The Massage Pundit

This is a follow-up to my blog of June 19 about AMTA’s fiscal responsibility.  In the next couple of months I will be reporting on the financial condition of all our non-profit professional organizations.

Someone from AMTA asked me why I didn’t pick on ABMP, and the short answer is, they are a not a non-profit organization. When an organization holds itself out as non-profit, the membership (and the public) has a right to know. Incidentally, I am a member of both organizations.

The recession has not been kind to AMTA.  According to their Form 990, the organization has taken a 5.6 million-dollar hit on their investments (publicly traded securities) during the fiscal year from March 2008-Feb 2009. While assets decreased, liabilities increased by almost 1 million dollars since last year. Total revenues were down by $513,000, in spite of the fact that there was an increase of $424,000 in dues collected.

Of course, neither AMTA nor any individual who has investments can foresee the future (well, maybe Warren Buffet), but perhaps the $200K or so they lost at the beginning of the economic decline in 2007 should have been a harbinger of painful things to come.

Fiscal responsibility dictates that when there’s a recession on, some belt-tightening is in order. In reality, when a recession forces an organization to examine their financial responsibilities and separate the wheat from the chaff, that strategy needs to remain the rule of the day no matter what the economic environment.

AMTA cut travel expenses last year by $9000. In the general scheme of things, that isn’t much, but every little bit helps. AMTA forked out $12,000 less for lobbyists this year, and in this atmosphere of rule and regulation changes, lawsuits and challenges to state boards, and health care legislation in general gone wild, I’m not convinced that was the right place to cut.

Liz Lucas, executive director of AMTA, actually received almost $35,000 less in compensation and benefits than she did last year, which proved to be contrary to rumors circulating that had prompted my inquiry in the first place. However, total wages and salaries at AMTA increased by $200,000. If AMTA is hiring and giving out raises to their regular employees during a recession, more power to them.

In spite of the economic downturn, AMTA was able to give $261K in grants to COMTA and $118K to the Massage Therapy Foundation.

One or two things did jump out at me on the 990. One, earlier this year I was told that the salary of Liz Lucas and other board members was performance-based and determined partly by the recommendation of an independent compensation consulting firm. That was not checked on this year’s filing; instead it was stated that “benchmark data” and that the Board’s own Performance Review Committee recommended Lucas’ salary, based on objectives for the organization and whether or not those had been met.

Also, the statement that the return was reviewed by an Audit Committee composed of “various financially astute board members” got my attention. Should a board be auditing themselves? Well, yes, but not officially. Hopefully there is an outside independent  auditor as well; it wasn’t mentioned.

To summarize, AMTA had a less than ideal year, financially. They’re not on the brink of bankruptcy, and in response to my earlier request for information, President Judy Stahl had informed me that they have adequate cash reserves. One does hope that they’ll look for less risky investments in the future, or bury that money in a Mason jar in the backyard. It won’t earn any interest, but at least 5.6  million bucks won’t go up in smoke.

The National Certification Board  hit a bump in the road this weekend when Whitney Lowe resigned from the Advanced Certification Task Force, citing differences of opinion over how the project should proceed.

In a letter to NCB staff and fellow Task Force members, Lowe acknowledged the effort that has been put forth during the process, and expressed his concern about the timeline of the process, which he feels is being rushed to the detriment of the project.

His resignation stated in part, “I have long felt our profession is in need of an advanced credential. I recognize it is not an easy task and there are a number of people who have put forth significant efforts on behalf of this process. It is a complex issue and requires a great deal of thought, input, and insight into what is best for the profession. I have been greatly dismayed by the process that has been used so far to create this credential. Crucial discussions have been brushed aside in a rush to meet an unrealistic timeline for deployment of this exam. Yesterday we were informed that the eligibility criteria had been established and a job task analysis would be begun in approximately two weeks.”

Lowe went on to say that he felt many concerns that he had brought up about possible flaws in the exam construction had been ignored or glossed over, and that he could no longer support the process being used to create the exam.

Just a few days ago, I wrote in this blog that there was something going on at the NCB–that they were actually listening to the stakeholders–a dramatic improvement from the past few years–but apparently, I may have spoken too soon, as Lowe feels as if they weren’t listening to him. Since Lowe is universally respected in our profession and is in fact a former chair of the NCBTMB, one can assume that he has valid concerns, and his abrupt resignation from the Task Force is not reassuring.

