22 - Laserfiche WebLink

AB 1147 Assembly Bill-Bill Analysis Page 2l of 35 According to the AMTA-CA, consumers do not know the difference between a purchased certification and a certification that requires a specific amount of training. Different jurisdictions have different standards which would indicate that there is no local government agreement about what standards are necessary and sufficient. b) Prior Law and Regulation in California Cities and Counties AB 1147 Page 28 of Massage Businesses. AB 3325 (McAllister, Chapter 1352, Statutes of 1976) enacted the prior local authority to regulate the business of massage. In an analysis of that bill, it is stated that the purpose of the bill is to clearly state that local governments have the authority to regulate the operation of massage businesses through licensing procedures if they so desire. The law allowed cities and counties to condition the issuance of a massage license upon proof that the massage personnel and the owners or operator of such businesses have not been convicted of certain sex-related crimes. It was argued by some that this legislation was enacted to deal in part with the adult-oriented sex business, but in doing so, legitimate massage businesses were subject to local ordinances that inappropriately and oppressively regulated them as "adult entertainment." Some examples are restrictive zoning, excessive fees, VD tests, required showers and separate restrooms, and prohibited home visits. Because local jurisdictions controlled the regulation of massage, local ordinances could be vastly different. The perception of massage as a vice resulted in many cities requiring expensive conditional use permits. Restricting massage businesses from opening within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, or residences effectively zoned massage out of many small cities. Proponents of state regulation argued that local regulation treats professionals and "massage parlors" alike and that consumers have a problem knowing how to distinguish legitimate massage practitioners from "massage parlors." 3.Current Regulation of Massage Therapists and Their Businesses. In February 2003, Assembly Member Kehoe introduced AB 1388 , which was sponsored by the AMTA-CA. As introduced, the bill would have established the Massage Therapy and Bodyworks Commission in the DCA to register and regulate massage therapists and bodyworkers. It was referred to the Assembly Business and Professions Committee; however, it died in that Committee without being heard. Although there was significant discussion surrounding the issue of state regulation of massage therapy, interested parties could not reach any type of agreement as to what the regulatory scheme should be. In January 6, 2005, the issue of whether California should shift the regulation of massage therapists from the local level to the state level and what type of regulatory oversight should be provided was AB 1147 Page 29 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_1101-1 150/ab_1147_cfa_20140620_111115_sen_comm.html 7/3/2014