a community of practitioners

CAMTC Certification

As of September 2009 California massage therapists are able to become voluntarily certified through the newly established California Massage Therapy Council. The CAMTC is a non-profit organization approved by the state to issue certifications and will generally allow greater mobility for practitioners across the state. We will, however, not be "state certified" as has generally been said. We will be CAMTC certified. What are your thoughts about the new regulation? Do you plan on becoming certified?

I would like to thank Keith Eric Grant for clarifying the point that we are not becoming "state certified." I think that many of us, myself included, initially believed that to be the case.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Charles on November 6, 2009 at 2:13am

Really? I thought it was a state certification. Anyways, a lot of cities are accepting the certification and disregarding their permits for working in their ordinance. So although it's only a certification through a non-profit organization approved by the state, it's a first step towards state certification/licensure. I'm going to do it because it will start to limit the illegal activity and help bring some standardization to our profession

Permalink Reply by Charles on November 6, 2009 at 2:32am

Wow...should have read all the entrances prior to responding. I didn't know that the back log was over 6 month period, which is a step backwards for me. I started working at a place where the owner stated that I could go ahead and wait until the state "certification" was enabled and then go for that. But now that there is a backlog...I'm not sure what the city (which is currently only taking the certification as a good amount of cities are) is going to do with my employment.

I'll have to talk with my employer with this. If I have to find work elsewhere and get a permit from a city that doesn't recognize this certification...then so be it. There's going to be a lot of upset clients if I can't work in the city I currently work in. This really sounds like a complete mess. Great work Governator!!!

Charles said:

Really? I thought it was a state certification. Anyways, a lot of cities are accepting the certification and disregarding their permits for working in their ordinance. So although it's only a certification through a non-profit organization approved by the state, it's a first step towards state certification/licensure. I'm going to do it because it will start to limit the illegal activity and help bring some standardization to our profession

Permalink Reply by Keith Eric Grant on November 9, 2009 at 12:43pm

The backlog is not six months, more like (approximately) 4-6 weeks at most. The web site notes that we've now received 7,700 applications and are processing applications received as of 30 September. The initial surge of applications was nearly three times what they had expected for a voluntary certification. More staff has been and is being brought on. There is a link to check the status of your application online. It wasn't working this morning and I've notified the appropriate person. My being on the BOD as of the last meeting on 29 Oct hopefully lends that notification some weight. Anything I say here, however, is not a formal BOD action but my own personal perspective. The same place also notes that processing can take up to 90 days. I expect that this will be the exception, true only where there are question about information provided that needs to be clarified and/or verified.

The CAMTC certifications are not "state certifications" in the sense that CAMTC is not a state agency. On the other hand, CAMTC is a 501(c)(3) not profit created specifically by the authorization of SB 731 and is under periodic review of the state. It is also subject to the state's Bagley-Keene open meeting laws. So SB 731 is the manner in which the state legislature and Governor have chosen to regulate massage practice within California. The bill itself, was written by Liz Figueroa and her staff when she was chair of the Joint Legislative Committee on Boards, Commissions, and Consumer Protection. The Joint Committee recommends the level of state regulation (if any) to benefit the public and reviews the continuing need and performance of occupational regulation of a profession every 5 years. SB 731 is the result of the Joint Committee's recommendations after a hearing in January 2005. Under SB 731, certification 1) creates an exemption from local individual massage licensing for anyone certified by CAMTC, 2) restricts unreasonable and onerous (targeted) business establishment licenses for businesses in which massage services are provided only by certified personnel. There is little practical difference to the individual between CAMTC certification and certification by an agency of the state, except that CAMTC is not part of the dysfunctional state budget, not subject to staff furloughs, and not subject to travel restrictions to attend warranted meetings (such as the FSMTB annual meeting). Only a government agency can implement mandatory licensing. The state chooses to do such licensing only as a last resort, where there is clear indication of substantial harm and no lessor means of regulation acts to mitigate it. The 2005 Joint Committee did not result in a legislative conclusion of this level of need.

If cities or counties are not complying with the licensing exemptions, please notify CAMTC. Formal letters are being sent out to local agencies not in compliance notifying them that this area of regulation has been preempted by the state for those certified by CAMTC. While CAMTC is not, itself, a state agency, the law enabling it is a state law and preempts local law where there is a conflict. CAMTC was not authorized to issue certifications before September 1. Because of some changes required on the LiveScan background check process, this became mid-September. At the same time, applications were taken starting in August.

Permalink Reply by Keith Eric Grant on November 11, 2009 at 8:55pm

Keith Eric Grant said:

There is a link to check the status of your application online. It wasn't working this morning and I've notified the appropriate person.

It turns out there were links to the check the status of your application page from three different pages. One of the links was broken. All the links should now work, in addition to the link in this post.

Permalink Reply by Keith Eric Grant on November 12, 2009 at 12:32pm

I sat in on the CAMTC Public Policy and Local Government Subcommittee conference call this morning. I say "sat in" specifically because, as a CAMTC BOD member, I'm restrained to observer status by the Bagley-Keene act -- ensuring that a subcommittee meeting isn't used as a defacto BOD meeting. The PPLG subcommittee deals specifically with city/county conerns and input.

