Minutes - Oregon.gov

Oregon Kate Brown, Governor

APPROVED Continued on Page 2

OBMT Board Meeting Minutes

May 18, 2020 GoToMeeting/Telephonic

Attendance Board Members: Staff: Jon Grossart, LMT, Chair Bob Ruark, Executive Director Christa Rodriguez, LMT, Vice-Chair Ekaette Udosenata-Harruna, Policy Analyst Meng Chen, Public Member Lori Lindley, AAG John Combe, LMT Victoria McCullough, Compliance Specialist Maria Odle, Public Member Mitch Breedlove, Initial License Coordinator Kelley Rothenberger, LMT Jeff Van Laanen, Compliance & Licensing Manager Steven Foster-Wexler, LAc, Public Health Member

Public:

Call to order at 9:04 am Grossart welcomed everyone to the meeting. Grossart called the meeting to order at 9:04 am. Roll call was performed. Chen, Combe Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger were present. Ruark, Executive Director, Van Laanen, Compliance and Licensing Manager, Udosenata-Harruna, Policy Analyst, Breedlove, Initial Licensing Coordinator, and McCullough, Compliance Specialist. Lindley, AAG for the Board, will be attending later.

Alexandra Burton Allison Amanda Krieger Amy Bennett Andaesha Becky Smith Brittney Camron Dunn Candace Helm-Hathaway Cezanne Bauer Chrissy Claybrook Corey Burgess Debbie Denardo Deedee Hoover Dena Youngblood Don Schiff, Lmt Donneta Grizzell Duanea Myers Elizabeth Ellen Engilis Em Erika Baern Isa Jena Botte Jill Deckman Cooper Jim Kathryn Breunig Kelly Nordahl Kirstin Davis Kristel Wonderly Laura Embleton Laura Embleton Lisa Garofalo Margaret Caro Margaret Caro Marijane Boyd Marijane Mark Retzlaff Maryanne Gilbert Meagen Alm Melanie Zermer Melissa Davidow Melissa Davidow Melody Morton Gandy Michelle Boyle, Lmt Michelle Heitman Mindy K. McHale Molly Guidette Myrna Ritten Nanci Williams Nephyr Jacobsen Pamela Sundin-Hart Sarah B Davis Sarah K Taralee Hughes Theresa Braunstein Todd Pennington Valerie Walter Valorie Wallace Vanessa McDaniel Wendi Westbrook


OBMT May 18, 2020 Board Meeting Minutes

2 APPROVED

1) Approve Agenda: Combe moved to approve the Agenda. Second the motion. Rothenberger: In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

2) Approve Minutes for March 16, 2020, and March 20, 2020: Rothenberger moved to approve the March 16, 2020 minutes. Second the motion: Chen. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries. Foster-Wexler moved to approve the March 20, 2020 minutes. Second the motion: Combe. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriquez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

3) Public Comment and Correspondence: Grossart clarified stating that the Board did not make the definition of medical massage nor did the Board have any input in defining the term. The definition for the term "Medical Massage" was provided to the Board by the Governor's Office as part of the Governor's executive order. The Board does agree that it creates problems; however, there is nothing that the Board can do about the term. Grossart went on to state that the Board had the opportunity to participate in the Governor's workgroup to provide feedback on the reopening guidelines that were considered. Grossart noted that the Board's vice chair, Christa Rodriguez and the American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA) Oregon Chapter President, Mark Retzlaff were invited to participate in the workgroup. Grossart stated that the Board's involvement in the workgroup would be covered in-depth later on in the meeting. Grossart added that after checking with the Board's AAG, massage therapists are allowed to use a thermometer to check temperatures for COVID-19 screening. However, it cannot be used as "diagnosing information". Correspondence: Ruark shared details of correspondence received at the Board office. Ruark stated that the Board received multiple correspondences requesting the Board Position on COVID-19 and Guidance for massage businesses. Ruark noted that the Board would consider additional Guidance later on in the meeting that is consistent with the practice of massage. Letter to the Board from Anderson – Requesting that the Board define or eliminate the term Medical Massage. Letter to the Board from Bennett – Requesting that the Board provide Guidance to LMT who are moving forward to reopen their practice. Letter to the Board from Davis – Requesting that the Board provide Guidance to LMT on PPEs for massage therapists who are in the process of reopening their practice.