I contacted Paul Lindamood, CEO of the NCBTMB, for a comment, after I received a copy of Lowe’s resignation. Speaking on behalf of the Advanced Certification steering committee, Lindamood’s comment was “We were very sorry to see Whitney drop out of the project. He is an acknowledged expert in his field, and we will miss his participation.  We want to thank him for his input and advice while he was part of the task force.”

Lindamood went on to share further details about the project:

The coordination of all major tasks required to develop a new credential follows an established timeline designed by experts in exam creation. Both the steering committee and the test vendor, Pearson VUE, have approved the timeline. Note that it is flexible and can be revised as needed.Tasks are assigned to different subgroups. The work of these subgroups may go on concurrently. The Exam Development timeline will be available for review on NCBTMB’s website next week at www.ncbtmb.org.

The Needs Assessment, a description of what an Advanced Credential should be, is based on input from people in the field. This information was obtained through a Needs Assessment survey, which was circulated nationally to all certificants directly, as well as practitioners through the assistance of ABMP and AMTA, among others. The responses, totaling nearly 7,000, serve as the body of information used by the task force to determine some very important things that form the basis of the test.

According to Lindamood, subgroups have made preliminary determinations and the task force members are commenting amongst themselves in two key areas:

(1) the definition of Advanced Certification as provided by the Needs Assessment, and

(2) the eligibility requirements to sit for the exam.

His statement said, “Overall, the progress of the group has been as planned. We are excited at the direction emerging from these very engaged and committed task force members. Bear in mind that this is a project that people feel very passionate about, and we expect there will be an occasional bump in the road. We know that close communication and tolerance will keep the team unified and the project moving forward.”

I don’t expect that Whitney Lowe’s departure is going to stop the NCBTMB from forging ahead with this project, and only time will tell whether or not Lowe’s obviously heartfelt concerns prove to be true.  It’s no little irony that the NCB criticized the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards and accused them of rushing the MBLEx to the market. Now it appears they may be doing the same thing. A flawed exam will not stand up to scrutiny for long, and Pearson Vue, the test administrators, wouldn’t  risk their own reputation in the testing industry just to pacify the Federation or the NCB. Along with everyone else, I’ll be waiting to see what happens, and reporting on that here.

Lindamood stressed that the NCB would post continuous updates on the process on the website beginning next week.  He urges those who have any questions about the project  to email  advanced@ncbtmb.org.

Peace & Prosperity,

Laura Allen

There is something big happening at the National Certification Board: THEY ARE LISTENING!

I caused a little uproar earlier this year when I scooped their announcement on this blog about the membership organization the NCB was planning to launch.  The response to that announcement wasn’t very cordial on any front; everyone from the certificants to the other professional associations spoke out about it, and I am glad to say that the plan is on hold, according to their press release of Oct. 20.  Ditching it before they spend a huge pile of money on it seems like the best course of action, in my opinion.

According to Paul Lindamood, CEO of the NCBTMB, the decision was based on “input from the profession.” That is the second time in a week that phrase has been put forth by the NCB, the first being when the announcement was made that the unpopular decision to require proctors for home-study and distance education classes was being rescinded, at least temporarily, until the issue could be revisited.

I’ve been slamming the NCB pretty hard in the past couple of years, and one of my most vocal complaints has been that they don’t listen and they don’t respond.  If nothing else, these two announcements are evidence that they have come to the painful conclusion that they need to wake up and smell the coffee.  I made a personal promise to Mr. Lindamood that I would spread the good news when I thought there was something good to spread, and I’m as good as my word, so here it is.

I applaud every one who contacted the NCB to express an opinion, and I urge you to keep doing it.  I think they may have seen the light at the end of the tunnel and realized it was the headlight of an oncoming train. It has seemed for quite some time that they were just going to crash and burn, which would be a sad end to what was formerly a pillar of the profession.

When the NCB screws up, I report that. I don’t get any kind of pleasure out of doing so; I just think the stakeholders have a right to know.  And when I see the evidence that they’re paying attention to us and trying to do better, I’m fair enough to report that, too. Let’s hope this is a good sign of better days to come.

Peace & Prosperity,

Laura Allen

Most state massage boards are now requiring criminal record checks and fingerprints from their applicants; some have been doing it for years, so it’s not exactly news. Some therapists are resentful of this, mainly due to the extra expense, and some view it as unfair, especially if there are other licensed occupations in their states that are not subject to the same rule.

There are a couple of bigger issues here: most of those boards don’t have a procedure in place that would allow a potential massage student to submit their criminal record to the board for a review before they spend the time and money to attend school.