Of the 7700 applications received, over 1000 certificates have been issued. In addition, nine persons have been added to the management firm's staff to enable catching up in a timely manner. So the straight-forward applications should begin to move quickly through the system. As I've already posted above, you can check the status of your application online.

What will take longer is processing of red-flagged applications. CAMTC is taking the responsibility of verification very seriously. This includes the LiveScan/DOJ background checks and can also include court record checks and investigation of questionable schools. Cities are notified of pending applications and can add comments via secure web access. It is unavoidable that some applications that fall into a grey area are going to take longer to process. Once red-flagged, however, an application moves to a different committee for detailed review, so the process should not significantly affect processing of most applications. Again, these are my personal observations and are not an official CAMTC statement.

Permalink Reply by Rajam K Roose on November 16, 2009 at 8:25am

Keith, maybe you can answer my question as I've called the main office of the certification board several times yet and no one has returned my calls.

Here in the city of San Diego, the police department has the law that a massage therapist can't open their own business unless they have the Holistic Health Practitioner designation, which is 1000 hours. Therapists who have less can work under someone or work as an IC, but just not have their own separate business. Although there are therapists here are doing that, it isn't legal according to the city of San Diego massage license board. Being that the state certification is based on a 500 hour tier at the highest, I contacted the city of San Diego head of the massage license department and asked them if they are going to allow someone with the certification to have their own practice, or are they still going to require 1000 hours? She informed me that the state certification board will have to answer that question.

So, I've called and have yet to hear back. I don't understand how the state certification board can answer that question as it is a regulation put in place by the city of San Diego. Also, out of curiosity, what about the city (can't remember which one) here in San Diego county that doesn't allow mt's to have their own practice period. They can only work for a spa, physician, PT, or other but aren't allowed to have their own office. Will the certification help them be able to do that or is that still something that the city has the final say?

Thanks for your time.

Permalink Reply by Keith Eric Grant on November 16, 2009 at 1:52pm

Rajam,

State law preempts any local law where they are in direct conflict. The San Diego requirement of 1000 hours would be in direct conflict with SB 731 which exempts those certified from local licensing laws.

The CAMTC board is having the legislative counsel (i.e. lawyer) write a written opinion as to how that applies to charter cities. Charter cities derive the right to regulate "municipal affairs" directly from the state constitution. Regulation of a profession is not generally considered to be a municipal affair. Zoning is. The law restricts targeted zoning and targeted facility requirements to those that are required of other personal service and professional offices. A couple charter cities have balked. The verbal opinion from the legislative counsel is that the state law holds. Getting a written opinion may still be a couple of months out (it takes a while). From what I've looked at in terms of court cases (I'm not a lawyer, however), the state preemption is on solid ground. CAMTC is sending out formal letters to "resistant" cities noting the state law preemption.

The law definitely does, however, establish a right of independent practice to anyone certified by CAMTC. Most of the discussion centers on whether or not cities can require an establishment license separate from a business license for businesses with multiple certified persons (and only certified persons) providing massage services.

Look at Section 4612 in SB 731.

Permalink Reply by Rajam K Roose on November 16, 2009 at 6:45pm

Thanks Keith, I appreciate the information.

Permalink Reply by Angela Rafferty, CMT, ABMP on November 18, 2009 at 2:12am

Too my new buddies out there I have great news. This will effect the State of California Certified Massage Therapists living in the City of Irvine, CA - but you all know it could be affecting you in your cities now.

As I was reading the details at the CAMTC website and tearing apart the new laws SB731 that were to go into effect September 1, 2009. I was in a quandry with the City Ordinances for the City of Irvine as they are in direct violation to be charging for Massage Therapist Permits. Our Massage Establishments and Operators should be charged which is just, but no longer the therapist. To back this up, I received a letter from Deputy Paul Simmon of the CAMTC.

He says, 'We are aware of the City of Irvine, and they are definitely not in compliance with the law. Their Mayor has received a letter from your State Senator as well as the legislative committee which oversees these licenses. Please tell the personal who is asking to to get another license to refer to the mayor who received this letter. Sincerely, Paul Simmons, CAMTC"

Justice is sweet - we must ask a lot of questions when we go though change like this SoCal buddies! I really hope this saves a lot of jobs and employers will not loose their good therapist. We therapists (like the rest of America) can't afford more fees on anything. And I will lot stand around accepting complatency from the cities.

Would like to hear from you.

Permalink Reply by Keith Eric Grant on November 18, 2009 at 6:05pm

Angela Rafferty, CMT, ABMP said:

To back this up, I received a letter from Deputy Paul Simmon of the CAMTC.

He says, 'We are aware of the City of Irvine, and they are definitely not in compliance with the law. Their Mayor has received a letter from your State Senator as well as the legislative committee which oversees these licenses. Please tell the personal who is asking to to get another license to refer to the mayor who received this letter. Sincerely, Paul Simmons, CAMTC"

Angela,

I can confirm Paul Simmons statement on the letter. The letter was sent on October 27, 2009 from Gloria Negrete McLeod, chair of the CA Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee, to the mayor of Irvine informing the mayor that both her office and the verbal opinion (written opinion in progress) of the legislative counsel were that the state law preempts local licensing for those certified. This letter was issued at the request both of the bill's author, Jenny Oropeza, and CAMTC.

