There are so many more aspects and types of therapists. Many cross-over between fields. Our present system allows that. Hospitals are responsible for who works in them. We should meet their standard if we want to work there.

 

So what are these "super duper educated therapists" going to call themselves? MD's without the MD behind their name?

 

There will be much more discussion.

Ravensara Travillian said:

Do we really want to divide the profession?

 

I'm not sure that that hasn't already happened. I don't see, for example, how one profession can contain both medically-oriented practitioners as well as DNA- and infectious-disease denialists (yes, I have encountered both belief systems in the MT world).

 

I see several possibilities, and I don't see how they fit under the same professional umbrella:

 

1. MT A wants the rights and responsibilities that come with working in a hospital setting, including subscribing to biological reality, and is willing to invest in the education and conforming to licensing requirements in order to do so.

 

2, MT B wants only to work in a spa, and wants the freedom to express personal beliefs that are not constrained to biological reality, such as mercury in vaccinations causes autism, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and diseases do not have a genetic component.

 

3. MT C wants to work in a hospital, but does not want to subscribe to biological reality, nor to take extra education.

 

Bearing in mind that these contradict each other, so they are not all simultaneously possible, which of these models is "the profession"?

 

Perhaps, a recognition that we really are *not* one profession could be a better and less destructive way to proceed than these endless arguments between people who will never talk the same language are. It may also be that we aren't going to make that decision so much as that history has already made it for us.

 

I think we need to have this discussion openly and honestly.

Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on February 15, 2011 at 2:09pm

umm, no they aren't. that's my point.

 

but we're talking past each other again. speaking of points, there's none in continuing this conversation here.


Mike Hinkle said:

Professions are full of workers that have contradictions with protocols.

 

Let's start with your favorite the Medical Profession. Holistic, mind-body, alternative medical systems, iologically based thepapies, manipulitive and body based systems, biofields and bioelectromagnetics all have the same philosophies? Many contradict each other, but they are all part of the same profession.

 

If there is really a demand for this, we should create a massage college and send these folks there. That way you don't need as many instructors. The college could also offer what you call spa therpists that have the money additional training.

 

Ravensara Travillian said:

I didn't say the three possibilities were exhaustive. I said these three examples strongly contradict each other. Given that contradiction, how does a single profession make a commitment (or not) to something like infectious disease theory?

 


Mike Hinkle said:

Honestly?

 

You have narrowed (pigeon-holed) therapists way too far. And I noticed it ALL certered around "HOSPTAL and disease". There are so many more aspects and types of therapists. Many cross-over between fields. Our present system allows that. Hospitals are responsible for who works in them. We should meet their standard if we want to work there.

 

So what are these "super duper educated therapists" going to call themselves? MD's without the MD behind their name?

 

There will be much more discussion.

Ravensara Travillian said:

Do we really want to divide the profession?

 

I'm not sure that that hasn't already happened. I don't see, for example, how one profession can contain both medically-oriented practitioners as well as DNA- and infectious-disease denialists (yes, I have encountered both belief systems in the MT world).

 

I see several possibilities, and I don't see how they fit under the same professional umbrella:

 

1. MT A wants the rights and responsibilities that come with working in a hospital setting, including subscribing to biological reality, and is willing to invest in the education and conforming to licensing requirements in order to do so.

 

2, MT B wants only to work in a spa, and wants the freedom to express personal beliefs that are not constrained to biological reality, such as mercury in vaccinations causes autism, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and diseases do not have a genetic component.

 

3. MT C wants to work in a hospital, but does not want to subscribe to biological reality, nor to take extra education.

 

Bearing in mind that these contradict each other, so they are not all simultaneously possible, which of these models is "the profession"?

 

Perhaps, a recognition that we really are *not* one profession could be a better and less destructive way to proceed than these endless arguments between people who will never talk the same language are. It may also be that we aren't going to make that decision so much as that history has already made it for us.

 

I think we need to have this discussion openly and honestly.

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on February 15, 2011 at 2:19pm
Thank you!

Ravensara Travillian said:

umm, no they aren't. that's my point.

 

but we're talking past each other again. speaking of points, there's none in continuing this conversation here.


