Category: Massage Associations

Posted on

MOCC Proposal: Dis-Organized Chaos

Update 09/19/2025: The FSMTB website no longer has the MOCC document on their website. Their current approach is integrated into their CE system. 

I’ve been criticizing the Maintenance of Core Competency (MOCC) proposal from the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards since the moment it landed on my radar, and I haven’t changed my mind. I think it’s a terrible plan that doesn’t serve any good purpose other than increasing the coffers of the FSMTB. In its present form, it appears to be a blatant move to put the NCBTMB out of business.

What has been interesting to me is to see the way this thing has unfolded. Right off the bat, I had some criticism of the Task Force assembled by FSMTB that supposedly got this thing together. I say supposedly, because when I saw who was on it, my first thought was “No, they couldn’t possibly have supported that.”

So here we have Immediate Past President of AMTA, Glenath Moyle, whom I know personally and like a great deal. In spite of Moyle’s presence on the Task Force, the national office of AMTA only took a few days to come out with a statement shooting more than 20 holes in the MOCC proposal. In spite of the fact that the FSMTB chose Task Force members who were supposedly representatives of their respective organizations, that apparently didn’t work too well in this case.

AMTA has never allowed an individual officer to speak for the entire organization without their board’s approval; their blanket slam of the proposal seems to indicate that they never saw the proposal prior to publication, much less given the opportunity to sign off on it. I wholeheartedly support AMTA’s condemnation of this far-fetched plan, but I didn’t like to see Ms. Moyle in a position of looking like she had egg on her face. That could have been prevented if this process had been carried out in a more transparent manner.

Then we have Pete Whitridge and Cherie Sohnen-Moe, President and Board Member, respectively, of the Alliance for Massage Therapy Education. Since both of these leaders are well-known continuing education providers, and represent an organization that is largely composed of CE providers and massage schools that sponsor CE, I was shocked at their support of this plan. I felt at the time, and still feel, that if the membership of the AFMTE had been polled about this plan, the consensus would be a big fat NO.

The theory that this plan will not take away business from CE providers is BS of the highest order. Since the proposal calls for newly-created education modules that the FSMTB will put on their website to be the ONLY course work required for state license renewal – with all other CE related to “professional development” becoming optional – it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

The AFMTE issued a statement last week, that frankly, I feel should have been included in the proposal itself. I might have felt better about the whole thing if this was part of the original proposal. The AFMTE has suggested that they support the FSMTB contracting with the NCBTMB to administer the process of approving CE courses and providers, as that is beyond the resources and scope of most state massage therapy boards. The NCBTMB was excluded from the MOCC Task Force, which is petty politics to me. This plan affects them in a major way and they should have been included. They have expressed their willingness to work with the FSMTB, and frankly it’s the Federation that has prevented it from happening.

That doesn’t look good to me. When the NCBTMB convened a meeting of diverse stakeholders last year for the purpose of getting input into revamping their programs, they invited the FSMTB to participate. Their exclusion from the MOCC process is, I’m sure, based on the Federation’s party line, “the NCBTMB isn’t regulatory.” Big freaking deal. That is true, but they exist and for 20 years have administered the only national approval process for CE providers. AMTA, ABMP and AFMTE are not regulatory organizations and they were invited to serve on this Task Force. There were people on the Task Force from states that don’t even have any CE requirements to begin with. That dog don’t hunt, as we say in the South.

As the NCBTMB has announced their intent to sunset the existing National Certification program in favor of a post-graduate Board Certification credential, it is obvious that they are phasing themselves out of the entry-level market. At this point, they are not letting go of offering their National Certification Exams for state licensure purposes. However, that use of the cert exams is on a steady path of decline, as the MBLEx is now being used by the overwhelming majority of massage school grads. I think with some negotiation with the FSMTB, they would let it go altogether. The thing is, cooperation is only possible when both parties come to the table. The FSMTB isn’t playing nice.

There will need to be some skilled facilitation to get these organizations to look beyond their own interests, and to work together to achieve broad-based solutions. We need a single national approval program for continuing education, and our field will truly advance when there is just one entry-level exam for state licensure (instead of the current crop of five).

Every professional organization should take a lesson from some of the past troubles at the NCBTMB: all it takes is to get one or two people with a personal agenda in a position of power, and the fallout is detrimental to the organization and the profession on the whole. Board members have the responsibility of checks and balances. To those who sit on their hands and blindly follow the leader, I say get up or get off.

Posted on

FSMTB Unveils Plan for Continuing Education

Last week, the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards published a document outlining their proposal to jump into the continuing education market. They are calling the new program Maintenance of Core Competency – to be abbreviated as “MOCC”. I don’t know what planet this thing came from, but it sure ain’t from this solar system.

