California Coalition on Somatic Practices (CCSP)

Return to CCSP Homepage

MEETING on JUNE 13, 1999 (SAN FRANCISCO)

Present: Beverly May, Ralph Strauch, Brian Parks, Gary Gilbert, Fran Free, Ola Mia Ogle, Mary Lynn Fucell, Richard Merk, Marie Evans, Joannie Hillerts, Alison Ross, Deborah Kimmett, Aaron Parnell.

I. Introductions:

II. Treasurer's Report:

III. San Francisco Ordinance

Alison reported that the proposal was presented last week by the S.F. committee. Those representing the somatic field tried to have us exempted from the proposed ordinance, but it was denied. An Ad Hoc Committee has been organized by the S.F. therapists and a lobbyist has been hired. The Director of Public Health has promised to exempt massage therapists, but the question is, who does this ordinance exemption include/exclude?

In Cotati, Fran Free reported that Rohnert Park passed an ordinance several months ago with no input. This new ordinance came to light when the PD recently "busted" two illegal massage parlors. Local massage therapists organized quickly (thanks to Jenny Blaker and others) and met with the Chief of Police and city attorney. At this point, most city supervisors are against the ordinance, and it looks as if it will be eliminated.

Beverly: If your city doesn't have an ordinance specific to MASSAGE you don't need one... just enforce the prostitution laws.

Model Local Ordinance: Beverly reported that AMTA is looking at adopting something for cities in unlicensed states.

The present Model has been revised, but it is not a static document. At present it is too radical a document for any California city to adopt completely, but it provides a good starting place. Strong points: statements declaring that massage shouldn't be regulated and others in the somatic field shouldn't be included in any ordinance. The sole purpose of an ordinance should be to issue a business permit for massage and a way of revoking the permit.

There are many health professional groups in Calif. who dislike state regulation, but massage therapists often want it because they feel it confers status. Some are trying to increase our scope of practice, number of schooling hours, etc. through state regulation.

Beverly: Law follows Change most of the time. Media counts. How we present ourselves counts. The more I see what other professionals have to go through with state regulations, the less attractive it is.

IV. AB 1427 to amend State of Calif. Cosmetology law.

AB 1427 adds to the exemptions any person who graduated from massage school as long as they don't represent themselves as cosmetologists/estheticians.

SB 466 - amends the Acupuncture law to add acupressure and tui-na. Beverly doesn't see this as a problem as long as there are massage exemptions.

V. Review of Projects and commitments:

It was agreed that Alison would write a letter to all participants in the survey letting them know the results of the survey. We have decided that another survey is not necessary.

2. Communication with practitioners: It's been a year since the last update from CCSP. The suggestion was made that there be another letter informing interested participants of our current direction. Beverly will prepare another letter inviting participation and reviewing what we know.

As for our website (www.somatic.com/ccsp/) content and policies- has all the major documents that CCSP has sent out, our history and mission statement. The possibility of having a List for regular communication via e-mail was discussed. This would be limited to discussion regarding professional identification and regulation in CA., and to continue to network for communication and about opportunities and potential threats. Discussion of how to sign people up, etc.

Ralph, Brain and Beverly will check into it. Check the site for further developments.

3. Formal network of associations: part of our mission statement includes monitoring political information, potential opportunities and/or threats. United we are stronger. We have established a mechanism to network with other associations (a monitoring function). This is important to maintain,

4. Certification Table: this is on the web page and provides a good breakdown of the different modalities, and a good comparison. The public/clients can use the table to make decisions about certification credibility. Ralph will be adding several new categories, i.e., number of graduates from a particular organization/school.

5. Practitioner Data Base: Ralph set up the form about one year ago, but there has been almost no response.
Question: how important is this? Answer: not very much at this time. Project tabled for now.

VI. Other business:

Next meeting: needs to take place in southern Calif. to get feedback about future direction for CCSP. We need to take a serious look at whether we have the leadership to continue meeting, since Beverly, Ralph and Don will need to decrease their participation.

Next meeting: Feb 6, 2000, in Los Angeles.

Adjourned 4:00 p.m.

Notes by Marie Evans; additions/corrections by Beverly May

You can contact us at:

California Coalition on Somatic Practices
P.O. Box 5611
San Mateo, CA. 94402-0611
(650) 637-1233 (Beverly May) beverlysmay@home.com

Return to CCSP Homepage

Visit the Somatic Options Homepage

Revised 3/31/00