HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Public CommentP(,,,b C_ cvw�
A Voice for Massage Therapists G� f
Was the issue of having an ordinance regulating massage and bodywork practitioners initiated by the police
department? In response to our interest in local laws we have two options. First option is to roll over and agree
with that the "solution" of regulating legitimate practitioners is a means of solving any prostitution problem.
The other option is to say NO; having an ordinance regulating massage therapists and bodyworkers to address a
prostitution problem is a step backwards and stop the process.
In other areas of the country these so called vice laws are being eliminated to reflect the overwhelming
acceptance and use of massage therapy, bodywork, and alternative health care. Rosemount should not be
contemplating a step backwards. Linking massage with prostitution establishes a link that does not exist except
in rare and already criminal circumstances.
Is there truly anyone that would like to be practicing in Rosemount who wants to START with conceding that
we must be regulated? The attendees at this meeting are interested in what you plan to do about this outdated
local regulation. We each have numerous clients, friends, and peers who are willing to support us.
The need for this ordinance has not been established. This ordinance, or any that might replace it, treats
massage therapists and bodyworkers in a special category and subjects them to a scrutiny no other profession is
force to endure. Other professions that are more directly linked to prostitution, such as escort services, are not
being singled out. It has come to my attention that there are "semi nude cleaning services ". Are housecleaners
next to be certified? The recent prostitution and organized crime cases took place in health spas. No regulation
or greater scrutiny of this sort of establishment is planned. Why are bodyworkers being singled out?
The State of Minnesota passed the Natural Health Coalition Bill in 2000; which became effective July 1, 2001.
There is no mandate for local control and no evidence that enacting new local regulation is a positive or helpful
step. In Rosemount are we are talking about NEWLY REGULATING massage therapy and bodywork? This
would be seen as action in direct response to concerns of prostitution, and to correct the archaic language does
not help either. What professional association supports regulating bodywork to stop prostitution? Here is the
actual AMTA policy. It was passed Feb., 2002. It is in the AMTA policy manual Part 15, Sectionl, number3,
"The American Massage Therapy Association recognizes that state government regulation of the practice of
massage therapy is a desirable means of meeting the needs of the public and the profession." This can be
coupled with the language from the AMTA model ordinance "Professional standards should not be established
by city councils - rather professional associations, schools and testing agencies, and/or state law, set them ".
This may have seemed like a simple idea. Yet defining massage, deciding who is qualified, and setting up
ongoing enforcement is something that few local governments have done well, and many states are still
struggling with. And the states are used to dealing with licensing issues.
In addition, there is some attempt in the existence of this ordinance and some provisions of this ordinance to
anticipate the special illicit behavior that maybe indicative of prostitution. What makes massage and bodywork
different from prostitution is that prostitution is illegal, and consists of sexualizing the interaction and contact.
Sexual contact and sexualizing conduct is by definition unprofessional for massage therapists and bodyworkers,
and all professional associations I am aware of and abide by have Codes of Ethics that prohibit such contact.
This issue is addressed by professionals and their associations, and by existing state laws. We are not
prostitutes, and should not be treated as potential lawbreakers any more than other professionals in our
community.
This ordinance, and any other proposal, that requires professionals to be treated as potential criminals, that so
clearly misunderstands and misrepresents the intent and the work of our chosen professions, and that can show
no benefit to the client, the professional, or to the community, would ultimately consume monetary resources
that could best be used elsewhere.
A Voice for Massage Therapists
I'm ready to draft the petition opposing local regulation, make it a success with more than 1,000 names, impress
upon City Council that this regulation is not the wishes of the practitioners and potential clients of Rosemount,
and start doing the work I love.
I thank you for your consideration.
Lynette M. Stauffer, CMBP 4012 133 Court West, Rosemount 55068 h.651- 423 -4509 c.612- 940 -8938
Certified Massage and Bodywork Practitioner