massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Where's Joe Friday When We Really Need Him?
In the long running radio and TV show Dragnet, Sgt Joe Friday often made statements like "All we want are the facts, ma'am" and "All we know are the facts, ma'am". This evolved into the iconic phrase "Just the facts, ma'am" in a parody of Dragnet by Stan Freberg called St. George and the Dragonet.
Unfortunately, at least some of the California Police Chiefs don't seem to hold with Sgt. Friday's fact-based orientation, seemingly being more inclined to writing their own fictional stories, at least according to an article published today by Massage Today. Is it suddenly NaPoCreFicMo (National Police Creative Fiction Month)? The article specifically mentions Police Chief Susan Manheimer of San Mateo, CA as one deserving an award for her skills with creation of fiction.
In an escalation of journalistic oversight, Massage Today has also sent Chief Manheimer a formal request for data under the California Public Records Act.While use of the Federal Freedom of Information Act has been frequently used by journalists, this likely marks a first for investigative journalism relative to the massage profession.
At this time, AB 1822 sits in the suspense file of the California Assembly's Appropriations Committee. Although it's a year old, this article by Greg Lucas of California's Capitol describes the function of the suspense file. For AB 1822, the motivating factor for suspense was concerns raised by the State Department of Justice (DOJ) over increased costs of background checks by local agencies should AB 1822 pass as currently written. At the same time, just prior to a committee hearing on 19 May, a "No on AB 1822" form put online by Massage Today was reported to have sent over 1300 letters to all seventeen Appropriations Committee members and to the bill's author Sandre Swanson.Although it was already expected that the bill would go to the suspense file (via a call from the committee's consultant about the DOJ concerns), it was interesting that Swanson didn't present the bill. This also meant that those opposed to the bill didn't present and that the committee members didn't ask questions "on the record" of Swanson and proponents.
While this may be an indication that input from the massage profession is starting to have an effect, we shouldn't get complacent. We can conclude that we have been heard when the bill is withdrawn or dead, not before.
Meanwhile, there's a huge contrast between AB 1822 and long-terms efforts from the profession toward rational regulation as a health care profession coupled with efforts, such as the recent conference on Highlighting Massage Therapy in CIM Research, toward an evidence-informed practice of massage therapy. There are good reasons why it will benefit the entire massage profession to step up and use our combined weight of opinion to keep AB 1822 from passing. Do your part!.
Unfortunately, at least some of the California Police Chiefs don't seem to hold with Sgt. Friday's fact-based orientation, seemingly being more inclined to writing their own fictional stories, at least according to an article published today by Massage Today. Is it suddenly NaPoCreFicMo (National Police Creative Fiction Month)? The article specifically mentions Police Chief Susan Manheimer of San Mateo, CA as one deserving an award for her skills with creation of fiction.
In an escalation of journalistic oversight, Massage Today has also sent Chief Manheimer a formal request for data under the California Public Records Act.While use of the Federal Freedom of Information Act has been frequently used by journalists, this likely marks a first for investigative journalism relative to the massage profession.
At this time, AB 1822 sits in the suspense file of the California Assembly's Appropriations Committee. Although it's a year old, this article by Greg Lucas of California's Capitol describes the function of the suspense file. For AB 1822, the motivating factor for suspense was concerns raised by the State Department of Justice (DOJ) over increased costs of background checks by local agencies should AB 1822 pass as currently written. At the same time, just prior to a committee hearing on 19 May, a "No on AB 1822" form put online by Massage Today was reported to have sent over 1300 letters to all seventeen Appropriations Committee members and to the bill's author Sandre Swanson.Although it was already expected that the bill would go to the suspense file (via a call from the committee's consultant about the DOJ concerns), it was interesting that Swanson didn't present the bill. This also meant that those opposed to the bill didn't present and that the committee members didn't ask questions "on the record" of Swanson and proponents.
While this may be an indication that input from the massage profession is starting to have an effect, we shouldn't get complacent. We can conclude that we have been heard when the bill is withdrawn or dead, not before.
Meanwhile, there's a huge contrast between AB 1822 and long-terms efforts from the profession toward rational regulation as a health care profession coupled with efforts, such as the recent conference on Highlighting Massage Therapy in CIM Research, toward an evidence-informed practice of massage therapy. There are good reasons why it will benefit the entire massage profession to step up and use our combined weight of opinion to keep AB 1822 from passing. Do your part!.
Views: 49
Comment
-
Comment by Keith Eric Grant on June 25, 2010 at 9:29pm
-
No, I don't mind, Daniel. That's fine.
-
Comment by Daniel Cohen on June 25, 2010 at 8:43pm
-
Keith I hope you don't mind that I posted your statement below on the facebook group.
-
-
Daniel, Yesterday was an "active info day" starting with a non-quorum pulse of the CAMTC board by Ahmos Netanel, having an ABMP position statement to the B&P committee, and finally bill Gage's committee bill analysis late yesterday afternoon. Netanel's pulse of a limited set of board members had to be done in a manner that was in accordance with the Bagley-Keene open meeting act, no more than seven in total, no more than two from the CAMTC executive committee. The feeling I had going in and that I "walked" out with (from the phone conf), was that the bill likely falls short of providing enough value to switch CAMTC from opposition to support. It doesn't address the changed school situation with the advent of the BPPE and it doesn't, at this point, clarify regulation being explicitly a state issue.