Update 09/19/2025: The MOCC document is no longer on the FSMTB website.

Coming fast on the heels of the unresolved conflict-of-interest mess with the FSMTB President spearheading legislation in her home state of Iowa that would eliminate the education hours from that massage law, the timing of this MOCC release is strange, to say the least.

But let me get to the main event here: When you have a problem on your hands, there’s nothing more aggravating than a solution that is worse than the original problem itself. That’s exactly what has happened.

For many years, those of us who teach continuing education courses, as well as the sponsors of continuing education, have had to put up with an absurd and ineffective system for CE approvals. Most regulated professions have a single national entity that handles this function; we have the national provider approval program run by NCBTMB, as well as individual approval processes operated by about 10 state massage boards. The standards are inconsistent, and it forces CE providers to go through redundant and costly approval processes to be able to offer their courses in more than one location.

There was a cause for hope when we started to see some activity about this last year at the national level. In a press release entitled “FSMTB to Establish New Continuing Education Approval Program” (dated March 29, 2011, and no longer available on their website as this was updated), the organization announced:

“…the launch of a project to develop a new national program for the approval of both continuing education courses and providers. Once it is established, the program will provide state regulatory agencies with a centralized quality assurance process for all courses taken by massage and bodywork therapists for the renewal of State licensure or State certification.

As the representative for the regulatory community, FSMTB has responded to requests from its Member Boards to create a unified system to ensure that continuing education courses are taught by qualified instructors, relevant to the scope of practice, and meet the needs of the regulatory community.”

This all sounds wonderful, but the MOCC Proposal does not resemble this in any way. What happened to FSMTB’s clearly stated plan?

The MOCC Proposal introduces a totally new concept to our field: that there is a limited group of subjects that are specific to the “core competence” of massage therapists, such as ethics and boundaries, hygiene and sanitation, scope of practice, and unsafe massage practices. These subjects are supposed to be more important to “public safety” than all the other subjects typically studied by massage therapists in CE seminars – which are lumped into a new category called “professional enhancement”.

Based on this concept, the MOCC Proposal makes three recommendations:

1) Requirements for the renewal of state licensure should focus on public protection and maintenance of core competencies. All therapists should complete a required educational program for re-licensure focused on public safety issues. FSMTB would be the provider of this educational program.

2) A transition phase addressing maintenance of core competence as well as current continuing education for professional enhancement will be needed. FSMTB will provide state massage boards with guidelines to assist in the transition phase.

3) After this transition phase, professional enhancement and continuing education is voluntarily attained at the discretion of the therapist and not mandated for licensure renewal.

Instead of working to get broad-spectrum CE mandated for license renewals in all states, the MOCC Proposal recommends doing the opposite. In light of the relatively low number of education hours to enter our field, CE is essential to help practitioners continue to build and strengthen their base of theory and methodology. The narrow scope of “core competencies” suggested in the proposal as the only mandatory elements for renewal do little or nothing to advance levels of skill and awareness of the craft. While looking into how some of the other associations and federations of state regulatory boards of licensed professions handle their CE approval process, I did not locate a single one that imposes a limitation to “public protection” on continuing education the way the FSMTB is proposing to do.

The proposal also contains a statement that, “It is important to the FSMTB that all stakeholders have a voice in the process. The FSMTB requests feedback on this proposal from the Massage and Bodywork community and other interested parties.”

That’s a very open-sounding invitation, but does it strike you as odd that the MOCC Proposal makes no mention whatsoever of NCBTMB and the Approved CE Provider program they’ve been operating for the past 20 years? I would consider NCBTMB a stakeholder – and I’m relatively certain they’re an interested party. Last May, a rep from FSMTB attended the multi-stakeholder summit held by NCBTMB that looked at improving their CE approval program; it doesn’t appear that the invitation was reciprocated.

As I see it, the recommendations contained in the MOCC Proposal will drive the two organizations further apart, and will make it impossible for a global solution to be developed. This is both foolish and unacceptable. There is general support for continuing education being tied to license renewal, as it benefits both practitioners and their clients. Ongoing coursework in certain key subjects (like ethics) can continue to be written into state standards to ensure that licensees stay current with the behavioral aspects that influence their work.

If we’re going to have a single entity handling CE approvals on behalf of the entire profession, which should it be: FSMTB or NCBTMB? In reality, it could be either one – but it would take new levels of cooperation, along with well-crafted agreements to satisfy all the legal and structural considerations. Creating a unified approval program should be the focal point of discussions between and among the major stakeholders in this arena. Anything else is a waste of time.

