BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2194 Hearing Date: June 27,
2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Salas |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 20, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Bill Gage |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: California Massage Therapy Council: extension of
sunset date
SUMMARY: Extends the sunset date for the California Massage Therapy
Counsel (CAMTC) by two years and makes other technical and
clarifying changes.
Existing law:
1)Establishes Massage Therapy Act (Act) and the CAMTC which is
responsible for the administration of the voluntary
certification program for certified massage therapists.
(Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 4600 et seq.)
2)States that it is the intent of the Legislature that this Act
enable consumers and local governments to more easily identify
certified massage professionals, provide for statewide
certification and oversight of massage professionals, ensure
schools approved by the CAMTC are providing a high level of
training, and assist local government and law enforcement in
their duty to maintain the highest standards of conduct by
disciplining certificate holders when necessary and ensure
full compliance with the Act. (BPC § 4600.5(a))
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 2
of ?
3)States that it is the intent of the Legislature that broad
control over land use in regulating massage establishments be
vested in local government and that the requirements and
practice of the profession of massage therapy remain a matter
of statewide concern, regulation and oversight. (BPC §
4600(b))
4)States that it is the intent of the Legislature that local
governments impose and enforce only reasonable and necessary
fees and regulations in keeping with the requirements of
existing laws and being mindful of the need to protect
legitimate business owners and massage professionals,
particularly sole providers, during the transition period and
after for the sake of developing a healthy and vibrant local
economy. (BPC § 4600(c))
5)States that it is the intent of the Legislature that local
government, law enforcement, CAMTC and the massage industry
and massage professionals work together to improve
communications and in a collaborative effort and to develop
model local ordinances reflecting the best practices in
massage regulation by cities and counties that will respect
local control, patient privacy and the dignity of the
profession of massage therapy. (BPC § 4600(d))
6)Defines "massage" as the scientific manipulation of the soft
tissues. (BPC § 4601(e))
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 3
of ?
7)Define a "sole provider" as a massage business where the owner
owns 100% of the business, is the only person who provides
massage for compensation for that business pursuant to a valid
and active certificate and has no other employees or
independent contractors. (BPC § 4601(i))
8)Defines an "approved school" or "approved massage school" as a
school that meets minimum standards for training and
curriculum in massage and related subjects, that meets other
specified requirements and has not otherwise been unapproved
by the CAMTC. (BPC § 4601(a))
9)Authorizes the CAMTC to take any reasonable actions necessary
to carry out the responsibilities and duties under the Act,
including but not limited to, hiring staff, entering into
contracts, and developing policies, procedures, rules, and
bylaws. (BPC § 4602(b))
10)Specifies that on September 15, 2015, the CAMTC will be
reconstituted and is to be governed by a board of directors
comprised of 13 members, appointed by various stakeholders or
the CAMTC including the League of Cities, Police Chiefs
Association, State Association of Counties, representative
from anti-human trafficking organization, California Community
Colleges, Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), Association of
Private Postsecondary Schools, Massage Therapy Association,
public health official, certified massage therapist and three
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 4
of ?
additional members, as specified. (BPC § 4602(g))
11)States that the meetings of the CAMTC are subject to the
rules of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Bagley-Keene), as
specified, and authorizes the CAMTC to adopt additional
policies and procedures that provide greater transparency to
certificate holders and the public than required by the
Bagley-Keene. (BPC § 4602(j))
12)Provides that in order for a massage therapist to obtain
certification that they must submit an application and provide
CAMTC with satisfactory evidence that he or she is 18 years of
age or older, has successfully completed 500 hours of
instruction in massage and related subjects as specified, the
applicant has passed a competency assessment examination that
is approved by CAMTC, the applicant has successfully passed a
background investigation as required and has not violated any
provisions of the Act. (BPC § 4604)
13)Authorizes the CAMTC to discipline an owner or operator of a
certified massage business or establishment who is certified
by the CAMTC for the conduct of all individuals providing
massage for compensation. (BPC § 4607)
14)Provides that the CAMTC may deny an application for a
certificate or impose discipline on a certificate holder or
revoke the certificate for the commission of any of the acts
as specified including, but not limited to, unprofessional
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 5
of ?
