Slamdunk: How a Good Idea for Outreach was Soured by Yellow Journalism
Much of the impetus for the collapse of the top newsroom managers was credited to the Internet on which many of the Times employees posted the complaints that had been ignored. Staff members who used the open architecture of the new medium to become “the outside voice” provided a check on internal behavior. Along with others, they realized that the Web had assumed an important role in opening new channels through which values and standards could be questioned and judged by a large communikty that depends upon the integrity of the press. In the end journalism is an act of character. …
As Chicago newscaster Carol Marin told the Committee of the Concerned Journalists at its first forum, “I think a journalist is someone who believes in something that they would be willing to quit over.”
—Bill Kovach & Tom Rosenstiel: 2007. The Elements of Journalism. pp. 229-232.
First, a disclosure, I am a massage educator, a retired physicist, a freelance science writer, and a current member of the board of directors of the California Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC). I was also, until I resigned it last night, a columnist for Massage Today (since January 2001). The opinions expressed here are solely my own. Period. Second, a definition, I use the term yellow journalism in the sense of writing not designed to promote oversight and scrutiny but to stir up fear and outrage against a situation that, in my belief, is largely delusional. In the end, readers can judge for themselves.
This piece is about clarity and responding to the spread of misinformation. It is not about whether I agreed or disagreed with a particular board vote. For example, here’s a situation in which I voted in the minority yet did what I could to clear up confusion and misinterpretation. It is also in response to an article in Massage Today by Kathryn Feather, Updated: CA Massage Board Votes to Send “Roving Ambassadors” to San Diego Convention, and to an editorial by Donald Petersen called The CAMTC Money Grab.
As a bit of background, CAMTC is a nonprofit certifying board created under California state law (SB731; Oropeza, 2007-2008 session). That enabling law, with some more recent clean-up adjustments, is in Business & Professions code Sec 4600 and following. CAMTC, while a creature of the state, is not a state agency. It does not license (a function reserved for agencies of the state). It does not ‘state certify”. What CAMTC does do is provide a state-wide system of education and background checks as part of two-tiers of certification that exempt certified massage professionals from local licensing laws. Certification, at least at the state level is voluntary. A local agency, city or county, may also have their own local licensing (for those not certified by CAMTC) or may require CAMTC certification to practice.
So, time to move onward to the core of controversy. In, I believe, early March, I was asked by CAMTC CEO Ahmos Netanel whether I would be willing to volunteer my time to do outreach for CAMTC at the upcoming American Massage Conference in San Diego. Prior to that moment, I had no plans to attend the AMC yet I agreed that this sounded like a positive thing to do. Let me explain why.
CAMTC started accepting applications in Fall 2009, expecting several thousand by the end of the year. They received about 12,000, totally swamping the administrative agency and resulting in long delays. On top of that deluge, the state agency overseeing private post-secondary and vocational schools (BPPVE) had been sunsetted (i.e. killed) in July 2007. While a new agency (BPPE) came into being in 2009 along with CAMTC, neither its capabilities nor focus (use of loan funds) were up to verifying the massage education provided by massage schools. Thus CAMTC had to develop its own procedures for verifying that schools provided the massage training claimed on transcripts. More delay for some as several thousand applications went on hold while this was done for schools deemed uncertain.
In 2010, the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) sponsored AB-1822, initially designed to dismantle CAMTC’s state-level regulation. I created a video of one of the hearings on that bill; a lot of misinformation was put forth. Note that the California League of Cities and the California Association of Counties have always had the ability to appoint representatives to the CAMTC board. I’ll note at this point that, in shepherding CAMTC’s survival to this point, Ahmos Netanel, the CEO for CAMTC, has had a far more challenging and demanding set of duties than the normal regulatory board executive director would encounter. That CAMTC is still functional is, at least in good part, a tribute to his effectiveness. His position as CEO is also an interim, at-will, appointment; essentially that of a pilot to get CAMTC past the snags and sandbars and into open water.
This history is one of the reasons I believe that outreach to the community CAMTC regulates is important. Given a novel structure of regulation and a rough start-up, seeming accessible and not remote is important. CAMTC, by the way, does have to observe the requirements of the Bagley-Keene open meeting act. I was queried by Kathryn Feather of Massage Today if I planned to attend AMC and if I would request reimbursement for expenses. Part of my reply was quoted in her recent article, but I’ll include my entire response here.