3 APPROVED

Letter to the Board from Hoover – Requesting that the Board provide Guidance to LMT on steps to take when considering relocating their practice to a different city during COVID-19.

Letter to the Board from Johnston – Requesting that the Board provide clarification regarding the OBMT position and protocols on the opening of massage practices during Phase 1 in Oregon.

Letter to the Board from Embleton, Government Relations Director Associated Bodywork & Massage Professionals (ABMP) – Sharing with the Board a letter that was created by the Associated Skin Care Professionals (ASCP), Associated Hair Professionals (AHP), and Associated Nail Professionals (ANP). The letter urged the Governor's office to implement some safety protocols to guide and protect practitioners, their clients, and their community.

Letter to the Board from Resari – Requesting that the Governor's office, the Oregon Board of Massage Therapy (OBMT) and the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) provide clear Guidance for massage and bodywork community in the coming weeks and months as practitioners collectively move forward with the "reopening" phases. The current framework that was introduced last week by Governor Kate Brown does not provide the necessary guidelines specific for the massage profession.

Letter to the Board from Rose – Requesting that the Board provide financial relief to those that have already paid their renewal fees but have been forced to close due to executive order 20-12 on March 23, 2020.

Letter to the Board from Fredrickson – Thanking the entire OBMT staff in these stress-filled days and invites his fellow massage therapists to do the same. Letter to the Board from Schiff – Requesting that there should be one set of requirements for all LMTs across all practice settings as LMTs move forward to reopen their practices. Letter to the Board from Knowles – Requesting the Board reevaluate the reopening of the industry as there are no adequate PPEs and only taking temperature is not going to do anything to help with those folks who are asymptomatic. Letter to the Board from Martin, K – Requesting that the Board provide evidence-based Guidance from public health authorities to understand how to open again safely Letter to the Board from Rouse – Requesting the Board's position and thoughts on the use of a thermometer to take patience's temperature when they first arrive for their appointment and ask that the Board issue a public statement that this is an acceptable protocol to implement in any massage clinic or practice.

Letter to the Board from Tindall – Requesting how the Board expect LMTs to return to work by following a guideline that LMTs are not able to abide by as currently, she is unable to order disinfectants, gloves and masks for her practice. She also stated that there is no way to access testing to ensure that she is not an unknowing vector. She further noted in her correspondence that the practice of massage could not occur while trying to maintain social distancing as the 6-foot social distancing measures currently in place seem to be one of the primary ways of preventing the spread of infection.



4 APPROVED

Letter to the Board from Duncan King – Requesting that the Oregon Board of Massage Therapy take a formal position one way or another to guide the massage profession moving forward on Governor Kate Brown's plan to allow massage therapists to begin operations in Phase 1.

Letter to the Board from Hartmann – showing her severe disappointed that the Governor and the Oregon Health Authority think that personal services, specifically Massage Therapy, should reopen in phase 1. She stated that LMTs are the most vulnerable as LMTs spend at least 30mins at 6 to 12inches from people’s faces.

Letter to the Board from King – Requesting that LMTs should not be forced to open in phase 1 with guidelines that LMTs can barely follow. Reopening in phase 1 put LMTs and their clients at considerable risk, mainly because, one can be asymptomatic and pass the Virus on without knowing. Also, with the recent realization of blood clotting problems possibly associated with the Virus, there are not enough PPE to keep LMTs safe.