conduct, failure to disclose all information requested on an
application, committing a fraudulent, dishonest or corrupt
act, being convicted of felony, misdemeanor, etc. or a
sexually related crime or if required to register as a sex
offender. (BPC § 4609)
15)Provides for procedures that are imposed in good faith and in
a fair and reasonable manner for the denial of an applicant
for a certificate or the discipline of a certificate holder
which allows for the placing of a certificate holder on
probation, suspending the certificate, revoking the
certificate of taking other actions as deemed appropriate and
authorized by the CAMTC. (BPC § 4610)
16)Provides that it is unfair business practice for a person to
hold himself or herself out as a "certified massage therapist"
or in any manner that implies or suggests that the person is
certified by the CAMTC. (BPC § 4611)
17)Prohibits a city, county, or city and county from enacting or
enforcing an ordinance that conflicts with the provisions of
the Act or Section 51034 of the Government Code (GC), but does
not prohibit a city, county, or city and county from
licensing, regulating, prohibiting, or permitting an individual
who provides massage for compensation without a certificate
issued by the CAMTC. (BPC § 4612)
18)Requires the CAMTC upon request of any law enforcement agency
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 6
of ?
or other representatives of a local government agency with
responsibility for regulating or administering a local
ordinance relating to massage or massage establishments to
provide information concerning an applicant or certificate
holder, as specified.
(BPC § 4614)
19)Authorizes the CAMTC to have the responsibility to determine
whether the school from which an applicant has obtained
education required meets the requirements of the Act and to
develop policies, procedures, rules, or bylaws governing the
requirements and process for approval and unapproval of
schools, as specified.
(BPC § 4615)
20)Requires the CAMTC on or before June 1, 2016, to provide a
report to the Legislature that includes a feasibility study as
specified, information regarding the operation of the CAMTC,
and the disciplinary action taken by CAMTC against both
applicants and certificate holders. (BPC § 4620)
21)Provides that the Act shall remain in effect only until
January 1, 2017, and as of that date is repealed, unless a
later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2017,
deletes or extends the date, and that the powers and duties of
the CAMTC shall be subject to review by the appropriate policy
committee of the Legislature.
(BPC § 4621)
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 7
of ?
22)Prohibits a city, county, or city and county from the
following:
(GC Section 51034(c)(1-8))
a) Prohibiting a person of one sex from engaging in the
massage of a person of the other sex;
b) Defining a massage establishment as an adult
entertainment business, or otherwise regulate a massage
establishment as adult entertainment;
c) Requiring a massage establishment to have windows or
walls that do not extend from the floor to the ceiling, or
have other internal physical structures including windows,
that interfere with a client's reasonable expectation of
privacy;
d) Imposing client draping requirements, as specified;
e) Prohibiting a massage establishment from locking its
external doors if the massage establishment is a business
entity owned by one individual with one or no employees or
independent contractors;
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 8
of ?
f) Requiring a massage establishment to post a notice in an
area viewed by clients that contains explicit language, as
specified;
g) Requiring a certified individual to take any test,
medical examination, or background check, or comply with
education requirements beyond what is required under the
Act; and,
h) Imposing a requirement that an individual holding a
certificate in accordance with the Act, obtain any other
license, permit, certificate or other authorization to
provide massage for compensation, as specified; however, a
city is not prohibited from requiring an ordinance that a
massage business or establishment obtain a license, permit,
certificate, or other authorization in order to operate
lawfully within the jurisdiction.
This bill:
1) Extends the provisions of the Act by three years until
January 1, 2020.
2) Extends the requirement for a report that is to be provided
to the Legislature which includes a feasibility study as
specified, information regarding the operation of the CAMTC,
and the disciplinary action taken by CAMTC against both
applicants and certificate holders, to January 1, 2017.
3) Clarifies that a city, county, or city and county shall not
require of a person who is certified pursuant to the Act, to
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 9
of ?
have to submit to another background check, including, but
not limited to, a criminal background check, or require
submission of fingerprints for a federal or state criminal
background check.
