Find
a Massage Therapist
OMTA
Annual Conference
Member
Benefits
Administration
OMTA
1710 Oakhurst Court
Eugene, OR 97402-8002
MEMBERSHIP
Interested in joining OMTA?
Print an application
to mail.
Have a question about your membership?
Contact Heather Bennouri at info@bennouri.net
FAQ
Have a question? Want to know about insurance, licensing, laws? See
Frequently
Asked Questions.
|
HAND
WASHING
Did
you know that Oregon requires a handwashing sign to be posted
in the restroom that your clients use? Here
are four options that you can print for posting on your walls..
|
|
Legal
Issues
OMTA RESOLUTION TO RETAIN
OBMT IN PRESENT FORM
At the November 2009 meeting
of the Executive Committee of the Oregon Massage Therapists Association,
a motion was passed to make the following statement to the Governor,
Legislature, Massage Profession, and Public. This statement is made
based on results of a survey conducted of OMTA members in October
2009.
The Oregon Massage Therapists
Association (OMTA), a professional association of licensed massage
therapists in Oregon, supports the Oregon Board of Massage Therapists
(OBMT) in its current semi-independent structure.
The OBMT has made positive
changes that protect both the public and its licensees and serves
a critical role in keeping massage therapy a safe and respected profession.
The State of Oregon
has been a leader in eliminating unsafe and unethical practices in
the field of massage and has been a role model for legislation, policy,
and procedures for other states throughout the country.
Please help keep the profession of massage a legitimate and valuable
resource for Oregonians.
Keeping the OBMT in
its self-funded, self-sufficient format ensures quality regulation
and job security for the 6000 Licensed Massage Therapists currently
practicing.
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO PROTECT
YOUR PROFESSION
|
Governor
Proposes Suspending Massage Board
Following
are letters that represent the opinions of the writers. If you
have an opinion and would like to see it expressed here, contact
the webmaster.
On May
15 Gov. Kulongoski proposed in a speech to the City Club of Portland
to suspend several agencies, boards and commissions, including
the Board of Massage Therapists. The reason he gave was to save
taxpayers' money.
Suspending
the Oregon Board of Massage Therapy (OBMT) would be a mistake
for several reasons. First, the OBMT is a semi-independent board
that takes no taxpayer money. The licensing fees of Licensed Massage
Therapists (LMTs), and fines paid by those who violate massage
laws pays for the board.
Second,
the OBMT investigates when massage is used as a guise for prostitution.
Suspending the OBMT would force other agencies to investigate
prostitution; a more likely scenario is that there would be no
funds to investigate prostitution and it would be allowed to continue
for lack of funds. Thus, the cost to the taxpayer and the danger
to the legitimate massage therapists would be greater if the OBMT
is suspended.
Third,
LMTs, including the Oregon Massage Therapists Association (OMTA),
are self-policing. We report to our board when we witness illegal
activities related to massage, including unlicensed massage and
Craigslist ads. If the governor suspends the OBMT, who will we
report to? The Governor's office?
Fourth,
there are always groups trying to bypass or change the massage
laws, groups trying to allow someone or another to practice massage
without a license. If the governor suspends the OBMT, who will
police the massage profession?
Fifth,
there are scores of massage students working their way through
school. If there is no licensing board, those students cannot
begin practice without a license. Suspending the board does not
suspend the laws.
Sixth,
occasionally LMTs commit moral infractions against clients. Currently
the board has procedures in place to suspend their licenses. With
no board, there is no oversight, and no license suspension.
There
are many other reasons why the OBMT should not be suspended. I
recommend that you contact your legislator and the governor's
office to encourage the governor to retain the OBMT.
Robert
Bike, LMT #5473
President, Oregon Massage Therapists Association
As some
of you may know, I am a recent appointee to the OBMT. In this
light, some of what I am about to say is likely to sound only
self-serving. It may help to know that OBMT board members are
volunteers who donate their time, receiving expenses and a small
stipend—usually not enough to compensate for the time taken
off regular work and other commitments.
I would
like to stress that regulation can take many forms and while the
current semi-independent structure is one of the most efficient
in our state, it would be preferable to lose the current structure
but maintain similar regulation than to lose regulation altogether.
