From: Nancy Toner Weinberger <weinberger@mindspring.com>

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 9:16 AM

To: Charles Wilkins <cwilkins@bws-law.com> (cwilkins@bws-law.com); admin@bmbt.org; Ed Preston <etpreston@gmail.com> (etpreston@gmail.com)

Subject: Memo to the NC Board Members from the Coalition of MB CE Instructors

To the Members of the NC Board of Massage & Bodywork Therapy:

The Coalition of Massage & Bodywork CE Instructors met on April 14. So far, the process of deciding on how CE is going to be administered/handled has not been open to the public or even to those who teach CE as part, or all, of their livelihood. What we would like to tell you is that we want to be involved in the making of this very important set of decisions; we would like a voice in this decision-making process. As a group, we have a great deal of experience and knowledge that would be helpful to you, the Board.

In light of how little we know about how the Board is proceeding, we decided to begin by sharing some guiding principles that we think are important and would like you to consider.

We believe public safety is best ensured by quality Continuing Education. We believe an approval process for CE teachers is necessary to provide quality CE.

As CE Providers, we strongly prefer national CE Provider Approval, as opposed to state CE Provider Approval.

We appreciate the following things about the current NCBTMB’s provider approval program.  

· We have had a positive experience with the NCBTMB approval process.

· The NCB has become more responsive to the CE Instructors, and as a result the program continues to improve.

· We have a well-established, supportive, professional relationship with NCB.

· Here is one coalition member’s positive report on how working with the NCB is leading to improved quality control (Use this link to view a 90 second video of Cynthia Loving, CE Instructor in aromatherapy: http://youtu.be/ji-x3_lzmy8 )

· Students and LMBTs recognize, trust and respect NCB status and name.

· NCB has stated their willingness to work directly with our state Board under contract so that we may avoid Improper Delegation of Authority issues.
NCB wants a track record of being inclusive, which, as Providers, means a lot to us. We do not see the FSMTB embracing inclusiveness so far.

· Should the Federation begin a program for approving CE Providers, they will have to go through a long evolutionary process to get up to speed, but the NCB has already done that.

We would prefer to continue working with the NCB and favor the Board contracting with them to continue approving CE instructors and courses. 

We also believe it would be a conflict of interest if the FSMTB is both approving providers and also offering CE themselves. Furthermore, if they are offering CE classes themselves, would that not constitute a third-party relationship with our State Board?

We hope the Board will be open about its decision process moving forward as it resolves questions about Continuing Education and any approved provider program. We stand ready to assist you with our experience. Wise decisions take time and study, and we are here to help.

Sincerely yours,

Approved Providers:  Anita Shannon, Bob Brame, Charles Little, Cindy Loving, Claire Miller, Janice Marie Durand, Kay Warren, Kim Moore, Larry Green, Michael Sitzer, Nancy Toner Weinberger, Robin Fann, Sheila Alexander, Tilly Little

Emailed by Nancy Toner Weinberger

On behalf of the Coalition of Massage & Bodywork CE Instructors