Even worse, schools frequently make light of the criminal record of an applicant; they’re looking at the bottom line and nothing else.  As a member of our state board, I hear that all the time when someone comes to appeal the decision not to give them a license: “But my school director said that wasn’t going to be a problem!”  In the case of our community colleges, they’re not allowed to turn someone down because of a criminal record.

I don’t mean to imply that every school owner is money-hungry enough that they take just anyone, in spite of their record. Maybe a school owner who wouldn’t allow a rapist into their program thinks it’s not a problem to let someone in who has been convicted of theft, public drunkenness, a drug charge, trespassing, or resisting arrest…perhaps they look and think, “oh, that’s not too serious; they’ll be able to get licensed.”  The problem is, they don’t have any way of knowing that.

Our board has turned down applicants who had criminal records that were 8 or 9 pages long; even if it was all petty crimes, it was obvious that the person was just a career criminal. When we are assessing whether or not to license someone, we use the following criteria:

• What was the crime(s)?
• How old was the applicant when it was committed?
• How long ago did it occur?
• Was it violent or sexual in nature?
• Was the crime an isolated incident or a chronic pattern of behavior?
• Does the person have an obvious problem with substance abuse that accompanies those crimes, or that they attribute the criminal acts to?
• Has the applicant shown any proof of rehabilitation? For how long?

I like to think that I am fair and compassionate. I like to think that I possess enough of that compassion to give someone who has made a mistake in the past a second chance to make something better of themselves, especially if they can stand in front of me and give a convincing argument of why they deserve a second chance. In fact, having had personal family experiences with substance abusers who had a criminal past and who turned their lives around, I’m probably inclined to be more sympathetic than many other people.

The problem is, a sociopath is a natural con artist who can smile at you while plotting the next criminal act he or she is going to commit, whether that’s a sexual assault or stealing your wallet. They can be terribly convincing. There are people who have infiltrated our profession because they thought this would be a good place to meet a fresh crop of victims, and they’re right.

It’s not always a black and white call of whether or not someone has shown sufficient proof of rehabilitation. What’s the proof? We get letters from family members and employers. We have ministers show up at the hearings, proclaiming that the person is now on the straight and narrow, never mind that they’ve only been that way for a month or two. We have the applicants themselves begging and crying big tears in front of a room full of people, blaming it all on their bad childhood and how they got under the influence of the wrong people.

Regulatory boards are charged with protecting the public. That’s why they exist. And believe me, the board members are not bad guys who just want to turn down every person who has made some foolish decisions. I often come home from a meeting wondering if I made the right decision, regardless of which way I voted.

If you’re still a massage student, and you have a criminal record, be very aware that you are spending your time and your money going to school at your own risk. Regardless of what your program director tells you, it isn’t up to them. You may not get a license. If you’re one of those program directors who tells students that “you’re not going to have a problem,” you’re doing them a big disservice, because again, it isn’t up to you. You should be ethical enough to give applicants a strong warning that if they have a record, they are going to be scrutinized by the massage board, and they may not get a license. Be absolutely certain that they understand that before they sign your school contract. It’s your duty, and it’s the only right thing to do.

Peace & Prosperity,

Laura Allen

Greetings, colleagues! I’m excited today to announce that I have put “Massage Collage,” my old blog, to rest. From now on, I’ll be writing on this website as The Massage Pundit.

Several weeks ago, I put a request out to my mailing list asking for suggestions for a new name for the blog, one that would reflect the fact that this blog is about the politics of the massage and bodywork profession. The winning suggestion came from Erica Bliss Winston, a massage therapist from Cary, NC.

According to dictionary.com, a “pundit” is someone who offers to mass-media his or her opinion or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis) on which they are knowledgeable. I received dozens of great suggestions, so thank you to my readers, but this was the one that jumped out at me.

In the 2 years I’ve been writing this blog, I’ve written about a variety of subjects, but as time went on I started to realize I really just want to focus on the politics of massage. I received a negative comment on the old blog about writing about the NCBTMB, so let this serve as an announcement: I will be writing about the NCBTMB, AMTA, ABMP, FSMTB, AFMTE, state boards, and any government, professional association, or other body who stands to affect this profession on the whole in any way. This blog is directed at the massage therapists out there who want to be informed about the associations and the legislation that affects us.

I welcome all comments, and print them all whether they agree with me or not. I particularly welcome comments from representatives of any of the entities I write about, and any of the concerned individuals I mention by name. I’ll be glad to present your side of the story.

I also couldn’t do this without the help of my network of MTs across the country and around the world who help me stay informed.  If something important is happening in the profession in your neck of the woods that you’d like attention called to, feel free to let me know. Thank you all.

Peace & Prosperity

Laura Allen