My experience
on the OBMT in the past seven months has been an eye-opener in
many ways. I did not always believe that regulation of massage
therapy was truly necessary. As I came to understand that regulation
wasn’t just about preventing injury to clients (unlikely,
but with cases rising as insurers will tell you) or as a deterrent
to prostitution (which will never end), I also learned that it
helps to protect LMTs as members of the public, by providing legitimacy
to the profession, and public trust in a safe profession.
Oregon
was one of the first five states in the U.S. to license massage
therapy in the 1950s. Later, in 1985, when a Sunset Review of
the OBMT came before the legislature, a group of massage therapists
banded together, formed OMTA, and successfully lobbied the legislature
to keep the OBMT and licensing within the State of Oregon. Now,
25 years after lobbying to keep the OBMT, we as LMTs are facing
the possibility that the OBMT will be suspended.
The implications
of this are far-reaching.
Suspension
will affect licensees who bill insurance as some companies will
no longer recognize those individuals as health care providers
without a license. Suspension will affect licensees who advertise
in publications as they get mixed in with untrained individuals,
or worse, those using massage as a front for other illegal activity.
Suspension
will allow former licensees who were permanently suspended from
practicing massage for sexual and/or ethical violations to practice
again and prey upon the public.
Suspension
eliminates a regulatory force that works with its licensees, the
public, and law enforcement to ensure that massage therapy is
a safe practice in the state of Oregon.
The OBMT
is more than a set of rules about classes and tests to take to
get a license. As a regulatory agency, they review ethical boundary
violations, sexual violations, scope of practice violations, financial
fraud, and more. When a case is clearly beyond administrative
law simply for suspension or civil penalties, the OBMT works with
police or refers to police for necessary criminal investigation
and prosecution.
Please
make your voice heard to protect massage therapy as a safe and
respected profession. Contact your representatives and let them
know that massage therapy needs regulation.
Heather
Bennouri, LMT #10079
Touchstone Editor
To see
a letter from OMTA's
|
|
News
from the Oregon Board of Massage Therapists
The OBMT, at the request
of the legislature, has formed a Multiple Discipline Committee
to review the different types of therapies involving touch. The
representatives in the Oregon legislature are tired of being lobbied
by small groups of individuals who practice some form of touch
therapy for exemption from the massage practice act and requested
that the OBMT review the different forms of touch therapy and
present findings to the legislature. Those interested in being
on the Multiple Discipline Committee should contact Patty Glenn
at the OBMT office for further information (503) 365-8657 or patty.glenn@state.or.us.
Related Links
Oregon Board of Massage Therapists
Oregon State Legislature
|
|
The
Oregon State Legislature 2009
House & Senate
Bills
OMTA conducted a survey of its members for their opinions
on whether the bills at the 2009 legislature should pass or fail.
Initially there were seven bills. Three more were added later.
Surveys were mailed to members for these 10 bills.
The Executive Committee
was asked to write 1-2 sentences on their opinions for each bill
currently affecting massage in the 2009 Oregon Legislature. Those
that submitted opinions have had them included below, without
editing, along with their names. You can use this to see what
the issues are that the EC is concerned about with the bills.
Regardless of the opinions presented here, each EC member receives
only one vote in the poll, as do all our other members, in determining
the OMTA stance for each bill that will be presented to the legislature.
Here are the bills,
a summary of what they are intended to do, opinions from some
of the Executive Committee members with recommendations to support
or oppose them, and the results of the member survey:
Senate
Bill 146 Modifies the Current Massage Statutes
The full Text of SB 146 is online here.
Key Changes:
Removes “state” and changes to “jurisdiction”
when referencing other locations besides Oregon. Allows
OBMT to consider foreign locations and small US municipalities
(cities, etc.) when referencing massage programs and licensees.
Adds “aiding and abetting” language. This language
holds responsible those who knowingly assist in promoting
unlicensed practice. Provides for one warning of violation
before sanctions can be imposed. Exempts clients and those
who refer (as long as they are not receiving compensation)
to unlicensed individuals.
Revises exemption language. Clarifies in concise language
who is allowed to legally practice massage and under what
conditions.
Inserts “program or class” language for massage
education facilities. Allows the OBMT to approve a massage
program as a whole, as opposed to having to approve each
individual class within a program. Does not broaden power
of OBMT.
Rephrased definition of massage. Updates language to more
modern terminology in simpler form without changing the
scope of practice.