4) Makes other technical and clarifying changes.
FISCAL
EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed "fiscal" by Legislative
Counsel.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose. This measure is sponsored by the Author . According
the Author, unless legislation is carried this year to extend
the sunset date for the CAMTC, it will be repealed on January
1, 2017. The legislative changes reflected in this bill are
solutions to issues raised about the CAMTC in the Assembly
Business and Profession's Committee staff Background Paper and
during its subsequent sunset review hearing.
2.Background on CAMTC. The CAMTC is a nonprofit organization
responsible for the voluntary certification and
recertification of massage therapists and the recertification
of massage practitioners. The certification law was initially
enacted by SB 731 (Oropeza, Chapter 384, Statutes of 2008).
Because certification is voluntary, non-certified individuals
may provide massage services in accordance with local rules
and regulations. SB 731 authorized the creation of a
governing certification entity, the Massage Therapy
Organization which was renamed the CAMTC by AB 619 (Halderman,
Chapter 162, Statutes of 2011).
Unlike other practice acts in the BPC, the Act is administered
by a private nonprofit organization, not an agency under the
Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). The provision
authorizing the establishment of the nonprofit oversight body
for the purpose of administering the voluntary massage
certification program is specified in the Act. As a nonprofit
public benefit organization, the CAMTC must abide by nonprofit
corporations law, as specified in the Corporations Code. The
CAMTC is authorized by statute to take any reasonable actions
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 10
of ?
necessary to carry out its responsibilities and duties, as
specified in the Act.
CAMTC-certified professionals are recognized throughout
California to provide massage services but may still be
subject to local ordinances and business regulations. Section
51034 of the Government Code provides modest restrictions on
local ordinances regarding certified massage professionals and
massage businesses. For individuals who are not certified by
the CAMTC, local jurisdictions may regulate those individuals
according to their local ordinances.
The law also authorizes the CAMTC to deny applications and
discipline certificate holders by denying an applicant or
revoking, suspending, or placing probationary conditions on an
individual's certificate.
The CAMTC's Board of Directors (board) is currently comprised of
13 members who are appointed by various entities including,
but not limited to, massage trade associations, the League of
California Cities, the DCA, the California Police Chiefs
Association, the California State Association of Counties, the
Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, the
California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools, an
anti-human trafficking organization, and the CAMTC itself.
3.Joint Oversight Hearings and Sunset Review of DCA Licensing
Boards. In March of 2016, the Senate Business and Professions
Committee and the Assembly Business and Professions Committee
(Committees) conducted several joint oversight hearings to
review 12 regulatory entities, including CAMTC. This bill is
intended to implement legislative changes as recommended by
the Committees' staff Background Papers prepared for each
entity reviewed.
4.Sunset Review of the CAMTC. In 2014, the CAMTC underwent its
first sunset review which highlighted numerous issues about
the operations of the organization and the impact of the
massage therapy law - particularly its land use preemption
provisions - on local governments. As a result, AB 1147
(Bonilla, Gomez, and Holden, Chapter 406, Statutes of 2014)
made numerous changes to the Act. The CAMTC was granted a
two-year sunset extension in order to provide the Legislature
with the opportunity to examine the performance of these new
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 11
of ?
provisions related to the operations of the CAMTC and the
local government response to the elimination of preemption,
and make any needed follow-up changes. Although AB 1147 was
signed into law in 2014, the provisions of that bill did not
take effect until January 1, 2015. Some of the major changes
required by AB 1147 included: 1) the establishment of a fee
cap for certification and recertification fees; 2) sunset the
CMP certification tier; 3) expansion of the definition of
unprofessional conduct; 4) requirement of the CAMTC to develop
policies, procedures, rules or bylaws for the approval of
schools; 5) reconstitution of the CAMTC board; 4) return of
local control; and established a number of new protections for
certified professionals.
The two-year extension provisions enacted after the CAMTC's last
sunset review were intended to provide the Legislature with an
opportunity to review the CAMTC's implementation of the
numerous changes that resulted from AB 1147. Moreover, the
two-year sunset extension ensured that the Legislature would
be able to examine the performance of the new provisions of GC
Section 51304 and the deletion of preemption which shifted the
regulation of massage businesses back to the local regulatory
entities during the transition to make any potentially needed
follow-up changes.