I'll also note the CAMTC is, as a policy, working with cities to address their concerns about thoroughness of applicant background checks and investigation of complaints, anomalies, fraud, .... In other words, while we believe the bill does need to be enforced with respect to exemption from local licensing, we would much rather work with cities than against them. There is much to be lost and little to be gained by unnecessarily creating an adversarial relationship.

The CAMTC website now indicates that applications received on 17 October 2009 are being processed. My last update on applications received was 8350 as of 16 November. As before, my statements above are my own, and not an official CAMTC statement even though I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that they reflect such policy.

Permalink Reply by Angela Rafferty, CMT, ABMP on November 18, 2009 at 11:40pm

Keith,

No one wants to be adversarial. Truly not my intention. Just wanting to share my journey in a neutral forum with like-minded therapists.

I am an Independent Contractor in Irvine who has had to purchase multiple permits for multiple cities (not a cheap undertaking in my area). I understand the zoning issues for Business Establishments and the need for licensing MOB's. But the design of the new law is to help therapists who are state certified (which I am) to have freedom of movement and not have to purchase multiple permits and to assure cities that the FBI background checks and education verifications are thorough.

In my previous home state of Arizona we went through this exact situation many years ago, purchasing city licenses individually. A lot of therapists got to the point that they just couldn't afford to be in practice anymore. It was harder, as an employer, to find city licensed MT's. We went "state license" to help with the same things California is trying to do. The doors opened for MT's to apply for a job with my business. It was an adjustment, but the state was helpful to us as practitioners and as employers.

The spa I contract for now is being told that my "California Certified" status is not applicable and they are still requiring MT permits. Is anyone else having this happen to them?

P.S. Thank you to all who have welcomed me to this discussion :)

Keith Eric Grant said:

Angela Rafferty, CMT, ABMP said:
To back this up, I received a letter from Deputy Paul Simmon of the CAMTC.

He says, 'We are aware of the City of Irvine, and they are definitely not in compliance with the law. Their Mayor has received a letter from your State Senator as well as the legislative committee which oversees these licenses. Please tell the personal who is asking to to get another license to refer to the mayor who received this letter. Sincerely, Paul Simmons, CAMTC"

Angela,

I can confirm Paul Simmons statement on the letter. The letter was sent on October 27, 2009 from Gloria Negrete McLeod, chair of the CA Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee, to the mayor of Irvine informing the mayor that both her office and the verbal opinion (written opinion in progress) of the legislative counsel were that the state law preempts local licensing for those certified. This letter was issued at the request both of the bill's author, Jenny Oropeza, and CAMTC.

I'll also note the CAMTC is, as a policy, working with cities to address their concerns about thoroughness of applicant background checks and investigation of complaints, anomalies, fraud, .... In other words, while we believe the bill does need to be enforced with respect to exemption from local licensing, we would much rather work with cities than against them. There is much to be lost and little to be gained by unnecessarily creating an adversarial relationship.

The CAMTC website now indicates that applications received on 17 October 2009 are being processed. My last update on applications received was 8350 as of 16 November. As before, my statements above are my own, and not an official CAMTC statement even though I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that they reflect such policy.

Permalink Reply by Keith Eric Grant on November 19, 2009 at 5:33pm

Angela Rafferty, CMT, ABMP said:

Keith,
No one wants to be adversarial. Truly not my intention. Just wanting to share my journey in a neutral forum with like-minded therapists.

Angela,

My comment about "not being adversarial" was not a response to you in particular. It was simply a statement that CAMTC would rather work with local agencies than against them. That said, CAMTC is committed to ensuring that the state preemption is taken seriously, including, as was discussed in this morning's open Board of Director's meeting, getting a further legal analysis by a major (but not yet determined)l firm practicing in southern California. We already have a matching verbal opinion from legislative counsel and the opinion of the chair of the Senate Business and Profession Committee. There is also the possibility of filing an amicus brief if any individual or corporation should take a balking city to court. CAMTC has also been in contact with Bill Gage, Chief Counsel for the Senate B&P Committee and a person who worked with Liz Figueroa and Jenny Oropeza in creation of the bill establishing CAMTC. The problem of non-compliant cities in not being ignored or taken lightly.

On the processing front, there are now 15 staff members processing applications, currently working on applications received on 19 Oct. They are processing 2-3 days of applications per day (averaging 50-60) and hoping to be caught up in about 2-3 weeks. Once caught up, processing of normal and complete applications is expected to take about a week. If such an application were received today, the estimate would be more like three weeks, because of the existing backlog. Incomplete applications or questionable applications will take longer. Applicants should receive a login and pin with their application acknowledgment, allowing them to check status online. For the record, most of a CAMTC meeting is open to the public, the exception being parts of a meeting on certification problem issues with legal counsel. The next BOD is physical, 10 Dec, in Sherman Oaks (Courtyard Marriott), 10a-4p. The agenda is posted on the CAMTC website.