Says Published Reports Offer “False Characterization” of AB 1822

By Christie Bondurant, Associate Editor

Susan Manheimer, president of the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) and the major protagonist in the push for a highly controversial anti-prostitution bill that targets massage therapists has told Massage Today that the bill makes “only incremental changes to current law.”

Manheimer made the comment in a letter received Thursday, May 27 that was in response to a request for an interview about critical data, developed by the chiefs association, which has been the key justification for AB 1822.

Manheimer did not agree to the interview in her letter to Massage Today.

Instead, she said that Massage Today’s published reports about the law offered a “false characterization” of AB 1822, chief among them that it effectively neuters the authority of the California Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC) to issue certification to work in the state and essentially returns certification authority to local police departments.

The current version of the bill says that local authorities can “elect” to “transfer duties from the Massage Therapy (Council) to the local law enforcement agency.” It further states that once this happens, police departments have the right to “approve or disapprove applicants for certification.”

Unanswered in Manheimer’s letter was whether she believed that police departments would or would not “elect” to become re-involved in certifying massage applicants.
However, the point may become moot Friday because proposed amendments to the bill remove any opportunity for local jurisdictions to be involved. (See Massage Today article.)

Also, unmentioned in her letter was that prior to an enormous tidal wave of opposition, the bill she wanted required police departments to certify applicants.

The Data

On Feb. 21, 2010, Mannheimer wrote a letter to the author of the bill, Assembly Member Sandre Swanson (D-Alameda) that called for passage of AB 1822. In that letter she described a “random/regional sample” survey that found that the overwhelming majority of CAMTC applicants for work permits were either prostitutes or of unknown backgrounds.

And in response to our questions regarding that survey, she said:

“The CAMTC sent to one of our police agencies the list of applicants from the zip codes within that agency’s jurisdiction and just outside the agency’s jurisdiction. After reviewing the names, our lobbyist found that 57% were known prostitutes, 32% did not have enough information to make a determination, and 11% were known massage practitioners.”

No additional detail was provided, including whether or not those applicants were ultimately certified by CAMTC to get work authorization.

Meanwhile, the CAMTC has provided evidence showing that local police departments certified significant numbers of unqualified people that CAMTC has refused to certify.

In a May 10 letter opposing AB 1822 sent to Assembly Member Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), the CAMTC states, “Unfortunately, the kind of hyperbole associated with AB 1822 began with the suggestion by a lobbyist that a study had been done stating a high number of applications had been approved by CAMTC that should have been denied. In truth, there is no study. Even more, because of the success and efficacy of a statewide entity agreed upon by this Legislature and implemented just nine months ago, there have been 3, 265 applications that CAMTC has not approved, which had been previously approved by local government.”

Mannheimer’s statement that the organization’s lobbyist, John Lovell, compiled the data somewhat contradicts what Lovell said in an interview with Massage Today. While Manheimer states that Lovell determined the percentages, Lovell stated that he believed the percentages were determined by the police chiefs association. In the April interview, Lovell said that he was uncertain but he “imagined” that the police group simply compiled the data into three piles: known prostitutes, unknown legitimacy and legitimate operators.

Even with Manheimer’s recent response, questions remain unanswered. (See the May 13 and May 18 letters sent to Manheimer for the questions we asked her.)

Meanwhile, proposed amendments to the bill show a lack of confidence in the data: its most important element – local police certification for work permits – has been removed. Further hearings on the bill are expected Friday, May 28.

Backlash

The bill, whose passage seemed certain less than two months ago, is in serious trouble now, thanks to a tidal wave of opposition from the massage community and continued questions about the credibility of the “random” survey.

And the once crucial element of the bill’s urgency, this data, has become highly criticized by various stakeholders including Assembly Member Swanson.

Proposed amendments to the bill show that the key portion of the bill regarding local police certification for work permits has been removed. Essentially, the bill will have been gutted leaving only the sections on added board members to CAMTC and massage establishments. See AB 1822 to read the entire bill.

Proponents of the bill began backing off after heavy protest from the massage community. In fact, various sources have reported that Swanson is deeply embarrassed by the bill along with the data that caused the uproar.

In an interview with Massage Today, he apologized to the massage profession for Manheimer’s data.

“I apologize frankly for any misunderstanding,” said Swanson. “I have received some personal emails from massage therapists who I’ve answered personally, clarifying any misunderstanding that this was an assault on the profession.

He also stated that he would “question” the data, as all of his encounters with massage therapists have proven “quite the opposite.” “I would question it (the data)… In terms of the legitimate massage therapists that I’m familiar with they have pride in their profession. They have years of training and they ought to be respected.”