Letter to the Board from Madras – expressing that including massage in "Phase I" of the reopening plan isn't consistent with the Board's purpose of protecting the public. The "general guidelines" put out by OHA doesn't address the dangers involved for clients who may be infected yet asymptomatic. Moving forward without taking this factor into account puts the public at risk, which is the opposite of why the Board exists.

Letter to the Board from Minifie – Requesting if intra-oral work will be allowed during phase 1 reopening plan and if there will need to be additional safety precautions needed aside from masks, gloves, and keeping the work as brief as possible.

Letter to the Board from Myers – express concerns about massage therapy inclusion in phase one of Oregon's plan to reopen the economy as it is impossible to physically distance ourselves as massage therapists from our clients during massage.

Letter to the Board from Martin, E – expressing her concerns regarding a Phase One reopening of Massage Therapy in Oregon. She recommends that the Governor should consider the following as an option: list massage therapy as a separate industry; place massage therapist in the later phase of opening; do not allow a loophole for "medically necessary massage therapy."; and consider emerging potential contraindications.

Letter to the Board from Weiss – Expressing concerns for being asked to work full hours in small, non-ventilated rooms on an untested population with little to no real PPE.

Letter to the Board from Retzlaff-AMTA Oregon - To report on AMTA Oregon's participation on Governor Brown's "Personal Services" Workgroup, actions the association took to facilitate public comment, and the concern the association have with the "medical massage" designation.

The Board reviewed the correspondence and directed the Executive Director to respond thanking everyone for their feedback and concerns.



5 APPROVED

Public Comments:

Retzlaff - AMTA Oregon stated that the association wrote a letter/public comment which can also be found on the association's Facebook page concerning their involvement with the Governor's public service workgroup. Retzlaff stated that he greatly appreciated the OBMT Executive Director’s recommendation and the opportunity to serve in the Governor’s workgroup alongside Christa Rodriguez from OBMT. Retzlaff said that the workgroup served as an advisory role, providing comments and concerns on draft guidelines in two interactive meetings and email correspondence. Ultimately, the Governor's office made the final determination on the OHA guidelines. Retzlaff stated that he did not provide a summary evaluation before they were finalized or even know that the process was ending when it did. AMTA collaborated with ABMP and OBMT to collect feedback on the OHA guidelines. ABMP submitted over 700 survey responses to OBMT on May 15 and hoped that OBMT considers these comments carefully. He stated that the overwhelming number of responses is a strong indication that Oregon LMTs are committed to returning to work in a safe and well-planned manner. The association asks that OBMT streamline the OHA guidelines, remove aspects irrelevant to massage therapy practices, and clarify any ambiguities identified in public comments. Furthermore, Retzlaff stated that he is concerned that Governor Brown's order has effectively created two categories of massage therapy, and that raised questions about oversight. Are LMTs performing "medical massage" subject to the OHA guidelines? What about if they are being directed by a chiropractor or other provider with prescribing authority? Shouldn't all LMTs be subject to OBMT oversight, regardless of whether they are being directed? Retzlaff expressed that as a first step in restoring a single framework for regulating massage therapy, the association ask that OBMT make whatever rules that apply to Personal Services to also apply to "medical massage" performed by an LMT, even when directed by another provider. This is in the interest of the safety of the client, practitioner, and the broader public.

Ritten stated that her inquiry is regarding the OHA guideline on personal protective measures with regards to the use of smock. Does this include hospital gown or scrubs, what does this requirement mean for LMTs? Do LMTs have to change cloths completely between clients or is the requirement for a hospital gown to protect massage therapists clothing? Ruark responded stating that the requirement is for the Oregon Health licensing where estheticians and hair technicians where smocks to protect them from biohazard. A disposable smock is fine. With regards to changing clothing after every client, that is not necessary. There is a portion of the guidelines that address what should be done if a practitioner is to have prolonged contact with clients, then LMTs should consider changing their clothes. What this is about is reiterating that a practitioner should consider changing their clothes daily. Wear clean clothes each day of work. Rothenberger inquired about a yellow paper smock that is available online. Does the paper smock work as an option? Ruark responded, stating that a paper smock is an acceptable option. Hughes inquired on how LMTs are supposed to use the disposable smocks if they are long sleeves.