When it comes down to it, FSMTB is a collective of the state regulatory boards; it has no regulatory authority in and of itself. They cannot force this plan on any state that doesn’t want it. Any state approving their own providers will be free to carry on, and any state that wants to continue to accept courses taught by the NCBTMB-Approved Providers will be free to carry on. The MOCC Proposal states that another document will be forthcoming that details recommended standards for states that choose to continue their own approval process.

As mentioned above, this is currently just a proposal and FSMTB is seeking feedback. I definitely encourage you to give it to them.

Posted on

The Financial Health of Our Organizations: NCBTMB

Author’s note: This is the third year that I have reported on the financial state of the non-profit organizations of the massage therapy profession. The information I use to write these is obtained from www.guidestar.org, which is a clearinghouse of information on non-profits. If a non-profit does not provide their own Form 990 filing to Guidestar, it will be provided by the IRS, providing the organization meets the obligation of public disclosure. I am not an accountant or a financial expert. I merely offer this series as a source of information.

Just like last year, there’s good news, and there’s bad news for the organization. The National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork could be the poster child for cutting expenses when revenue drops. They have done a bang-up job of tightening the belt without making services suffer….I say that because people complain to me about any of our organizations all the time, and I haven’t gotten many complaints about the service from the NCBTMB in the past year.

The bad news is that revenue has taken another million-dollar hit, almost the same as the decline last year. $800,000 of that can be mainly chalked up to the MBLEx taking away exam revenue. The good news is that in spite of that, the organization managed to get back in the black, nothing short of miraculous since they were $1.9 million in the hole just a year ago. They reported a net revenue of a little over $469,000. The Approved Provider revenue was actually up by almost $100K over last year. Their assets increased by almost $500K, and liabilities decreased by over $200K as well. I’m very happy to see them back in the positive column.

The belt-tightening that went on at the NCBTMB, to me, is also telling of their getting back on track and letting go of the battle with the FSMTB over the MBLEx. Legal expenses dived by $185,000, since they realized the futility of interfering with the states in choice of examinations.

Marketing was scaled back to the tune of over $260K, another sign of improvement to me…instead of wasting money on an agressive anti-MBLEx campaign, their advertising efforts in the past year have focused on their own positives, and that’s a good thing.

Salaries and compensation went down over $300,000.  CEO Paul Lindamood’s compensation was $228K, down slightly from last year. I’d have to say he deserves it for his pivotal role in cutting expenses and focusing on the good points of the NCBTMB instead of continuing down the path of destruction that led to legal and financial woes for the organization. The Board and volunteers are also to be commended. There were 8 less employees reported in 2010 than there were in 2009, and 10 less volunteers.

Bottom line: I applaud the NCBTMB for turning it around. Even though revenue on the whole was down, I will almost take bets that as I get through this series, I’ll find that the same has happened at some of our other organizations. The recession has affected organizations just like it has affected massage schools and individual practitioners. Kudos to the NCBTMB for adapting to the situation.

Posted on

Massage Regulation: A Comedy of Errors

I’ve spent the last hour reading legislative updates pertaining to the regulation of massage…in the past, I’ve sometimes referred to this as the good, the bad, and the ugly. This time, I’m just going to call it a comedy of errors. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

I’m not even going to address all the discrepancies in the number of hours of required education and/or exams required for licensure, or the discrepancies in the hours of required continuing education, or even the wide variances in licensing fees. I’ve commented on that a number of times, and that situation isn’t likely to change at any time in the near future.

Everybody has seen those “outdated laws” posts before, silly laws that are still on the books, like “It’s illegal to ride a horse without a saddle on Main Street after 5 pm every other Sunday.” You get the picture. Some of our massage laws seem about as archaic. You just have to wonder at the logic that goes into some of these things…and you also have to believe that these most assuredly were not proposed by, nor are they likely supported by, massage therapists. It’s the bureaucracy at work.

Many of the statutes that have been proposed or enacted in the past few years are a direct result of the economy and state governments being so deep in dept. Several states are now taxing, or considering taxing services (like massage, hair and nail services, even grass-mowing). Even self-supporting boards have in some cases had their monies raided in the interest of feeding the state’s general operating fund. NH is seeking to abolish their massage board altogether, in the interest of saving money. And in the state of West Virginia, HB 2502 seeks to combine the administrative functions of the massage board with the acupuncture board (not so weird) and with the forestry board (weird), the board of licensed dietitians, and the hearing aid dealers board (at least the last two are still health-related). It makes you wonder what we have in common with foresters. Are foresters out there planting trees while naked or committing some other unethical act? Maybe so.