During the review of the CAMTC in 2016, several issues were
brought to light regarding the operation of CAMTC and
especially the effect of restoring local government's complete
regulatory authority over all massage businesses. Prior to
enactment of AB 1147, massage businesses which only employed
certified massage professionals were exempt from certain
aspects of local control, including zoning, land use, fees or
other local requirements, because of a preemption clause in
the Act. AB 1147 deleted any such preemption for
certified-only massage professionals in order to restore local
government's regulatory authority over all massage businesses
in each jurisdiction. Although AB 1147 was intended to strike
a balance between professional regulation and local control,
it would appear as if many cities and counties have imposed
several types of very restrictive requirements on the
operation of massage businesses and establishments within
their city boundaries. As indicated by the American Massage
Therapy Association, California Chapter (AMTA-CA), over 100
cities have included restrictions in their ordinances which
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 12
of ?
the massage profession views as "adult entertainment
ordinances" as opposed to massage therapy ordinances.
Elements of these ordinances include:
Moratoria on new businesses and issuance of new business
licenses to tenants and independent contractors of existing
businesses;
Conditional use permits (CUPs);
Perceived high application and/or establishment fees;
Exclusionary zoning;
Distancing requirements from like businesses and/or
sensitive land use (such as schools, churches, residences,
other massage establishments, etc.?);
Prohibited mobile (in-home or outcall) or homebased
businesses (home office);massage;
Requirements that businesses that provide mobile only
services must have a brick and mortar location within the
city (not home based);
Additional background checks and Live Scans of the CAMTC
certificate holders who are owners or operators, including
sole providers; and,
Additional fees for local authorities to verify
certification.
AMTA-CA provided a list of all the cities with a breakdown of
which cities have included some of the elements as stated
above and also some of the higher and possibly unreasonable
fees which are being charged to open and operate a massage
business within their jurisdiction.
Below is a summary table of provisions from 195 local massage
establishment ordinances. For each type of ordinance
provision, it provides the number of jurisdictions (cities or
counties) that have ordinances with this provision, the total
population of those jurisdictions, and the range of costs
where applicable. This data is aggregated from a spreadsheet
that was provided to the Committees in March.
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 13
of ?
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Provision |Cost Range |Number of Local |Total Population |
| | |Jurisdictions |of Jurisdictions |
| | |with this |with This |
| | |Provision in |Provision |
| | |Ordinance | |
|-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Conditional |$400 - 7,680 | 61| 6,091,373|
|Use Permit | | | |
|(CUP) | | | |
|-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Establishment|$128 - 11,000 | 60| 8,123,664|
| Permit* | | | |
|-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Special |$125 - 6,000 | 9| 1,599,330|
|Business | | | |
|License | | | |
|-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Zoning |$350 | 7| 1,222,609|
|Clearance | | | |
|-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Spacing | | 28| 3,052,520|
|Requirements*| | | |
|* | | | |
|-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Restrictive | | 22| 1,984,111|
|Zoning*** | | | |
|-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Requires | | 14| 5,459,821|
|Showers or | | | |
|Tubs | | | |
|-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Ancillary | | 2| 467,371|
|Use Only | | | |
|-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Bans Home | | 25| 5,286,497|
|Occupation***| | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Bans Mobile | | 26| 2,354,148|
|(or | | | |
|Off-Premise) | | | |
|Massage^ | | | |
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 14
of ?
|-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Total number | | 145| 21,259,821|
|of | | | |
|ordinances | | | |
|containing | | | |
|one or more | | | |
|of these | | | |
|provisions | | | |
|-------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------|
|Redundant | | 37|3,699,367 |
|Background | | | |
|Checks^^ | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes :
* Establishment permits are not in principle a bad idea, except
they are typically accompanied by a discriminatory application
process and expensive fees.
** Distances range from 250 to 1,000 feet spacing from another
massage establishment, church, school, or other sensitive use.