6 APPROVED

Ruark stated that he would have to perform some research into the concern raised by Hughes. However, he would assume that there are options for short sleeve smocks that resembles a bib. Hughes inquired about the used linens that are supposed to go into an airtight container. What qualifies as a sealed container? Rodriguez responded, stating that in her understanding at this time, an airtight container could be something like or similar to a Rubbermaid bin that can lock pretty tight. She is aware of people utilizing the step trash cans, although it could be challenging to carry back and forth. Rodriguez stated that with regards to the inquiry on clothing, it is essential to note that the guideline does have different categories that address things that are required and things that she strongly recommended. Farrington (20817) thanked the Board for the opportunity to attend the Board meeting. She inquired the recommendation for frequency of testing providers, especially now that the state has issued a set of guidance for opening up with testing, contact tracing and quarantine. She wondered what type of recommendation should be made since massage therapists fall into the OSHA category of medium risk. What does OBMT have to say about the risk associated with massage therapists? Ruark responded, stating that with regards to testing, the Oregon Health Authority would be the agency to contact with that inquiry. It would be outside of the Board's purview to make recommendation outside of the science currently available. Morton Gandy inquired if a button-up scrub would suffice? Ruark responded, stating yes. The recommendation intends to protect the LMTs from exposure to biohazard material and in this case, to protect LMTs from COVID-19. Morton Gandy stated that there are a lot of concerns circulating around performing massage on someone who may have a blood clot as a factor of COVID-19. Since it is outside of the scope of massage practice to diagnose, what is a massage therapist supposed to do in this instance? Ruark responded stating that he posed the same question to the Governor's COVID-19 team and the response was, the Governor’s office is continuing to monitor the case abroad in countries with a high number of COVID-19 instances in which some of the patience hospitalized for a severe case of the COVID-19 have developed a blood clot in their lungs and legs. About 20% to 30% of the patients have shown signs of blood clots and only 1 case of a blood clot in an asymptomatic patient. As more information becomes available, the Governor's office will assess that and provide the most updated information. Since the screening process is being implemented, no one should be giving massage on a patient that has symptoms of COVID-19. Claybrook inquired if there would be any guideline on the use and disinfecting of face cradle as they are soft with nonporous surface and may be difficult to disinfect. Furthermore, Claybrook stated that she read reports of individuals who had strokes and heart attack due to COVID-19. She would like to know who to advocate since it is outside of the Board's authority to do much at this time with regards to COVID-19 and its effect on the massage profession.