A lot of states don’t require any fingerprinting and/or criminal record submissions of applicants for a massage license. A convicted rapist or violent criminal can get one. Some states require licensees to provide proof of liability insurance, but most don’t. I personally think that one’s a good idea.

There is so much discrepancy between the states on modalities that have to be licensed. In NC, where I live, Bowen therapy, craniosacral, Rossiter, Zero Balancing, and 24 other modalities are specifically spelled out as requiring a massage and bodywork license.  We don’t regulate reflexology, which I really don’t get. I’ve had plenty of reflexology and I would have to say that there is at least as much tissue manipulation going on as there is during a session of acupressure, which we do require licensing for.  NY licenses both acupressure and reflexology, and Polarity therapy. I know practitioners who will argue that every modality mentioned in this paragraph is energy work and not massage. You might as well agree to disagree and get a license if it’s required of you.

Speaking of NY, earlier this year SB 1030 was proposed, got stuck in the Higher Education committee, and may have expired due to lack of action. It provides that the commission of prostitution offense by any person upon premises at which a massage therapist regularly engages in his or her profession, or the commission of any such offense by a massage therapist constitutes professional misconduct; provides that upon 3 or more convictions of such offenses upon such premises, or any conviction of a massage therapist of any such offense, the massage therapist’s license shall be revoked. So basically, you can prostitute once or twice, but don’t do it three times or you’ll lose your license. You might even lose it if you weren’t personally prostituting but someone else on the premises was. It’s worded a little vaguely, in my opinion.

In the summertime, not much is happening, because legislatures tend to pack it up and go home. Some things are always left on the table for the next session, and some (hopefully) will never see the light of day again. And some things are urgently needed, like regulation in the 8 states that don’t have any. In each of those states, there are therapists working for licensing, and just as many fighting against it.

You can find regular updates about what is going on in the regulatory world of massage on the legislative briefing pages on the websites of both ABMP and  AMTA.

Posted on

A Matter of Opinion

Last week, the AFMTE released a position paper authored by Executive Director Rick Rosen, “Alliance Offers New Vision for National Certification.” Update 09/20/2025: This no longer exists on their website and I was unable to locate a copy online.

The AFMTE also recently announced that it is partnering with the FSMTB in their initiative to begin approving continuing education.

Both of these have attracted quite a bit of discussion on the various social media sites. And like any discussion, people agree, disagree, and agree to disagree.  I’m glad to say there hasn’t been any mudslinging of the nature that goes on at times in some of these venues. I think these discussions are useful and informative.  They sometimes bring to light a lot of misconceptions that people have about which entity does what, and how they do it.

I encourage everyone to read Rosen’s paper in its entirety, but to make a long story short, it is a plea to the NCBTMB to reorganize, and get out of the continuing education business and the entry-level exam business. The FSMTB has been stating the opinion since their founding 5 years ago that NCBTMB exams are inappropriate for licensing purposes, and encouraging the states to drop those exams and use the MBLEx exclusively. That hasn’t happened.  If the map on the FSMTB is current, 33 member boards are using the MBLEx. If the map on the NCBTMB website is current, 38 states are still accepting their exams, meaning the majority of states are accepting both, and offering their licensees a choice. The AFMTE is also supportive of the Federation’s stance, as is AMTA and ABMP. Still, the facts show that either the 38 states are doing the wrong thing, or else they are exercising their undeniable right to conduct their business the way they want to.

I haven’t been in this profession nearly as long as Rosen or some of the other players here. I became a massage therapist in 1999, and it seems like I joined at a time when everything was just really starting to swirl. I was in the first wave of licensees in North Carolina.  Mr. Rosen actually has license #00001…first person licensed in our state. He has seen and been instrumental in a lot of things happening. I would never try to minimize the contributions he has made to this field. I won’t criticize his career, his integrity, or his belief that he is suggesting something for the good of the profession on the whole.

My criticism is this, and it isn’t directed entirely at him; it’s directed at the concept of any organization trying to mandate to another organization how to run their affairs. We get enough of that from the feds, don’t we?

I believe that the FSMTB and their mission of public protection is a great thing. The member boards come together for the purpose of discussing common problems and looking for workable solutions. Anytime people sit at the table together to try to solve a problem, that’s wonderful to me. I also believe that the AFMTE was started with the noble intent of acting as the voice, advocate, and resource for massage schools and educators. What I don’t believe is that either one of them can unilaterally force the NCBTMB to change their way of conducting business, nor do I think they should have that right.