*** Only ordinances with restrictions that specifically target
massage establishments in a manner distinct from other healing
arts establishments are included here.
^ Some ordinances prohibit it entirely; some limit its provision
to providers with brick and mortar establishments inside the
jurisdiction.
^^ This provision is separated out because its economic impact
is limited to less than $200.
According to AMTA-CA, unaccounted for are costs not paid
directly to local governments as fees, yet still imposed on
massage businesses. These costs would include lease payments
on a non-earning business space while awaiting a conditional
use permit, or space modifications not required of other
healing arts businesses. This list is not exhaustive; these
are just the jurisdictions and ordinances we have been made
aware of.
Of the 195 local ordinances reviewed by AMTA-CA, 145 of them
contained one or more of the provisions indicated in the
table. The range of special fees charged to open massage
establishments ranged from as little as $125 to as much as
$11,000. These are costs payable directly to the local
jurisdiction; discriminatory zoning provisions (that prevent
massage establishments from opening where other healing arts
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 15
of ?
professionals are permitted, prohibit two massage
establishments from locating within 500 feet of one another,
or restrict massage therapy to ancillary use) do not have
attendant fees, but as argued by AMTA-CA diminish the pool of
viable commercial spaces and increase lease costs. This
ultimately limits the access of the state's citizens to
convenient and affordable massage therapy.
AMTA-CA states that in aggregate, the number of California
citizens affected by the ordinances in just these 145 cities
and counties totals over 21 million. Given a state population
of 38 million, that means over half of California's citizens
(55 percent) are having their access to massage therapy
obstructed by these ordinances. And the banning or
restriction of off-premise massage services or home occupation
(where it is otherwise allowed for healing arts professions)
additionally limits the income possibilities for professional
massage therapists.
AMTA-CA also provided brief summaries of local massage
ordinances that it believes have provided a regulatory
structure that ". . .respect[s] the profession as they enable
local government and law enforcement to prevent and punish
criminal activity; those jurisdictions include:
San Mateo County : background checks are imposed on
non-certified owners only. Health and safety inspections
are charged at reasonable fees for cost recovery.
San Rafael : after a brief moratorium, the city chose not
to impose conditional use or distance limitations on
massage establishments.
Vacaville : application, investigation and licensing fee
is a total of $48.
Fresno : 2013 massage ordinance requires certification
and a no fee registration of massage establishments.
1.Clarification of Fingerprint and Background Check
Requirements. There appears to be some confusion between
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 16
of ?
practitioners and local governments regarding the authority
granted to local governments to conduct 'background' checks on
CAMTC certified individuals. AB 1147 added GC Section 51034
which included minor prohibitions on how a city or county can
regulate certified massage practitioners. GC Section 51304(7)
specifically prohibits a city or county from imposing a
requirement that a certified person take any test, medical
examination, or background check or comply with education
requirements beyond what is required in the Act. This was
intended to alleviate cities and counties from conducting
duplicative and resource intensive verifications of
practitioners 'education and criminal background histories.
At the same time, it would also ensure that practitioners need
only meet one set of standards and prevent practitioners from
paying duplicative fees for background inquiries. GC Section
51034(8) specifies that a local jurisdiction can require a
massage business or establishment to obtain a license, permit,
certificate or other authorization in order to operate the
business.
Certificated individuals indicated during the sunset review
hearing that they have been required to conduct duplicative
background checks, specifically submitting to a criminal
record background check, or 'livescan', which is already
required by the CAMTC for certification. The duplicative
background check process impacts those business owners who are
certified solo practitioners, whether working for themselves
or as independent contractors working in larger
establishments. These individuals adhere to CAMTC background
checks as certified individuals, but also must meet the
requirements of local jurisdictions for "business owner"
background checks. This process is costly and duplicative for
certificated practitioners who happen to be sole providers or
business owners. At this time, the DOJ's fingerprint
background-check system does not allow for fingerprint
requests to be shared with multiple entities that require
fingerprinting.
This measure will clarify in Section 51034 of the Government
Code that a city or county is precluded from requiring a
background check, including a criminal background check, for a
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 17
of ?
person who is certified pursuant to the Act.