I’m attending the AMC conference at the request of Ahmos Netanel and to network on behalf of CAMTC, not to take or give workshops there. I will be requesting reimbursement for my expenses. My time I’m donating even though it means canceling an online class I normally teach on Thursday evenings and missing an online Q&A session I’m normally part of on Sunday evenings. I also found out today that there will be an initial get together of a Science Online Bay Area on the 19th, a new follow up to a Science Online conference held in January on science communication. My prior commitment to Ahmos stands.
I would not be attending AMC otherwise. I’m already planning on attending a mathematical biology conference in Knoxville TN in July and a science writers conference in Raleigh NC in October, both on my own “dime”. My dimes only extend so far. I’ve got 16 hours of teaching kinesiology coming up the following weekend (that I need to prep for) and am working on analyzing an initial subset of transcripts from a symposium on massage practice guidelines prior to a Massage Therapy Foundation board meeting in early May. If the CAMTC board vote had gone the other way, I could have used the time freed productively. It was only adding to the things I have stacked to vote yes.
My yes vote was motivated both by my concurrence with a comment Mark Dixon made during the phone call and by my belief that management by walking about (MBWA) is a good idea. Mark’s comment was that this is a major conference and it is happening in CAMTC’s jurisdiction — much like an event happening in a congress-person’s home district. I would not be in favor of it if the meeting were outside of California or exorbitantly priced (the room rate is about the same as that for a typical scientific conference).
In short, I believe it behooves CAMTC to be seen as accessible and not remote — almost literally “in touch” with those regulated, particularly, given several factors in the start-up of CAMTC: a much greater response than was envisioned for the first 6 months; having to create procedures to handle schools and transcripts that weren’t as claimed, and having to fight back against the California Police Chief’s Associations initial attempt to dismantle CAMTC (that relationship has changed dramatically). Again, in short, it was a rough start and I believe there are still people out there that need a chance to vent and be listened to face-to-face.
I see a major conference with educators and professionals in CAMTC’s home terrain as an opportunity to correct misconceptions (we are not a licensing board, we are not a state agency, we don’t “state license” or “state certify”) and to take responsibility for and apologize to those who experienced delays in certification or have questions that I can answer or facilitate.
I have let it be known on Twitter and Facebook that I will be there and available to do such networking.
Note that the above are my personal beliefs and motivations, not board policy.
That’s about it.
…Keith
There never was, in the board approval of reimbursement on 10 April an intent that any board members other than the seven specifically asked by CEO Netanel would attend. If the motion was unspecific, it was a failure of using too much common sense. Nor could, as had been suggested by Massage Today, the entire board have shown up without violating the Bagley-Keene law. Same with the idea that reimbursement would fall along the same lines used for meetings, the board assumed common sense would prevail.
Now, let’s do the numbers. Back in 2008 I looked at How much does a California Regulatory Board cost per Licensee? My fit to the least expensive boards was $900,000 per year plus about $55 per licensee per year. For CAMTC, now with about 30,000 certificants, that would be about $30+$55=$85 per year per certificant or $170 for a two-year renewal. What CAMTC actually charges is $150. That’s $20 saved per certificant per renewal or a total savings to the profession of about $600,000 per renewal cycle.
The AMC hotel at $125 compares with the Medbiquitous conference in Baltimore at $189, Society for Mathematical Biology at $112 in Knoxville, Society for Industrial and Applied Math in Anaheim at $149, and another SIAM conference in Philadelphia at $179. These are all negotiated conference rates, and AMC comes out on the cheaper side.
How about the number of board members for which reimbursement was expected (after travel, via normal forms)? AMC expects about 2100 attendees. If seven board members were to network with all of these, dividing them between us, we would each network with 300 in 3 days. Let’s say we networked or conversed with half, for 10 minutes each. That’s 25 hours of networking, explaining, facilitating for each board member over three days. By the way, CAMTC board members are never reimbursed for their time, only for expenses. When I fly down to a board meeting in L.A., it’s generally up at 3:30am and back home at about 8:30pm.
As it turns out, despite still considering this outreach to be a good idea, Ahmos and I concurred that this has become more trouble than it’s worth. I canceled my flights. For the record, if I really had wanted CAMTC to send me on a trip for personal benefit, it would not have been to AMC (which is not to knock AMC). I’m interested in research and having funding for the Third International Fascia Research Conference in Vancouver would have been nice. I didn’t ask. I do hear that the organizers did an wonderful job.
You’ll have to decide for yourself if this is a “Money Grab”. That’s not my personal take on this nor do I believe it was the intent of any of my fellow board members.