The FSMTB is developing a model practice act, in addition to developing a CE approval program. They can and do suggest to the member boards that their exam is the appropriate exam, their CE approval (will be) is the appropriate approval, their model practice act (will be) the premier example of an appropriate act, and so forth.  It’s part of the quest to streamline things  in a uniform fashion and promote portability.

However, suggestion is the key word. The member states aren’t bound by any legalities to do what the FSMTB offers in the way of suggestions. If they want to keep the NCBTMB exams, they can. If they want to keep their own practice act, they can. If they want to keep NCBTMB approved providers or continue to approve their own, they can. They all have the right to conduct their business as they see fit within the law.

There is certainly room for improvement, on the practice act front, in particular, when you see all the variance that’s out there between the states. Keith Eric Grant has summarized that. You can access it here.

The bottom line, to me, is that all of these entities, including the NCBTMB, also have the right to conduct their business as they see fit. Unless and until there is a federal law governing massage, the individual entities can continue to do whatever they do however they want to do it. The FSMTB and the AFMTE could spend days pointing out past shortcomings of the NCBTMB, but it wasn’t “the NCBTMB” as an entity that had the shortcomings. It was the human beings running the organization.

As the FSMTB is only 5 years old, and the AFMTE less than half that, neither of these organizations have been in business long enough to have been plagued with the personnel problems, inefficiency problems, financial problems and so forth that happened in the past at the NCBTMB. Board members come and go. Executive directors come and go. Priorities of boards and organization come and go. Even organizations come and go. Last week I learned from Dr. Kory Ward-Cook, CEO of the NCCAOM, that there was previously a Federation of State Acupuncture Boards that fell apart.

AMTA and ABMP have their own missions and their leadership has their own opinions. As do we all. And any organization, just like any individual, has the right to run their business as they please, as long as they are not breaking the law. The NCBTMB is not breaking any laws by continuing to conduct their business as they see fit. The other organizations are not breaking any laws by conducting their business as they see fit. They all have that right. You don’t have to like it. I don’t have to like it. One organization doesn’t have to like what the other organization is doing. But until the federal government steps in and says, “you must do this,” they can all do as they dang well please. If any of them don’t do well enough at whatever it is they choose to do, they won’t survive.

Everybody has their own opinion on what’s good (or not good) for this profession, what’s good for licensing, what’s good for certification, what’s good for teacher standards, what’s good for education, what’s good for continuing education. There are just as many opinions on all of that as there are opinions on what kind of massage oil you ought to use.  Everyone is entitled to that. And everyone is entitled to conduct their business the way they choose to, as long as it’s within the law.

The AFMTE posted on LinkedIn that they had posted Rosen’s position paper directly to the NCBTMB. I suggest that if the folks at the NCBTMB are interested in hearing more about it or discussing it that they will get in touch. And if they don’t, then I suggest that the AFMTE, and in fact all organizations, concentrate on being good at what they set out to do for their organization, and leave the NCBTMB to do as their board and their leadership sees fit. Their Board is elected by their certificants, and their ED serves at the pleasure of their board.  They may well thrive and survive by doing things their own way, or they may fail altogether.

Either way, I think the burden to make it or break it is on them, just like the burden that is on all the organizations, and on any of us as practitioners and business people. And any insinuation of the NCBTMB being “uncooperative” is an opinion, not a fact. I can tell you how to run your business, you can decline to take my advice, and I will not refer to you as uncooperative. I will assume that you are exercising your right to conduct your business in the manner that you see fit, whether it suits me or not.

That’s just my opinion.

Posted on

My Organization is Better Than Your Organization

The massage profession has a plethora of organizations these days.

AMTA (American Massage Therapy Association) is a non-profit organization that has some executive staff at the top, a board elected by the members, and a hearty band of tireless volunteers that keep the wheels turning. AMTA has about 57,000 members.

ABMP (Associated Massage & Bodywork Professionals) is a for-profit concern, and frankly I’m just sick and tired of hearing that fact stated as a criticism. What is inherently wrong with making a profit? I want to make one in my massage therapy practice, don’t you? ABMP has around 77,000 members.

The NCBTMB (National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork) , for 17 years, was virtually the exclusive provider of certification exams that were used for licensing in many states, and the approval body for continuing education providers. A few states had/have their own exam. About 90,000 massage therapists are nationally certified. The NCBTMB also has a board elected by their certificants.

Then along came the FSMTB (Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards) with the MBLEx test as a route to licensure, which many of the 40 or so member states have adopted. The Federation also recently announced plans to get into the business of approving continuing education, and they are creating a model practice act. They also have a board, which their state delegates elect.