It adds two board positions for law enforcement and restricts appointment of law enforcement personnel to those organizations. There already are positions for the League of Cities and the Association of Counties that could be used, and language to that effect had been suggested to Swanson's office. Instead, the current language would bar the City League and County Assoc from appointing law enforcement personnel, as it would also bar the CAMTC board itself, whether or not the Police Chief's Assoc or the Sheriff's Associ elected to participate on the BOD. This rewards the two associations that have attempted to dismantle CAMTC and also have shown lack of ethics and integrity in statements about CAMTC. It can't be seen as in the best interest of functional leadership of CAMTC to place such representation on the board. The ABMP statement to the B&P Committee indicates continued opposition to AB 1822 as long as this board change is included in the bill -- opposition with which I concur and that I, personally, support.
Neither CAMTC (from what I perceive) nor ABMP are opposed to language changes that help clarify the situation with respect to massage establishments. Nor do they have outright opposition to law enforcement representation. CAMTC had Rick McElroy as a BOD member from the outset representing the League of Cities. He, with his experience is law enforcement and vice, has been an invaluable asset to CAMTC as well as a staunch supporter. Rick, after 1.5 years on the BOD, btw, is moving off the BOD to creating a staffed capacity within CAMTC to handle questions of detailed background review and discipline. That function has exceeded the demands realistic for volunteers.
Unfortunately, AB 1822l was launched by and promotes the interests of two groups that would have liked to dismantle CAMTC and have consistently shown it disrespect. To include them on the BOD would create a serious breach in good leadership of CAMTC. This particular bill is also rushed. It contains questionable language in some parts and doesn't clean up or bring up to date a number of areas that should be cleaned up. This legislative session ends at the end of August. It seems unlikely that the defects can be addressed on that time-scale. So, I have to conclude with "keep sending in those opposition letters".
-
-
Keith, The Senate version of AB1822 has been released http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1801-1850/ab_1822_bill...
Do you think the provisions for massage establishments with sole proprietors in single person establishments is strong enough to prevent zoning driving out or making it too costly for such business? The bill certainly has changed.
-
-
Laura, yes the extra BOD members are an unnecessary burden, although the language allow for the organizations NOT to place BOD members. In any case, I think this is an overreaction to the fears of some police chiefs that CAMTC would not revoke certificates of those arrested etc. Rather than discussing such issues, as do most of the cities, this particular bunch opted for the legislative route, partly, I believe, because they figured it would be an easy slam dunk. Even if seated, I think they would likely opt out of participation within a short time.
California nonprofit corporation law requires that BOD members act to the best of their ability and knowledge in the best interests of the nonprofit, in particular sec 5231(a).
"A director shall perform the duties of a director, including duties as a member of any committee of the board upon which the director may serve, in good faith, in a manner that director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances."
This technically would hold true for any BOD member, irrespective of the agency with the authority to place them on the BOD. The bigger question is that of integrity of the board. Can one expect representatives of police and sheriff's organizations that have provided false information, refuse to substantiate such information, and also refuse to retract it and apologize for it to bring integrity to the board? It's a rather sad commentary to have to conclude that a police chief's association insists on showing poor ethics and poor public accountability. Of course, as a scientist, I have a particularly strong reaction and dislike to fabrication of data and to its ethical ramifications.
In contrast, a recent Massage Today article notes that assembly member Swanson is reported as being deeply embarrassed by the information and has apologized to the massage profession. You can guess who I would pick as the better role model and better example of social responsibility.
The language on the establishment permits is currently a placeholder statement. Swanson's office is seeking further input from CAMTC. There are, as I've noted below, some problems in the wording of the original bill. In any case, at this point, CAMTC has not switched from opposition to the bill. Opposition, however, does not preclude productive discussions.
-
Comment by Laura Allen on May 30, 2010 at 4:41am
-
Keith, this latest amendment to AB 1822 ticks me off, with the proposed requirement of having two council seats for the Sheriff's Association and the Police Chiefs Association. Is there such a requirement on the medical board, the chiropractic board, the cosmetology board, etc? Hell no! They are acting like the massage police and that is not going forward! I hope the CAMTC will NOT support this in this form. Furthermore, after a careful perusal, they still haven't removed ALL references to local licensing.
4612.5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any city, county, or city and county may require any person who administers massage for compensation, or who owns a massage establishment or business, to also hold a business license or a massage establishment permit or both
As I read it, this new Section 4612.5 would give back to local governments the power to require business licensing for both individual practitioners and establishments. If adopted, could this adoption potentially take things back to the restrictive and expensive system that existed before CAMTC was created. Please tell me if I'm misreading things here. It looks pretty darn suspect to me.
-
-
Perhaps the largest issue in SB731 as it stands was a muddling of business licenses and establishment permits. From all appearances, there's been a remarkable turn-around in the willingness of those promoting AB 1822 to remove all mention of local licensing of individuals -- expect an amended version this week (2000+ letters in a couple of weeks apparently made an impression). Assuming AB 1822 does go forward, it will likely have clarifying language regarding establishments.
-
-
Many other letters were sent individually but the Massage Today link allows us to have a count and it is an easy way to email the whole Committee. Even if you already wrote the council it is a good idea to recommit to opposing AB1922(Swanson). So send your letter of opposition next week and explain why you oppose interfering with the state certification system developed under SB 731 before 2016. You might also write Sandre Swanson, your local assemblymember, your city police chief, your city council, and your mayor. Not only write this way and also have your clients sign a letter you write in opposition and send it to the committee. There are so many ways for us to show support for our professional certification.
-
Comment by Vlad on May 21, 2010 at 8:14pm
-
I just wanted to throw in a big THANKS for Massage Today for organizing the online form and for the request for data - it's impressive.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
You need to be a member of massage and bodywork professionals to add comments!
Join massage and bodywork professionals