Addendum 20 April 2012 — After having discussed networking for CAMTC at the AMC with Ahmos Netanel earlier in March (phone conversation), I had pulsed him by email about logistics on 31 March. On 2 April, he had requested my estimated travel expenses. What the entire board saw and based their approval of reimbursement on was this table of estimated expenses. Amounts apart from travel were filled in by Mr.Netanel. At least in my case, the understanding was that these were the only board members involved relative to the motion to reimburse.
Keith, An outstanding article that I very much enjoyed. I certainly appreciate all that you are giving up to go to the conference to represent the CAMTC in an effort to better serve the members. You should be commended for your dedication to this profession. The article in Massage Today appeared to be a hack job that was clearly motivated by the personal bias of a few. Keep up the great work!
Outstanding, thank you!
Keith, thank you for this clarifying article.
Thank you Keith, superexcellent.
[…] Grant’s response to the Massage Today article can be read in its entirety here. […]
Keith: I remember meeting you during the quest for appropriate lobbyists before CAMTC was formed. If you are indeed interested in outreach, you can reach me by email. I can tell you from the perspective of a ‘California State Licensed Massage Therapist’ that the process is still as tangled as it was at the beginning. I have more feedback for you and suggestions on “how to fix it” if you are interested please contact me. I currently hold a Hawaii State Massage license. Hawaii renewal process takes 30 minutes or less on-line and a certificate is typically in-hand in 5 days. Thanks for listening.
Sincerely, DD
California has turned out to be anything but simple. As of the end of June, CAMTC had received more than 43,500 applications, had issued more than 35,000 certificates, and had more than 32,000 active certificants. More than 200 applications are received each week. As of the last report, 111 had been received but not yet entered.
Renewals don’t require an education verification, but they do involve a check of subsequent arrest reports and plea bargains. Unfortunately, a higher number of renewals than CAMTC have turned out to require individual review.
All that said, CAMTC has recently added four new staff persons to handle the processing and phone lines, which show every indication of improving the level of service.
Keith,
I know this a dated article but none the less it caught my eye.
Giving the trend in inefficiency of the CAMTC do you see it being around in a couple years? Also I am a practicing Realtor, from training to being licensed it took me 4 months!.. I studied with a accredited massage school last year and submitted my paper work to CAMTC in FEB of this year they have yet to certify me! I have reached out to them on several occasions and always get the same canned response ” its being reviewed” I thought you might have some insight on this and is this common. Regards, Vic Haines
Vic,
I don’t see a trend in inefficiency in CAMTC. If anything, I see the reverse. The average approval time for complete applications without issues is down to 2-3 weeks. At this point, 98% of phone calls are answered live and the remaining 2% are returned the same day. Records that were once partly on paper are now all scanned and the process is being streamlined to not even involve paper.
That, however, does not mean that everything moves quickly. Unlike real estate (I’m assuming), there is a well-funded market for fake school transcripts in massage therapy. The BPPE (state agency approving private post-secondary schools), has been nowhere near able to handle these issues. There was, in fact, no such state agency between July 2007 and 2009. CAMTC has a list of schools from which we do not accept transcripts as proof of education, but such a determination takes staff and time.
Finally, there are a significant number of applicants having background issues requiring review by the CAMTC Professional Services Division (PSD) rather than simple administrative approval. Such reviews can and do lead to hearings requiring both PSD staff and legal staff. CAMTC has to this point been staffed to handle one day of hearings per week and has a backlog of several months. As of the November board meeting, hiring and training staff (including in-house counsel) to support a second day of hearings was approved. Administrative staff would not know the standing of PSD reviews. Such reviews also do not move forward if applicants do not respond to requests from PSD for specific information.
I don’t know how many applications the real estate board processes, but starting from July 2009 up through the beginning of November 2012 CAMTC has received over 47,000 applications and issued nearly 39,000 certifications. There are currently around 34,500 active certificants. For an organization that started with no staff and no funding from the state, this is a significant accomplishment.
The state legislature is not at all interested in creating more state boards. If anything, they see nonprofits created under state law, such as CAMTC, as the future model for professional regulation. I fully expect that CAMTC will go forward through legislative sunset review at the end of 2014. That survival will depend, however, on CAMTC managing to balance the needs of applicants with the regulatory concerns of cities and counties. That is not an easy task, but one that, if successful, is a win for all parties.