The new kid on the block is the AFMTE (Alliance for Massage Therapy Education), which aims to advance the quality of education and develop a model of teacher standards. The Alliance has announced that they would be collaborating with the FSMTB on the continuing education project. They still have their first board seated; that’s how new they are.

We’ve also got COMTA (Commission on Massage Therapy Accreditation) in the business of giving accreditation to schools and programs who meet their standards of excellence. Getting COMTA approval is voluntary, expensive and time-consuming. There are only 100 or so that have earned it.

The majority of states now regulate massage, some by their own self-supporting massage board, some lumped in with nursing boards or other health boards. I am often asked by therapists what their state board does for them. Other than issuing their license and in some states licensing schools, the answer is not much. A public board serves the purpose of public protection. Some do a better job than others. State board members are appointed by politicians. The average board is usually composed of a few dedicated people, often includes one or two clueless slackers, and a rebel redneck like me. I’m sure my board is glad I’m at the end of my service. My blog makes them nervous.

I’m a member of both AMTA and ABMP. I’m a member of FSMTB by virtue of my seat on the North Carolina Board, which I will be vacating later this month after five years. I have been a past delegate to the Federation. I am a founding member of the AFMTE. I’ve been nationally certified for over ten years, and an approved CE provider under the NCBTMB as well. I am soon to go on my first site visit for COMTA. I attended their reviewer training after I wrote a few derogatory blogs about them and they invited me to attend. Positive change usually happens from within, doesn’t it?

I have a stake in all these organizations so I’ll pat them on the back when I think they deserve it, and I don’t mind calling them out when I think they deserve it. I have the same attitude with them that I have with other massage therapists who act competitive instead of collegial. This isn’t a contest. If one organization has to fail in order for another to succeed, that’s just a big shame as far as I’m concerned. When one organization slams another and presents half-truths and posturing, it starts to look like a playground fight–better call that a turf war, I guess–and it’s not attractive in the least.

None of these organizations would exist without their constituents–the massage therapists. And none of them can represent all of the people all of the time. They’ve all made moves that didn’t suit me at one time or another, and what ticked me off may have made other MTs perfectly happy, or vice versa. And the therapist who isn’t represented by any of them probably couldn’t care less what they do or how they act. In fact, many of their own members couldn’t care less what they do or how they act. When it comes to the professional associations, many therapists just join for the insurance and have no interest in the political fray at all–until something detrimental happens that affects their license or access to education.

If you don’t like a piece of proposed legislation, contact your legislators to tell them. And if you don’t like the direction your professional organization is taking, contact them to tell them. Get yourself in there as a board member or volunteer and change it from within. Cancel your membership, or switch organizations.  Money still talks. It’s akin to voting…if you don’t exercise that right, then don’t gripe about the outcome. Go to your state board’s meeting and sign up for public comment. You have a voice. It’s only effective if you use it.

Posted on

Report from the Federation of Associations of Regulatory Boards

This past weekend, I attended the annual FARB conference in New Orleans.  FARB, the Federation of Associations of Regulatory Boards was formed in 1974. Members come together for the sharing of information; public boards of all types are welcome to join, as are industry supporters such as testing companies that provide exams to the membership and the law firms that represent the Boards.  The Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards (FSMTB) is a member, as is the North Carolina Board of Massage & Bodywork Therapy, and it was on our Board’s behalf that I attended.

The conference was quite enlightening. It was my first time attending this particular meeting, and the panel included speakers from various boards, everything from medical boards to social work, optometry, and even mortuary boards. Debra Persinger, Executive Director of the FSMTB, was one of the dozen or so panelists. The primary topic of discussion was the various problems facing public boards today and how those can be addressed. It seems that no matter what kind of board was represented, we all have the same problems: unethical behavior from licensees, problems with public perception about what a board actually does, problems with education and exam breaches, lawsuits, interference from lobbyists, and a lack of transparency, among other things.

The first speaker was Meghan Twohey, a reporter from the Chicago Tribune, who for a year or more has been reporting on problems surrounding the medical profession in IL. She has repeatedly been denied access to medical board records surrounding physicians who have been accused of rape and sexual assault–and who have not been disciplined–they’re still out there practicing on the public. It really brought to light how professions with powerful lobbies can close ranks around their members and continue to abuse the public trust.

Persinger spoke about various problems with massage and bodywork exams, including one association who is still giving handwritten exams in public libraries with no security measures at all in place. A representative from Pearson Vue, who administers the exams for both the MBLEx and the National Certification Exams, explained that Pearson Vue is now using something called Palm Vein technology to identify candidates at their test centers. It is reportedly much more reliable than fingerprints and should eliminate the problem of proxy test-takers who use fake ids to take a test on behalf of someone who can’t pass it.