Mike Hinkle said:

Professions are full of workers that have contradictions with protocols.

 

Let's start with your favorite the Medical Profession. Holistic, mind-body, alternative medical systems, iologically based thepapies, manipulitive and body based systems, biofields and bioelectromagnetics all have the same philosophies? Many contradict each other, but they are all part of the same profession.

 

If there is really a demand for this, we should create a massage college and send these folks there. That way you don't need as many instructors. The college could also offer what you call spa therpists that have the money additional training.

 

Ravensara Travillian said:

I didn't say the three possibilities were exhaustive. I said these three examples strongly contradict each other. Given that contradiction, how does a single profession make a commitment (or not) to something like infectious disease theory?

 


Mike Hinkle said:

Honestly?

 

You have narrowed (pigeon-holed) therapists way too far. And I noticed it ALL certered around "HOSPTAL and disease". There are so many more aspects and types of therapists. Many cross-over between fields. Our present system allows that. Hospitals are responsible for who works in them. We should meet their standard if we want to work there.

 

So what are these "super duper educated therapists" going to call themselves? MD's without the MD behind their name?

 

There will be much more discussion.

Ravensara Travillian said:

Do we really want to divide the profession?

 

I'm not sure that that hasn't already happened. I don't see, for example, how one profession can contain both medically-oriented practitioners as well as DNA- and infectious-disease denialists (yes, I have encountered both belief systems in the MT world).

 

I see several possibilities, and I don't see how they fit under the same professional umbrella:

 

1. MT A wants the rights and responsibilities that come with working in a hospital setting, including subscribing to biological reality, and is willing to invest in the education and conforming to licensing requirements in order to do so.

 

2, MT B wants only to work in a spa, and wants the freedom to express personal beliefs that are not constrained to biological reality, such as mercury in vaccinations causes autism, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and diseases do not have a genetic component.

 

3. MT C wants to work in a hospital, but does not want to subscribe to biological reality, nor to take extra education.

 

Bearing in mind that these contradict each other, so they are not all simultaneously possible, which of these models is "the profession"?

 

Perhaps, a recognition that we really are *not* one profession could be a better and less destructive way to proceed than these endless arguments between people who will never talk the same language are. It may also be that we aren't going to make that decision so much as that history has already made it for us.

 

I think we need to have this discussion openly and honestly.

Permalink Reply by Relax & Rejuvenate on February 15, 2011 at 4:23pm

1. Therapists lack sales skills. 

No argument there. the MTs who work in our spas have sales goals -- 20% sales-to-service ratio (for every $125 massage, they need to sell $25 in products). We just don't throw this at them, we educate them, train them and coach them to meeting their goals, but they won't stick around long if they don't. Teaching MTs sales skills not only increases their income, but makes them more confident in marketing their services (whether they are working for us or not) and makes them better employees.

2. Legislation information to therapists is slow and lacks much detail. BS. We have employ MTs in 7 states and have contractors in all 16 of our markets nationwide, including another 5 states. It's my job to keep up with all the news on MT regulation everywhere I operate. I have also worked with our clients to make in-room massage legal in jurisdictions where it was previously illegal, thus increasing opportunities for MTs to earn a living.

3. Central location for Continuing Education around the US. Therapists should be able to easily find education wherever they are. We offer CEU reimbursement to our employees and even organize and pay for our own classes. I can make these classes happen, so why is it so hard to find them?

4. A new approach to how we deal with the public. (Details will be shown to the new board first, as they are my ideas.) We've been dealing with the public perception about massage therapy -- including interviews regarding the Al Gore, Brett Favre and CL Killer sideshows -- for nearly 10 years. TV, radio, print, online. Our hotel services are being featured every week in publications around the country.

 

Maybe you do need a new association to deal with these points, because it is clear to me that MTAA think my experience is of ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE to the profession.

 

MTAA is by, for and blah, blah, blah Massage Therapists. But neither my wife nor I are MTs, therefore ineligible to vote at your Festival or to be a part of your lauded assocation. So why on earth would I want to help an association that won't deign to have me as a member?

 

As an employer of MTs, and we probably employ more MTs than 95% of the people on this forum or in MTAA, our experience is valued at zilch by your elitist approach.