Moves and clarifies site inspection language. Language that
was in two separate sections is now combined into one area
for clarity. Permits OBMT to enforce regulations it is already
responsible for.
Other minor grammatical, spelling, and phrasing changes.
These are made for the purposes of linguistic accuracy and
clarity.
How Does This Affect You?
PASS Provides smoother process for OBMT to review massage
licenses of individuals moving to Oregon from outside of
the 50 states and consider their credentials when reviewing
them for Oregon licensure. Simplifies process for schools
to get approval for their massage programs and for modifications
to their massage programs. Holds responsible unethical employers
who hire unlicensed therapists to practice massage (under
current law, only the individual practicing massage is held
accountable). Closes loopholes in exemption language for
practice of massage. Clarifies inspection of premises language.
It should be noted that the primary function of the OBMT
is to protect the public. “Barging in” on a massage
session for an inspection whether or not the client is on
the table would violate that charge and thus is not permitted.
FAIL All language stays as it currently is. Individuals
from US territories or foreign countries may have a more
difficult process getting licensed in Oregon. Massage schools
have a more lengthy process to have their programs approved.
Spas, other businesses, or individuals who hire unlicensed
individuals and take advantage of them can continue to do
so without fear of repercussions. Loophole allowing some
forms of unlicensed practice stays in place. OBMT can still
inspect premises, but needs a complaint first (which it
can make in its own name).
|
Executive
Committee Statements
Support
A long-needed overhaul of the massage laws that clarifies
the definition of massage, holds unethical massage employers
responsible, closes loop-holes, while protecting LMTs
and the public. I do not share the concerns that the OBMT
will overstep its role. Robert Bike, OMTA President
I
support this measure as it will have legal and financial
repercussions for some of the DC’s, PT’s, and
Salon/Spa owners who knowingly hire massage students and/or
unlicensed therapists without any legal ramifications.
The fears of the OBMT charging into a therapist’s
office while with a client are unfounded; it would go
against already existing rules and regulations. Bruno
De Block, OMTA Immediate Past President
The
changes proposed by this bill were made either for simple
language clarity or more importantly, to address problems
the board has faced with serious enforcement issues in
regulating massage. Put together with cooperation from
massage schools, Oregon LMTs, and representative from
professional associations, this has been a cooperative
effort designed to meet the needs of the public, the profession,
and the board. Heather Bennouri, OMTA Membership Director
& Touchstone Editor
Oppose
I am not in favor of creating a new crime of “aiding,
abetting, assisting” in the unlicensed practice of
massage; I am not in favor of removing the legislature’s
current oversight of massage education curriculum, and
I am not in favor of giving the massage Board authority
to perform warrantless, on-demand inspections and searches
of massage premises. Rose Jade, OMTA Area Representative
for the Central Coast
|
Membership
Survey Results
|
Favor
38
|
|
Result
73.1%
Favor
|
|
House
Bill 2057 Eliminates Semi-Independence for Health Professions
Boards
The full Text of HB 2057 is online here.
Key Changes
Budget approval process changes. The current process requires
the OBMT submit notification of the budget to all licensees
and legislators and can then pass it, or amendments to it.
The proposed process would go through the legislature for
vote. Amendments require an appeal to the emergency board,
no matter how small or urgent.
Subject to the State Personnel Relations Law Requires a more
lengthy hiring process and many more reports than currently
need to be filed. The OBMT already has many of the same policies
in place that would be required, but with less reporting,
employee time, and faster processes.
Establishes a New Monetary Account for the OBMT. This would
require a transfer of funds and a different (longer) process
for handling all financial transactions.
Removes Significant Auditing and Reporting Responsibilities
that Hold the OBMT Accountable to the Public, its Licensees,
and the Legislature. A biennial independent outside audit,
an annual comprehensive report, and an annual financial statements
would no longer be required.
How Does This Affect You?
PASS Removes significant accountability of the OBMT to the
public, its licensees, and the legislature. Requires that
the budget go through the legislature for approval, and any
amendments require an Emergency Board approval—a time-consuming
process that does not always result in the necessary funds.
Adds significant administrative costs and time. Fiscal impact
statements are not yet available, but early estimates are
approximately $100,000.00 biennually to the OBMT budget. These
expenses would be passed on through increased fees, decreased
services, or some combination thereof.