Quite a bit of legal advice was dispensed by attorney Dale Atkinson, who represents FARB, the FSMTB, and numerous boards and agencies all over the country. Among his advice to boards, that got my attention because as a board member myself I have seen it happen: never accept voluntary surrender of a license but to instead insist upon a consent order.  He also advised boards not to be afraid to permanently deny an applicant, something that in five years I have never seen happen. We have refused to license people based on their criminal record, but they are usually told they can reapply in X number of years, usually 1-5 years. The logic, which makes perfect sense, is that some people will never be suitable candidates to place their hands on the vulnerable public. Boards have had a tendency not to permanently deny anyone for fear of litigation, such as being accused of prejudice and subjected to a discrimination lawsuit.

The same issue has affected schools, according to several educators from public institutions who spoke. Admissions departments in public universities who have a limited number of places in an educational program can and do refuse applications based on academic merit and other reasons. According to Dorinda Noble, an educator and member of the Texas Department of Social Work Examiners, one of the major issues facing licensing boards today is the proliferation of for-profit career schools who don’t turn anybody down–if you have the tuition, you’re in whether you are unsuitable to the profession or not, and if you don’t have it, they’ll bend over backwards to get it for you, in the form of crippling student loans. Incidentally, I thought Ms. Noble was the most informative and engaging speaker of the conference.

I have often preached the sermon of the need for massage therapists to stay informed and to be involved in their profession in the interest of 1) knowing the law (how can you abide by it if you don’t know what it is?) and 2) rising up together to prevent legislation that is detrimental to us. It doesn’t do any good to complain after the fact. My attendance just reinforced that. All in all, it was very informative, and from my perspective of being one who has a vested interest in the regulation of massage therapy, I’m glad I went.

Posted on

Here, There, and Everywhere

One of the greatest things about this profession to me is all the regional and national conventions and meetings.

I belong to AMTA and I am very active in my state chapter. I’m usually fortunate enough to get asked to teach a class at our meetings, but I’m going to be there either way. I wouldn’t miss it for anything. I also attend the National Convention every year, and it’s just a blast. Being around a thousand or more people who do what you do is something you should experience, if you haven’t already.

This past year I attended the World Massage Festival in Kentucky and I participated in the awesome World Massage Conference, which is a totally virtual event…both events were highlights of my year. I also went to the inaugural meeting of the Alliance for Massage Therapy Education. I skipped the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards meeting last year due to some conflicts, but I’m hoping to hit that one this year, too. I just got back from attending the Massage School Makeover event in Miami. In 2011 I am also looking forward to the American Massage Conference in Atlanta, the World Massage Festival in Cullowhee, Vivian Madison-Mahoney‘s Take it to the Top Summit in Gatlinburg, the AMTA National Convention in Portland, another World Massage Conference, and who knows what else is going to materialize! They are all great events, and they all have one thing in common: massage therapists!

I have in the past borrowed a favorite phrase from my friend and colleague Felicia Brown: collaborative competition. Normally I use that in the context of therapists themselves.  This time, I’m speaking of all these meetings. Many times at these meetings, I run into a lot of the same folks. It’s actually one of the nicest things about attending–besides seeing old friends, there’s also the added benefit of making new friends and potentially advantageous business contacts.

When it comes to these events, I take the same attitude that I do with massage in general, and that is there’s enough to go around. I’ve complained before about meetings that don’t welcome certain organizations to their events, and I will continue to do so.  I am not shy about expressing my opinion. Feel free to disagree with me if you want to. I’m not insulted by that. I wouldn’t be writing these blogs if I didn’t have a thick skin. I don’t like professional jealousy–I actually think of it as un-professional jealousy–when it comes to massage therapists, and I don’t like it any better when it comes to conventions and meetings. I think there’s enough to go around.

I think ALL events that are about massage therapy are a great thing. Each is unique in its own way.  Some cost more than others…some are geared at different purposes. I guess it’s the American way of marketing to claim that one is better than another. That’s not how I roll. To me, they are all great networking opportunities. Just like my opinion that no one organization is entitled to a monopoly, I’m happy that there’s more than one meeting. ABMP, which I am also a member of, doesn’t put on a national convention (although they do have a national school summit meeting every year.) One of the things I look forward to at AMTA National is seeing my friends from ABMP who attend.  Even though AMTA doesn’t allow them to have a booth in the exhibit hall, as they are a competing membership organization, lots of my ABMP friends are there. It’s not about them; it’s about massage. Networking, continuing education, product education, legislation and other information…it’s all valuable.