 

I could write a handbook on the 4 topics of most interest to you, but you and MTAA have ZERO interest in me, or others like me, the dreaded non-MT members of the industry that are so vital to the success of the industry.

 

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on February 15, 2011 at 4:56pm
Then please go away and be happy.

Relax & Rejuvenate said:

1. Therapists lack sales skills. 

No argument there. the MTs who work in our spas have sales goals -- 20% sales-to-service ratio (for every $125 massage, they need to sell $25 in products). We just don't throw this at them, we educate them, train them and coach them to meeting their goals, but they won't stick around long if they don't. Teaching MTs sales skills not only increases their income, but makes them more confident in marketing their services (whether they are working for us or not) and makes them better employees.

2. Legislation information to therapists is slow and lacks much detail. BS. We have employ MTs in 7 states and have contractors in all 16 of our markets nationwide, including another 5 states. It's my job to keep up with all the news on MT regulation everywhere I operate. I have also worked with our clients to make in-room massage legal in jurisdictions where it was previously illegal, thus increasing opportunities for MTs to earn a living.

3. Central location for Continuing Education around the US. Therapists should be able to easily find education wherever they are. We offer CEU reimbursement to our employees and even organize and pay for our own classes. I can make these classes happen, so why is it so hard to find them?

4. A new approach to how we deal with the public. (Details will be shown to the new board first, as they are my ideas.) We've been dealing with the public perception about massage therapy -- including interviews regarding the Al Gore, Brett Favre and CL Killer sideshows -- for nearly 10 years. TV, radio, print, online. Our hotel services are being featured every week in publications around the country.

 

Maybe you do need a new association to deal with these points, because it is clear to me that MTAA think my experience is of ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE to the profession.

 

MTAA is by, for and blah, blah, blah Massage Therapists. But neither my wife nor I are MTs, therefore ineligible to vote at your Festival or to be a part of your lauded assocation. So why on earth would I want to help an association that won't deign to have me as a member?

 

As an employer of MTs, and we probably employ more MTs than 95% of the people on this forum or in MTAA, our experience is valued at zilch by your elitist approach.

 

I could write a handbook on the 4 topics of most interest to you, but you and MTAA have ZERO interest in me, or others like me, the dreaded non-MT members of the industry that are so vital to the success of the industry.

 

Permalink Reply by Julie Onofrio on February 15, 2011 at 7:41pm

Mike you just get defensive instead of answering questions.  That is just rude.  You say you are for the profession but I don't see that from this discussion and from a few others. 

 

Maybe this is a good idea or maybe it isn't.  It isn't helping that you don't have much information or are willing to share the details - maybe you just announced it too soon but this isn't going to help you.

 

Julie

 

Reply by Mike Hinkle 2 hours ago
Then please go away and be happy.

Relax & Rejuvenate said:

1. Therapists lack sales skills.

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on February 15, 2011 at 9:07pm

Julie,

 

I have answered the questions, I can at this time. I have said it repeatedly and it just isn't enough. I feel others have been rude as well. I do apologize but ... enough! They say they don't care and they keep returning. They have made their point. After a while I think most folks would get rude.

 

I don't think any of this will matter after July 16.

 

This is happening. It is offered. Some will step up and join. Some won't. I would like to see everyone join, but it is their choice. I am going to treat people as they treat me. I am for the profession. As many know.

 

You may have a point about releasing it too soon. But I knew there would be this part to go through and a few more.They did not need to take place right before the Festival. Then people need to know about this. It takes months sometimes for news to filter to therapists, throughout the country. Remember half of the therapists in America are off the grid. They are licensed but not insured through the ABMP and AMTA. Many don't have the internet. They have no voice as well.

 

That's over. Hopefully they will join and see the benefits that are offered through the Associations and join them. At least they can be informed on changes to laws and what is happening in the profession. Most of the folks that have signed up for MTAA have also volunteered to help. This is true grassroots!

 

I don't see what their fear is. No one is making them join. If they would just wait a little as I asked, the by-laws will lay the program out. Julie, I will share as soon as I can. Thanks!

 

Mike

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2024   Created by ABMP.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Sign in to chat!