FAIL Preserves semi-independence and permits OBMT to function
in a more “business-like” manner. Allows OBMT to
continue to choose the cheapest and most efficient sources
for supplies and services. Allows the OBMT a faster budgetary
and budgetary revision process in order to address urgent
issues.
NOTE The OBMT had been a regular board from its inception
until 1999, when semi-independence was granted (along with
the Optometry Board in 1997 and PT Board in 1999) after lengthy
research into efficient models of state government. |
Executive
Committee Statements
Support
I am in favor of increasing legislative oversight of the
massage Board’s past, present, and future actions and
goals: a state license to practice massage should
mean that all three branches of my state government are
accountable for how the license is granted and how the profession
is regulated. Rose Jade, OMTA Area Representative for
the Central Coast
Oppose
Adds significant costs to OBMT, increases time to hire staff,
decreases reports & audits, tries to fix problems that
don't exist. The OBMT has been much more efficient and responsive
since becoming semi-independent. Robert Bike, OMTA President
Having experienced
OBMT before it obtained semi-independent status, I remember
it as having been more bureaucratic, less efficient, unresponsive
to practitioner’s needs, and less interested in making
improvements to the system. Needless to say; semi-independent
status under Patty Glen’s leadership has improved all
of the above inadequacies. Bruno De Block, OMTA Immediate
Past President
Semi-independence
allows LMTs greater input into a faster, more responsive
budgeting process, still allowing for legislative input,
but requiring a far greater responsibility on the part of
the OBMT in terms of mandatory reporting and accountability
processes to the public and the legislature. Semi-independence
is more efficient, thousands of dollars cheaper, and keeps
the OBMT far more accountable. Heather Bennouri, OMTA
Membership Director & Touchstone Editor
|
Membership
Survey Results
|
Favor
5
|
|
Result
90.0%
Oppose
|
|
House
Bill 2058 Changes OBMT Board Member Appointment Requirements
and Process
The full Text of HB 2058 is online here.
Key Changes
Subjects OBMT Appointments by the Governor to Senate Approval.
Requires that all members of the board must be residents of
Oregon.
Redefines public members. Cannot be massage therapists or
family members of a massage therapists.
LMT Board Member Selection Requirements Governor must also
consider geographic location.
Specifies Term Timing, Clarifies Appointments of Vacancies
Also removes members from the board immediately if they move
out of state. Clarifies that if three consecutive meetings
are missed and unexcused, the board member shall be removed
immediately.
How Does This Affect You?
PASS A longer process to fill vacancies on the board. Vacancies
would take longer to fill due to the added Senate process.
Individuals who live just across state lines but hold active
LMT licenses and practice in Oregon would not be eligible
for a board position. Only professional associations can nominate
LMTs for board positions.
FAIL No change in current appointment process. |
Executive
Committee Statements
Support
I am in favor of having the legislative branch (the Senate)
review and approve the Governor’s selection of massage
Board members: this is a needed check and balance on a state
licensing Board, otherwise the executive branch (through
the Governor’s office) has too much control.
Rose Jade, OMTA Area Representative for the Central Coast
Oppose
Fixes problems with other boards; not sure how it will affect
OBMT. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Robert Bike, OMTA
President
I do agree that
the process could be cleaned up a little bit, but I think
it is better to keep it under the Governor’s duties,
instead of the legislative branch. The legislative
branch doesn’t have enough time to deal with serious
issues; let alone saddling them with appointments to boards
that can easily be accomplished without involving them.
Bruno De Block, OMTA Immediate Past President
The clarification
of who may serve as a board member (both public and LMT)
is needed; however, with the Senate approval portion, it
adds unnecessary length to a process that can already be
time-consuming, tipping the balance of board members while
vacant seats remain unfilled. Heather Bennouri, OMTA
Membership Director & Touchstone Editor
|
Membership
Survey Results
|
Favor
5
|
|
Result
90.0%
Oppose
|
|
House
Bill 2059 Requires Mandatory Reporting for Health Professionals
The full Text of HB 2059 is online here.
Key Changes
Requires Mandatory Reporting of Violations by Health Professionals.
This bill requires that if any health professional witness
a violation of professional practices by another health professional
that it be reported.
Requires Report Go to Reporting Licensees Board. The licensee
filing the report must go to his/her licensing board. (For
example, if an LMT were to report a chiropractor, the LMT
would report to the Oregon Board of Massage Therapists).
How Does This Affect You?
PASS Must report ALL violations made by health professionals
to the Oregon Board of Massage Therapists. Therefore, must
be familiar with law for all health professions in Oregon
to know what are violations. Failure to report could result
in disciplinary action if found out.
FAIL Mandatory reporting for other health professionals is
not required. Mandatory reporting of suspected violations
of massage law still required. |
Executive
Committee Statements
Support
No supporting arguments for this bill were submitted by
the OMTA Executive Committee members.
Oppose
I am in favor of the current system where reporting is free,
voluntary, and is working: people are encouraged to report
suspicious or criminal behavior directly to law enforcement
agencies whose investigators and prosecuting attorneys handle
reports and can coordinate the response. Mandatory reporting
encourages judgmental thinking, can create extremely hostile
workplaces, and is easily abused or mis-used by certain
personality types. Rose Jade, OMTA Area Representative
for the Central Coast
Current system
works fine. Some problems with wording of bill may require
LMTs to report violations of all health professions. Robert
Bike, OMTA President
There is no need
for the type of regulations proposed; maybe other Boards
have had issues, but that does not apply to massage therapists
in general. Hopefully the amendment would exempt LMT’s
in the event it does pass. Bruno De Block, OMTA Immediate
Past President
Mandatory reporting
is already required for LMTs under current rules, but not
for LMTs to report all other health professions. Designed
to address serious problems that occurred with a different
health profession board, the language of this bill is far
too broad and vague, with unnecessary reporting steps to
be an efficient solution. Heather Bennouri, OMTA Membership
Director & Touchstone Editor
|
Membership
Survey Results
|
Favor
3
|
|
Result
94.2%
Oppose
|
|
House
Bill 2118 Revises Health Professions Statutes
The full Text of HB 2118 is online here.
Key Changes
Defines “impairment.” Boards maintain most jurisdiction
to handle case-by-case decisions.
States primary purpose of health professions boards. Protect
the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that licensees
practice with reasonable skill and safety.
Permits fingerprints for licensing, renewal, and board applicants
for the purposes of criminal background checks.
Mandatory reporting of health professionals. Excludes Psychiatrists,
Psychologists, Psychosocial Workers, and Professional Counselors
from reporting their patients. Makes individuals who make
reports to health professions boards in good faith exempt
from civil liability and administrative sanctions for making
the report.
Maintains health profession board jurisdiction over licensees
regardless of change in license status. Prevents granting
temporary, conditional, or restricted licenses to individuals
whose license has been revoked.
Makes email addresses of licensees confidential.
Makes health professions boards subject to State Personnel
Relations Law.
Allows board to recommend the Governor remove Executive Directors.
Requires quarterly reports from the Executive Director of
the board to the board, Governor. and the Department of Human
Services. The Department of Human Services can do random audits
and assess the costs to the board.
Board members must be residents of Oregon, public board members
cannot be specific family members of an LMT.
Allows statewide Massage Therapy Associations to nominate
board members.
How Does This Affect You?
PASS Mandatory reporting of health professionals will be required.
Allows board to hold licensees accountable for violations
of massage law committed when practicing, even if they give
up their license. More clearly defines who can be board members.
Makes personal email addresses of licensees confidential.
Requires (for OBMT) two sets of personnel rules to be in place.
Provides for Governor removal of Executive Directors. Clarifies
board member requirements.
FAIL Statutes remain as is. Board retains rights to do fingerprinting
as under current law. Mandatory reporting of LMTs still required.
Only one set of personnel rules for hiring. Governor cannot
remove Executive Director of board. Email addresses are public
information. Licensees who violate massage law and then give
up their license cannot be held accountable for their actions.
Executive Director responsible for higher number of reports. |
Executive
Committee Statements
Support
No supporting arguments for this bill were submitted by
the OMTA Executive Committee members.
Oppose
I am in favor of the current system where reporting is free,
voluntary and works. See my comments under HB 2059. Rose
Jade, OMTA Area Representative for the Central Coast
Intro and Page
44 of the bill as it relates to the massage board. Allows
OBMT to obtain fingerprints for license renewal, imposes
duty to report impaired professionals, OBMT would keep jurisdiction
over LMTs even after giving up license. This is far too
intrusive for all LMTs who never cause problems. Robert
Bike, OMTA President
OBMT is already
required to keep the identity of a complainant confidential.
This bill is casting too wide a net, just to address a few
individuals who will already lose their license under current
rules and regulations. Bruno De Block, OMTA Immediate
Past President
The language
in this bill more clearly addresses many of the concerns
in some of the other bills this session in a more sensible
manner. However, it adds a level of bureaucracy to the board,
requiring two different personnel policies to run in parallel
and allows the possibility for the governor to appoint and
remove the Executive Director at whim. Heather Bennouri,
OMTA Membership Director & Touchstone Editor
|
Membership
Survey Results
|
Favor
4
|
|
Result
92.2%
Oppose
|
|
House
Bill 2345 Develops Process for Dealing with Impaired Professionals
The full Text of HB 2345 is online here.
Key Changes
Defines “impaired professional.”
Establishes process to identify, refer, and monitor impaired
professionals.
How Does This Affect You?
PASS Provides detailed instructions to the OBMT (and other
health professions board) on how to handle impaired professionals,
how long to monitor them, establishes drug testing procedures
for individuals identified as impaired professionals, and
sets requirements for length of license suspension or revocation.
FAIL Individual boards maintain current policies for dealing
with impaired professionals and have the right to adopt new
or modify old policies, as well as judge individuals on a
case-by-case basis. |
Executive
Committee Statements
Support
If a licensee has a drinking or drug abuse problem and needs
to be monitored, the Board should be required to use an
independent monitor to reduce the risk that personality
issues between the Board and the licensee will be unfairly
used for or against the licensee. Another needed check and
balance. Rose Jade, OMTA Area Representative for the
Central Coast
Oppose
Standardizes how various health boards deal with impaired
professionals, but takes away board's discretion with individual
cases. Again, this fixes problems with other boards, but
OBMT seems to be operating fine without the fix, and without
the increased costs. Robert Bike, OMTA President
If there is any
merit in this proposal, I do not see any reason why we can’t
make a suggestion to OBMT and address those issues accordingly.
There is no need to make more laws, when a rule change specific
to massage therapists will suffice. Bruno De Block, OMTA
Immediate Past President
This establishes
mandatory requirements for license suspension and penalties
and removes the board’s authority to use its discretion
for case-by-case scenarios. Independent monitoring agencies
can still be used if there are cases that warrant this step,
but so far this has not even been an issue for LMTs. Heather
Bennouri, OMTA Membership Director & Touchstone Editor
|
Membership
Survey Results
|
Favor
2
|
|
Result
96.0%
Oppose
|
|
House
Bill 2347 Prevents Health Licensing Boards from Assessing
Costs and Attorney Fees
The full Text of HB 2347 is online here.
Key Changes
Prohibits health professional regulatory boards from assessing
licensees any attorney fees, investigation costs, hearing
costs, or any other costs associated with an investigation
or disciplinary proceeding.
How Does This Affect You?
PASS Investigative, hearing, and attorney costs involved in
disciplinary hearings against an LMT cannot be assessed against
that LMT. Instead, these costs would become part of the budget
and thus distributed through decreased services or increased
licensure fees.
FAIL All language stays as it currently is. Individuals who
create cost to the OBMT for disciplinary processes can be
assessed fees corresponding to those costs. Extensive costs
that are not part of the budget do not become a burden to
uninvolved LMTs. |
Executive
Committee Statements
Support
I support removing the current provision that allows the
Board to recoup its attorney fees and costs against a licensee,
regardless of her innocence, and on top of any fine imposed
should she be found guilty. The current system is unequal
in that only 3 Oregon Boards are allowed to do this,
the licensee is not able to recoup her attorney fees and
costs from the Board, and the licensee has no way to challenge
the amount of Board costs (both due process safeguards are
available in court proceedings). Rose Jade,
OMTA Area Representative for the Central Coast
Fines if found
guilty should be sufficient to punish. Again, this fixes
problems with another health board. Robert Bike, OMTA
President
Unless it has
changed, several years ago, OBMT used the tactic of threatening
LMT’s with the cost of litigation, in order to make
them agree to a minor infraction. This is not acceptable:
Either the complaint has merit, and the LMT pays the fine,
or he/she is not and the Board absorbs the cost. Bruno
De Block, OMTA Immediate Past President
Oppose
The OBMT currently has this right and has only exercised
it once in the past five years. It is used when an LMT has
been found guilty of the charges against them, but has repeatedly
appealed and run up court costs excessively (tens of thousands
of dollars)—without this, those costs would be distributed
across all LMTs, who are uninvolved. Heather Bennouri,
OMTA Membership Director & Touchstone Editor
|
Membership
Survey Results
|
Favor
27
|
|
Result
55.1%
Favor
|
|
"This survey was
taken in accordance with OMTA's By-Laws. Only Voting Members whose
dues are paid and who hold current Oregon licenses were eligible
to vote. 157 ballots were sent out, 52 were returned. Some measures
had no votes on some issues. Statistically, 52 ballots has a 91%
accuracy that all the measures would come out the same, even if
we were able to wrangle opinions out of all of our members. In fact,
52 ballots gives us 95% confidence level that all the bills except
HB2347 would give the same results with the full 5712 Oregon LMTs
with active licenses at close to the same ratio (within 10%) that
our members favor and oppose these bills. 52 returned ballots gives
HB2347 an 86% confidence level that it would be favored by 5712
LMTs. I'm confident that the survey correctly represents our membership,
and the active Oregon LMTs as well."—Robert Bike, OMTA
President
Additional measures
in OMTA's second survey:
|
SB 692: Expanded
Reflexology Exemption
Complete text of the bill here.
Key changes:
Changes application of reflexology by practitioner from
thumbs only to include fingers and palms.
Changes application of reflexology on client body from feet,
hands, and ears to include face.
How this affects
you:
Reflexology already has a limited exemption. This expands
the scope of practice for that exemption.
Neither the existing
exemption nor the revision require any education, sanitation,
communicable disease practices, ethical boundaries, licensing,
or any other requirements currently in place for Oregon
LMTs.
|
Executive
Committee Statements
Favor
I favor all of
these bills because I think these modalities are distinguishable
from the commonsense meaning of massage, they pose very
little actual risk to humans, exempting these practitioners
from the Massage licensing requirements is quite reasonable,
doing so will increase client access to these modalities,
and there are existing laws on the books to protect the
public from criminal assault, etc., and to provide liability
against practitioners who are negligent. Rose Jade, OMTA
Area Representative for the Central Coast
Oppose
I had a Reflexology treatment this week (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexology)
and it felt like massage to me, as it was alternately soothing
and painful. This proposed law does not define Reflexology,
provides no protection, either for the public or the practitioner,
for cleanliness, pathology, ethics or education, and there
is a lack of central regulation, accreditation, training
and licensing, allowing anyone to practice as a reflexologist,
with no qualifications. Robert Bike, OMTA President
I have the same
opinion for all three. I feel that if a massage therapist
can perform them, which we can, then it needs to be regulated
under the board. I am opposed to all three proposed bills.
Daisy Talbado, OMTA Vice-President
If you are going to be physically touching clients, then
you need to be regulated. It is important for client safety,
personal and client education, and professionalism in the
field of massage therapy. Emden Griffin, OMTA Volunteer
Coordinator
Oregon has never
separated massage by modality until the last legislative
session when Reflexology was granted a very limited exemption.
Further expanding this while failing to include any type
of regulation, education, or basic sanitation means that
anyone could practice with no training or oversight whatsoever.
Heather Bennouri, OMTA Membership Director
|
Membership
Survey Results
|
Favor
9
|
|
Result
87.3%
Oppose
|
|
|
SB 693: Exempts
Bowenwork Therapy
Complete text of the bill here.
Key changes:
Exempts practitioners of Bowenwork therapy from all massage
statutes (licensing, regulation, and enforcement).
How this affects
you:
Bowenwork therapy is considered massage under current Oregon
law. This exemption does not require any education, sanitation,
communicable disease practices, ethical boundaries, licensing,
or any other requirements currently in place for Oregon
LMTs.
|
Executive
Committee Statements
Favor
I
favor all of these bills because I think these modalities
are distinguishable from the commonsense meaning of massage,
they pose very little actual risk to humans, exempting these
practitioners from the Massage licensing requirements is
quite reasonable, doing so will increase client access to
these modalities, and there are existing laws on the books
to protect the public from criminal assault, etc., and to
provide liability against practitioners who are negligent.