Sometimes at one meeting, I get invited to, or at least informed of, another meeting. Don’t forget attendance at these events is tax deductible, folks! I can’t afford to attend every single thing that comes around, but if I could, I’d be at all of them. So if you have something going on I don’t know about, post it in the comments. I like to be here, there, and everywhere, and maybe I’ll see you there!

Posted on

The Financial Health of Our Organizations: NCBTMB

This is the second year that I have written a series on the financial status of the non-profit organizations associated with the massage therapy profession. I am not an accountant or a financial expert. All the information in my blogs on this subject is available for public viewing on www.guidestar.org, which is a clearinghouse of information on non-profit organizations.

There’s good news, and there’s bad news. The bad news is that like some of our other non-profit organizations, the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork has taken a substantial financial hit during the past reporting year. In this particular instance, it can’t be blamed entirely on the recession; the MBLEx has taken a big chunk of change out of the exam revenues of the NCBTMB–over one million dollars in the past year alone.

Income from the sale of the mailing list decreased by over $30,000, which may also be indicative of the financial status of other businesses and organizations who have previously purchased the list. There’s always a trickle-down effect during a recession.

The good news is that recertification revenues actually rose by over $187,000; it’s good to know that I’m not the only one who values my National Certification enough to keep it up.

I also have to applaud the NCB for the way they have cut expenses. Their belt-tightening is nothing short of impressive. When revenues go down, expenses should go down (albeit not at the expense of customer service), and apparently not all our organizations get that concept, as I have pointed out on a previous blog or two. I think the general public relates well to that…when you earn less money, you have to spend less money.

Compensation to officers, directors, trustees and key employees was decreased by $418,000. Other salaries and wages were decreased by almost $160,000. Legal fees were down by more than $321,000. Advertising and promotional fees, office expenses, conference and convention expenses, printing expenses and other expenses decreased. Altogether, the NCBTMB cut expenses more than 2.4 million dollars from the previous year.

Paul Lindamood, CEO, drew a salary of $230k. Board members are also compensated at the NCBTMB; Chair Neal Delaporta is listed as devoting an average of 17 hours per week to the NCB and was compensated $55,000 for that service. Other Board members received anywhere from $3000 to over $13,000 for their part-time service. Former COO Laura Edgar Culver received more than $128,000.

Lindamood had personally stated to me earlier this year that the organization was doing everything possible to cut expenses, and I am happy to see that has in fact been done. Assets have increased and liabilities have decreased.

When the economy goes down, charitable contributions go down. I am particularly glad to report that in spite of the harsh financial hit the NCBTMB has taken, they still managed to donate $10,000 to the Massage Therapy Foundation. I think that shows commitment to the good of this profession. They could have easily said “we can’t afford it this year,” but they didn’t. Kudos to them.

I hope the recession is winding down for everyone, all the small business owners, all those who work in our profession and support industries, and our non-profit organizations as well.

Posted on

The Financial Health of Our Organizations: FSMTB

This is my second year of doing an annual report on the financial status of the major non-profit organizations of the massage therapy profession. I am not an accountant or a financial expert. This information was taken directly from FORM 990, the Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, which is published on Guidestar.

If there’s such a thing as a poster child for good finances in these economic times, it’s the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards.

It was reported at last month’s annual meeting that the Federation had paid off their $700,000 start-up loan 27 months early.

The 990 shows an increase in total revenues of over $1.2 million from the previous year, a decrease in liabilities, and an increase in assets. Of course expenses increased, but when revenues take that big a jump, so do the expenses related to generating those revenues, particularly the money paid to the exam administration company. That amount increased about $600K, due to the rapid increase in the number of students taking the exam. The Federation’s revenues come from the MBLEx and from the annual dues paid by the member boards, currently numbering 40.

Executive Director Debra Persinger received an annual raise of $38,500. The FSMTB also moved into more spacious offices in Overland Park, KS this year and as announced at the 2009 meeting, added another staff member. Persinger had previously been the sole employee since the inception of the Federation.

One noteworthy point is that the Board members of the FSMTB are not compensated at all, other than their travel expenses to and from meetings and expenses directly related to Board business. According to the filing, Board members spend 10-15 hours per week on FSMTB business. As a state Board member myself, I can relate to that.  Serving on any Board is time-consuming. The FSMTB Board members deserve recognition for serving without any per diem.

Congratulations to the FSMTB for doing such an impressive job in the middle of a recession.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial