a community of practitioners

The California Gold Rush

My morning mail arrived with a packet sent by an anonymous contributor…copies of emails and correspondence concerning the California Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC). I must say it caused me to choke on my breakfast.

The CAMTC, according to their website, is currently conducting a search for a CEO. That’s not shocking news. What is shocking news is the insistence of former Board chair Ahmos Netanel, who is said to be gunning for the position, that the job is worth $348,000 a year, and that it should come with an executive assistant to the tune of another $144,000. Is there another Gold Rush in California that the rest of us haven’t heard about?

Let’s put that in perspective: The governor of California gets paid $206,500 a year. The President of the United States makes $400,000 a year. An e-mail from Netanel states “…for the kind of skill set and record we are looking for, anything less than $29,000 per month would represent a major cut in pay for the kind of CEO we need."

I personally think that’s over the top. I know hundreds of hard-working massage therapists who don’t make $29,000 a year. Can you say “non-profit?” It really looks like somebody is going to profit, and in a major way.

I believe there are former CEOs all over the country with great skill sets, knowledge, and expertise who are out of work, who’d take the job for half of that and be glad to have it. Is the head of a state massage association really worth more than the governor? I hope the Board members at the CAMTC will wake up and smell the coffee. It smells a little burnt from where I’m sitting.

Peace & Prosperity,

Laura Allen

Comment

You need to be a member of massage and bodywork professionals to add comments!

Join massage and bodywork professionals

Comment by Mike Hinkle on February 12, 2010 at 4:27pm: Here's the problem. The state could do it cheaper, but if the money from the therapist's licensing (if state done)goes into the state coffers it will be grabbed by the legislators to spend as they will and the dept. would be gutted because of the state's financial situation.

Comment by Alex Frigino on February 12, 2010 at 11:44am: ok no I vote for Keith

Comment by Alex Frigino on February 12, 2010 at 11:44am: I'll take it!

Comment by Laura Allen on February 12, 2010 at 5:56am: Johnathon, the documents included communications from several board members, not just one, so I wouldn't exactly call it one-sided. I always print every response that comes into the blog, and the main blog is on www.massagemag.com Any board member, including Mr. Netanel, is welcome to respond, as Keith Grant, another CAMTC board member has. Keith has been blogging about the politics of massage years before I started doing it and I have always respected his opinions, and he's made several clarifications here.

I'll be glad to give any of them equal time, including him.

Comment by Christopher Alvarado on February 11, 2010 at 7:17pm: I've read, with interest, the responses of below and thank everyone for this conversation. As Angie states below, it shows that there are many people here who care deeply about this profession.

I wanted to add a different view which might showcase an underlying, and yet to be discussed, issue here.

First however, I wanted to point out that Mr. Netanel seems to be expressing his opinion of what the compensation for this CEO position should be. As such, agree or disagree, it is his opinion and he is entitled to it. It is the CAMTC board of directors who is charged with the job of determining what they are willing to compensate a CEO and it is up to the free market and the organization's recruitment strategy to determine the caliber of individual to fill that role commensurate with the compensation. Also, we need to keep in mind that CAMTC is a nonprofit "Massage Therapy Organization" and as such is not a true governmental agency (I've heard CAMTC board members refer to it as "quasi-governmental"). So, I'm not sure that the comparisons with compensation for political offices is a good corollary. Politicians are chronically overpaid or underpaid, depending on your views, in comparison to both the non- and for-profit worlds.

The deeper point that I would like us to examine is the vehemence with which people have responded to the "elevated" salaries of the leaders of our profession's organizations. There is a real disconnect here. I believe that people respond so forcefully because they are not getting, or perceiving, the value of what the organizations are offering. Leaders seem over-paid when the members don't feel that they are getting what they need or want. It's a value proposition that seems to be getting lost on our organizations' leaders who need to ensure that their constituents are receiving value for their money and support (and are adequately communicating that value).

To me, it points out that we are in a time in which our profession's organizations need to reassess their purpose and how they are serving us and meeting our needs. If they don't, this type of anger will become even greater.

Finally, it is ultimately OUR responsibility, as Laura has said many times, to be involved, to vote, to volunteer, and hold our organizations accountable to US, the professionals, with both our actions and our money. If our organizations don't serve us then it is ultimately our fault. I, for one, am willing to pay plenty of money to an organization, and a salaried leader, that is giving real value and truly advancing the profession.