2.Requested Technical Amendments by CAMTC. The CAMTC identified
several issues in need of technical clarification in its 2015
Sunset Review Report, including the three referenced below:
a) BPC Section 4601(a) defines an "approved school" or an
"approved massage school" as a school that is approved by
the council that meets minimum standards for training and
curriculum in massage and related subjects, and that is
additionally approved by a specified list of accrediting
bodies. As a result of AB 1147, BPC Section 4604(a)(2)(B)
specifies that in order to obtain certification, all 500
hours of education must be from schools "approved by the
council." As noted in the CAMTC's 2015 Sunset Review
Report, because the CAMTC is not the only entity
responsible for school-approval, it requests to replace
"schools approved by the council" with an "approved school"
for consistency with the definition of an "approved school"
as defined in BPC Section 4601(a).
b) Prior to AB 1147, there was a provision in the Act which
required the CAMTC to notify the employers of certificate
holders that were suspended based on an arrest with charges
filed for Penal Code 647(b) (prostitution), or an act
punishable as a sexually-related crime, at the last address
filed with the CAMTC. BPC Section 4610(f)(1)(C) changed
this provision to limit the notification of employers to an
email-only notification. As reported by the CAMTC, often
times applicants fail to provide the CAMTC with an email
address for the vast majority of businesses (even though
one is requested), and an email message may easily be
ignored. The CAMTC requests to revise current law to allow
for the specified notification to employers to be completed
via email or first-class mail.
c) BPC Section 4610(e)(4) specifies that when the CAMTC is
proposing to deny an application or impose discipline on a
certificate holder, the disciplinary procedure is fair and
reasonable if specified conditions are followed, including
"an opportunity for the applicant or certificate holder, to
be heard, orally or in writing." However, BPC Section
4610(g)(2), a provision allowing for suspension based on
evidence, does not specify that a certificate holder has
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 18
of ?
the opportunity to be heard "orally or in writing." The
CAMTC reported that although the CAMTC interprets this
provision to provide for an oral hearing or consideration
of a written statement, clarification of this provision
might better inform certificate holders of their options in
appealing a disciplinary matter.
3.Prior Similar Legislation. AB 1147 (Bonilla, Gomez and
Holden, Chapter 406, Statutes of 2014) revises, recasts,
rewrites and makes a number of substantive, clarifying,
conforming and technical changes to the Act as follows:
deletes the preemption of ordinances and local land use
authority for "certified-only" massage establishments;
reconstitutes the California Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC);
reinforces local massage ordinances; raises professional and
educational standards for massage therapists; expands the
disciplinary authority of the CAMTC; and extends the sunset
date, by two years, until January 1, 2017.
AB 619 (Halderman, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2011) changed the
name of the MTO to the CAMTC and makes a number of clarifying,
conforming and technical changes to the Act.
SB 1238 (Price, Chapter 655, Statutes of 2012) made a number of
substantive, clarifying, conforming and technical changes
regarding the approval of school credit hours and examination
and training requirements for purposes of certification; the
grounds for suspension, denial or revocation of certification
of the certificate holder; the sharing of information between
local law enforcement and the CAMTC; the responsibility of
owner/operators of massage businesses for conduct of employees
or their independent contractors and background checks of
owner/operators; and the ability of cities to restrict the
operation of massage businesses involved in prior criminal
activity.
SB 285 (Correa, Chapter 149, Statutes of 2011) provided that any
person who provides a certificate, diploma or other document,
or otherwise affirms that a person has received instruction in
massage therapy, knowing that the person has not received such
training, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of
$2,500, or imprisonment in county jail for up to one year, or
both.
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 19
of ?
AB 1822 (Swanson) of 2010, would have added two additional
members to the MTO's Board, each one selected by the
California Police Chiefs Association and the California State
Sheriffs' Association, respectively, unless those entities
chose not to do so. AB 1822 was vetoed by the Governor.
SB 731 (Oropeza, Chapter 384, Statutes of 2008) created a MTO
and provided for the voluntary certification of massage
therapists and massage practitioners by the MTO.