Rose Jade, OMTA Area Representative for the Central Coast
Oppose
I had a Bowen treatment last year (http://www.bowenworktherapy.com/what_is_bowen_therapy.html),
and it felt like massage to me. While Bowen is protective
of its name and has standardized training around the world,
this proposed law does not define Bowenwork (aka Bowen or
Bowtech) and provides no protection, either for the public
or the practitioner, for cleanliness, pathology, ethics
or education. Robert Bike, OMTA President
I have the same
opinion for all three. I feel that if a massage therapist
can perform them, which we can, then it needs to be regulated
under the board. I am opposed to all three proposed bills.
Daisy Talbado, OMTA Vice-President
If you are going to be physically touching clients, then
you need to be regulated. It is important for client safety,
personal and client education, and professionalism in the
field of massage therapy. Emden Griffin, OMTA Volunteer
Coordinator
Bowenwork therapy
clearly meets the definition of massage by Oregon law. Like
other touch modalities—regardless of quantity of pressure—basic
guidelines, already established in current statute should
be in place to protect both public and practitioner. Heather
Bennouri, OMTA Membership Director
|
|
Favor
11
|
|
Result
84.5%
Oppose
|
|
|
SB 717: Exempts
Polarity Therapy
Complete text of the bill here.
Key changes:
Exempts practitioners of Polarity therapy through touch
from all massage statutes (licensing, regulation, and enforcement).
How this affects
you:
Polarity therapy without touch is already exempt from all
massage statutes. This exemption does not require any education,
sanitation, communicable disease practices, ethical boundaries,
licensing, or any other requirements currently in place
for Oregon LMTs.
|
Executive
Committee Statements
Favor
I favor all of
these bills because I think these modalities are distinguishable
from the commonsense meaning of massage, they pose very
little actual risk to humans, exempting these practitioners
from the Massage licensing requirements is quite reasonable,
doing so will increase client access to these modalities,
and there are existing laws on the books to protect the
public from criminal assault, etc., and to provide liability
against practitioners who are negligent. Rose Jade, OMTA
Area Representative for the Central Coast
Oppose
While the American Polarity Therapy Association has
a code of ethics, extensive training, and regulations for
their members, this law does not define Polarity Therapy
(aka Polarity) and does nothing to protect the public or
practitioners in the areas of cleanliness, pathology, ethics
or education. While I've had many wonderful Polarity Therapy
sessions since the early 1970s, and have read several books
by Randolph Stone (the founder of Polarity Therapy), excluding
the entire field of Polarity Therapy from regulation does
not do justice to the public protection that massage laws
provide. Robert Bike, OMTA President
I have the same
opinion for all three. I feel that if a massage therapist
can perform them, which we can, then it needs to be regulated
under the board. I am opposed to all three proposed bills.
Daisy Talbado, OMTA Vice-President
If you are going to be physically touching clients, then
you need to be regulated. It is important for client safety,
personal and client education, and professionalism in the
field of massage therapy. Emden Griffin, OMTA Volunteer
Coordinator
Polarity therapy,
used without touch, is already exempt from massage laws—with
touch, the lack of definition in this bill for Polarity
Therapy creates significant problems and could allow anyone
claiming to be a Polarity Therapist (regardless of work
performed) to practice massage without a license. Basic
education, sanitation, draping, communicable disease control,
pathology, and ethics should still be required as of all
other touch modalities. Heather Bennouri, OMTA Membership
Director
|
|
Favor
11
|
|
Result
84.5%
Oppose
|
|
"This survey was
taken in accordance with OMTA's By-Laws. Only Voting Members whose
dues are paid and who hold current Oregon licenses were eligible
to vote. 183 ballots were sent out, 71 were returned. Statistically,
71 ballots has a 97.0% accuracy that all the measures would be opposed
at the same percentage (within 10%), even if we were able to wrangle
opinions out of all of our members. In fact, 71 ballots gives us
91.2% confidence level that all the bills in the second survey would
be opposed by all 5712 Oregon LMTs with active licenses at close
to the same ratio (within 10%) that our members oppose these bills.
I'm confident that this second survey correctly represents our membership,
and the active Oregon LMTs as well."—Robert Bike, OMTA
President
Related Links
Oregon Board of Massage Therapists
Oregon State Legislature
|
|
Results:
|
OMTA is a 503(c)(6) Non-Profit Corporation. According to the IRS,
contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions on the
donor's federal income tax return. They may be deductible as trade or
business expenses if ordinary and necessary in the conduct of the taxpayer's
business. Contact your tax consultant if this affects you.
|