Comment by Jason Day on February 11, 2010 at 2:56pm: I think we have to go by what Keith is saying and the suggested salary being $120K to $150K a year which I believe is reasonable for an aggressive President who will help protect the rights of the working MT's out there. For an assistant probably about $50K is about right. Working in San Diego its been a God send not having to deal with the local police department for my licensing.

Jason

Comment by Angela Palmier on February 11, 2010 at 10:49am: Like many of you, I share the "raised eyebrow" as I'm reading this post. I also know that Laura is not a "rumor monger" and carefully considers the information that she receives. I would caution all of you, however---following Laura's lead that we should question, ask, and demand answers and do so in a professional, thoughtful manner. Be careful of jumping to conclusions until we have all of the facts. California has worked long and hard to receive any type of legislation and at times, some is better than none, right? I do not know Ahmos personally, however I do know that he-along with the AMTA-California Chapter has worked tirelessly on these bills and if any of you know Melissa Colburn, AMTA-CA President---it is unlikely that she would allow for someone to blindly and intentionally dismantle that work. In fact, she scares me ;)
I do want to point out that I'm absolutely thrilled with the fact that the massage therapists are actually paying attention to this--even those who are not directly affected as it demonstrates that we actually do care about our profession and what is going on with the leaders who are placed in positions of influence. I'm sure we're all a bit skiddish right now, however, I'd hope that we would remember that Ahmos is one of us---and further, we have yet to see all the facts, and hear from him.

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on February 11, 2010 at 7:26am: Laura,

As I mentioned, CAMTC has been working diligently with various cities and city agencies to promote cooperation rather than adversarial relations. After a presentation, I believe by Amos Netanel, CATMC was invited to hold it's meeting at the facilities onf the Santa Ana Police Department. Concern among cities and police departments as well as applicatiosn for certification have been highest in the south state, and this facility promotes their ability to attend and, hopefully, gain confidence in our dedication and screening. It is both networking and, to an extent, arm twisting.

With the seating of representatives from the Hands-On association and AMC, I believe we are now at 15 members out of 20 allowed by the bylaws. Votes are generally majority. The exception is to add someone to the BOD by vote, which is 2/3. The law sets that certain organizations by applying can set BOD members. Those seatings are outside of decision by the BOD, other than verifying that documents support the required conditions. The law and bylaws also allow seating other representatives by 2/3 vote.

I also have hopes that CAMTC operates in a transparent and responsible manner. A large part of my motivation for accepting a nomination to the board from IMSAC was to participate in that process. Have to run. Plane to catch.

Comment by Laura Allen on February 11, 2010 at 6:14am: Thank you, Keith, for clarifying some of this, and I hope you will keep us informed of how this goes. Among other things, and this might be small, but it jumped out at me--it was kind of distressing to me to see that the meeting is taking place at the police department??? Is that true? And if so, is that just because they happen to have a nice room they're letting you use? To me, anyway, that seems like it's perpetuating the same old, same old that has apparently gone on in CA for a long time...I've heard from a lot of therapists there that they're treated little better than prostitutes with all these different municipality rules etc. that have existed in the past.

I think it's a step forward for them to even HAVE a CAMTC, but I certainly hope that the BOD acts in a responsible manner. One of the accusations made in the correspondence I received was that a certain board member had "stacked the board" by recruiting close friends and even his former attorney to serve on it to be sure that his potential outcomes would be met. As you know, boards and their members are supposed to not only avoid conflicts of interest, they are supposed to be diligent in avoiding the APPEARANCE of conflicts of interest. That would certainly be a conflict to most people. I will say I'm sure that correspondence was passed to me by someone on that board because of the nature of the documents; they probably would not have been in the possession of a non-board member, so there are some concerns among some of the members about the behavior of some of the others. I only hope they don't sit there with their mouth shut.

Therapists are often confused on the difference between licensure and certification. I recently had a therapist who's been practicing illegally in NC tell me it was okay because she was "nationally licensed." There is no such thing as you know--but she claimed ignorance of that. CAMTC will have to work hard to be sure people understand the law.

BTW, how many board members are there, and how many have to agree in order for a motion to pass?

Thanks a lot for answering these questions.

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on February 11, 2010 at 2:31am: BTW, we are not,state licensed. The state law provides for certification by CAMTC, a nonprofit created under state law and under periodic legislative review. The law stipulates that certification provides an exemption from local licensing laws. It also stipulates that one may NOT call themselves state licensed or state certified because CAMTC is not a state agency. And, at least in discussions that have come before the entire board, a much lower CEO salary was considered and an assistant was not discussed. Ultimately, it is the decisions made by the board as a whole that determine the course of action.