SB 412 (Figueroa) of 2005 would have established the Massage
Therapy Organizatiion (MTO) and would have provided for the
certification of massage therapist and massage practitioners
by the MTO. SB 412 was held on the Assembly floor.
4.Arguments in Support. The AMTA-CA is in support of this
measure and states that, "The CAMTC play an important role for
our industry and its uninterrupted operation is critical to
for our practice." They indicate that, "we desire certainty
and structure in our practice and industry and believe that a
four year extension rather than a two year extension
[currently three years], as proposed, would give our industry
that desired clarity. The AMTA-CA also notes that while they
appreciate the minor technical and clarifying amendments made
the Act, they would like to continue to discuss areas of
additional concern including the use of moratoria, conditional
use permits and establishment feels, and special zoning
reserved only for massage establishments. They also believe
that further discussion is warranted with regards to redundant
background checks with their members who are being subjected
to this requirement in numerous jurisdictions. They ask that
the Author consider additional amendments to the bill to
address these concerns.
5.Policy Issue : Should the extension of the sunset date for
CAMTC be for only
3 years? Initially the recommendation of the Committees was to
consider extending the CAMTC for four years in order in order
for the organization to continue its regulatory oversight over
the Act, and the voluntary certification system. It was
requested that the CAMTC continue to work with certificate
holders, consumers, local governments, the Legislature, and
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 20
of ?
other stakeholders to help improve upon the certification
system and ensure that only those individuals who meet the
education, examination, and background requirements are
granted certification, and to take swift enforcement actions
against those who violate the Act. It was also requested that
CAMTC should be prepared to testify at a future legislative
sunset review hearings, if requested by the Legislature, prior
to its next statutorily required sunset review hearing, to
discuss its progress in addressing the issues raised in this
Background Paper.
It is not certain that there is adequate justification to
shorten the time frame for CAMTC's sunset review to two or
three years. Generally, when a sunset review timeframe for an
entity is shortened it is to require that the entity or agency
deal with what might be considered as major outstanding issues
of the Committees. This has been true most recently for the
Acupuncture Board and the Veterinary Medical Board. Both of
these agencies had not addressed major issues identified by
the Committees including both legislative and regulatory
mandates. Although some issues were raised by the League of
Cities regarding the overall operation of CAMTC and its
membership, it would appear that those issues have been
addressed by CAMTC in several meetings with the League.
Although some other issues were raised by the Committees in
the Background Paper, it appears as if those concerns were
adequately addressed by CAMTC during it sunset review and also
in its responses to the Committees which were received on
April 14, 2016. The CAMTC also recently provide to the
Committees an extensive report pursuant to Section 4620 of the
BPC on the function of CAMTC in meeting its duties and
responsibilities in certifying and in disciplining certificate
holders when necessary and within a timely fashion. No
problems were identified pursuant to this report. The CAMTC
has also increased its efforts in reaching out to both local
governments and law enforcement to provide important training
and information on the massage therapy profession and in
particular certified massage therapists and also recently
participated in an important Legislative hearing of the
Committees on human trafficking. Another issue to be
considered is the workload and both CAMTC members and staff
time that is consumed in preparing for a sunset review that
takes away from the overall responsibilities that CAMTC has in
meeting many of its requirements under the Act.
AB 2194 (Salas) Page 21
of ?
The Author may want to consider, based on both the recent
conduct and efforts of the CAMTC to comply with the Committees
requests, to grant them a four year extension of their sunset
date .
6.Suggested Technical Amendment. In Section 51034(c) (3) of the
BPC, the reference to shower should be separate from the other
structures which could be considered as interfering with a
client's reasonable expectation of privacy. It should just be
specified that a shower or bath would not be required within a
massage establishment. This clarifying technical amendment
makes it clear that a shower or bath could not be required in
massage establishment by a city or county.
Add paragraph (4) to subsection (c) to read:
(4) Require a massage establishment to have a shower or bath.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support:
American Massage Therapy Association, California Chapter
(AMTA-CA)
65 Individual Members of AMTA-CA
Opposition:
None on file as of June 21, 2016.
-- END --