I’m not so concerned about impropriety or abuse of CAMTC funds. I don’t care about this convoluted story, its defense or any of the he-said, she-said.
My concern is that I am unable to extract a single sentence in all of this blogging that is reflective of any concern about the massage therapists who must go through the CAMTC mill. Therapists who must go unemployed for months awaiting certification – a requirement to work in California; these people have no voice on this blog.
There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.
First of all, none of the statistics you provided are referenced to any official, confirmed source. It’s just some person tossing numbers out on a blog. No CAMTC report reference number, author or evidence of any manner of authorization or review. The fact is that there is no public reporting REQUIREMNT for the CAMTC. The CAMTC is not required to report its performance, trends in terms of certification approvals or denials, biases with respect to approvals, or any other measure of how well it is performing its function without racial, geographic, or other biases (whether intentional or not); use of funds, or any other form of reporting.
But, let’s assume your numbers are correct.
If a mail delivery service was contracted to deliver letters from Sacramento to San Francisco and they quoted the average delivery time was 3 days, you might feel pretty good about their performance. Quoting a CAMTC license processing average throughput of 2-3 weeks (which I don’t believe for a New York minute – in fact the instant I read that the low battery power light in my BS detector suddenly started flashing) – quoting that as you did is precisely analogous to quoting an average 3 day delivery time.
However, what if a lot of those letters took a month to deliver? Would you use that mail service?
I personally know damn good therapists who have waited 3, 4 and 5 months for certification. These people are unemployed. While you smugly make laudatory remarks about the CAMTC (and yourself) performance you ignore these people, and you need to be challenged because clearly this condition is not one of your concerns. The fact that the CAMTC is causing people to go unemployed is less a concern of yours than protecting your reputation about some damn junket.
There should be minimum standards for processing applications. There is no excuse for an application taking 5 months to process. There is nothing that you can tell me that rationalizes such performance. “We’re waiting for records…we don’t have personnel…..” An application that takes more than 2 months to process should be granted provisional approval. There should be at least an annual report posted on the CAMTC website providing performance reporting, demographics of applicants and license revocation activity (sanitized for privacy) and a dozen other vital measures of the CAMTCs function. There should be performance improvement objectives and so much more.
I am not anti-CAMTC, although I believe that its charter is foolishly limited given the rampant violation of employment law and other conditions therapists must deal with. I am, however, fed up with the self-congratulatory BS about the CAMTC performance when so many people must go unemployed while waiting for their applications to be processed.
I would be very grateful, given your perspective on the efficacy of the CAMTC, if you would read a petition I am circulating on behalf of 100+ former students of Twin Lakes College of the Healing Arts in Santa Cruz: [Link redacted at poster’s request]
The credits we earned in 2013 & 2014 at the now-closed College are not being honored by the CAMTC at this time–I should say, they are being rejected as we attempt to become certified at the CMP and CMT level. I’ve provided links to two newspaper articles (Santa Cruz Sentinel and SF Chronicle; the latter addresses the BPPE’s role in policing vocational schools) and the website of Twin Lakes College for additional background info. I look forward to hearing from you.
Lisa, I don’t know of anyone who is happy with the situation of TLC’s students. The root of the problem is that TLC was not a BPPE approved school in 2013 and 2014 after letting their BPPE approval lapse. In short, the TLC administration assumed that they would get retroactive approval and kept taking on students when they shouldn’t have.
If CAMTC had the discretion under its enabling law to simply consider education, then what was taught could be given consideration. Unfortunately, the legislature did not give CAMTC that discretion. All the sections for giving certification require at least 250 hours from an “approved school”.
CAMTC has the responsibility to verify that education was actually received but only if the school is otherwise approved. Section 4600 of the law has a two-part definition of an approved school. The first part requires CAMTC approval. The second part requires approval either by BPPE, DCA (department of consumer affairs under which BPPE falls) or WASC (the western regional accrediting agency). Both criteria must be met, disallowing any ability of CAMTC to approve a school on its own or, equivalently, to accept transcripts from a school not otherwise approved.
Both the CAMTC board and staff can wish it were otherwise, but we are constrained by the law and cannot act outside of it. The only remedy I can envision would be if a legislator introduced a special purpose bill for TLC students that gave CAMTC discretion and that bill then passed both the legislature and governor.
Here’s the current law. Section 4600 is right at the start of it.
The above is correct to the best of my knowledge from discussions with CAMTC staff, but is my personal opinion, not an official board statement or a legal opinion.