7 APPROVED

Ruark responded, stating that he too read a report that was not from medical experts or peer-reviewed paper but rather, from a news media. At this time, it is crucial to rely on the medical experts at the Center for Disease Control or any other expert that the Governor's office is getting their information. Ruark further noted that with regards to advocacy, the trade organization traditionally advocates for the massage therapists. Ruark went on to note that, with regards to massage therapists having a voice at the Governor's office, everything that is brought up to him that is concerning, such as the blood clotting issue, that is something that has been presented to the Governor's office as well as some of the correspondence received at the Board office. Also, an LMT can contact their legislator, the Governor's office or the Governor's COVID-19 response team to present their inquiry or request for information. Grossart stated that he understood that LMTs needs to get vinyl covering for things such as pillows, perhaps there is vinyl covering for face cradle that could be used. Rothenberger noted that when using a face cradle on a table, the table should have a harder surface of the sort that the practitioner should be able to put a covering over it. Rothenberger stated that she is confused as to why a vinyl covering should be used as opposed to the standard practice or the use of disposable paper covering that is discarded after every use. Foster-Wexler stated that his face cradle has a vinyl covering which is covered with a cotton face-covering laundered after each use and the vinyl coving wiped with disinfectant. Claybrook stated that the concern is that they are porous even though they have a vinyl covering, the Virus can soak into it. A lot of the recommended disinfectants that can kill COVID-19 are recommended for nonporous surfaces and not for a vinyl-covered cushion. There needs to be specific Guidance for massage therapists as the current guidelines are geared towards hairstylist and estheticians. Alm inquired about the cleaning of the air in a confined space. Because the Virus is aerosolized, and it is now known that it is the primary way the virus is contracted and transmitted. Are there any guidelines or advice on how to clean air space or on the turnover time to ensure that the area is clean and safe for the next client? Ruark responded, stating that there are no guidelines for airspace. The idea behind the current guidance is to limit the number of people in a particular space at any given time and to ensure social distancing. In addition, to screen clients before each session as well as wearing a face mask to the extent possible would go a long way to protect both the practitioner and clients. Boyle expressed that she would like to have a guiding principle from the Board. Grateful to the Board's initiative to provide clarification on the information that is provided by the Oregon Health Authority and the Governor's office. Would like to know what if the primary focus from the Governor's office and OHA is to protect the public or the massage therapist. With regards to sanitation, many people are sensitive to chemicals and can become severely ill from cleaning and disinfecting supplies used in sanitizing after a client and before the next client. What cleaning and disinfecting supplies can the practitioner effectively use without causing harm to clients that are medically allergic to chemical and scents? How can massage therapists ensure that PPEs do not become a stress factor for people with PTSD?



8 APPROVED

Ruark responded stating that the Board did have some input in the guidelines even though the guidance would not be specific to massage therapy. Instead of calling an emergency Board meeting was to make use of the Board meeting to have trade organization provide input about how the current OHA guideline could be made more specific to the massage profession and to guide the Board through the process. Zermer expressed that based on the OHA guideline, LMTs are required to report any COVID-19 outbreak with a client to OHA. Providing information to OHA becomes a conflict due to confidentiality, are there going to be a rule in place to allow information sharing with OHA? Ruark responded, stating that he brought that question up to one of the physician advisors to the Governor and he was told that giving that information to the Oregon Health Authority to track COVID-19 is not a violation of HIPPA rules. Jacobsen (3236) expressed that there is no point in having this conversation on how to stay safe when the Board's communicable disease policy clearly states that if there is an outbreak, the massage therapist should refrain from performing massage. Given that people are asymptomatic, massage therapists should not be working at least not included in phase 1. There is doubt about the potential for transmission and therefore makes no sense why massage therapists should be allowed to resume practice at this time. Grossart stated that he agrees with her. However, it is a tricky situation, and it comes down to individual practitioner to decide on whether they want to open at this phase or not. Ruark stated that one of the statistics that was provided when agency heads brought up this point was, the odds of an asymptomatic person going out to get a massage was about 1 in 45000. Nonetheless, with regards to your concerns, massage therapists need to be careful if they choose to resume their practice. Foster-Wexler stated that his liability insurance company is requiring that practitioners have a COVID-19 release form as an extra step in addition to the prescreening questions about their symptoms, contact in areas where people may have symptoms of COVID-19. All of these measures are in place to reduce possible exposure to people who may have come in contact with COVID-19. Hartmann (14209) stated that she had been an LMT for 16 years, and one of the most important things is not causing harm to the public nor are LMTs allowed to diagnose. Yet the OHA and OBMT now want LMTs to diagnose whether someone is sick or not. The fact of the matter is everyone is a potential carrier, and the only effective strategy which is social distancing is challenging to exercise in the massage profession. Also, PPEs are very difficult to come by. She is willing to go back to work but not at the risk of her life or the life of her clients. Hartmann expressed that she is disappointed with the Board, Oregon Health Authority and the State of Oregon for allowing massage therapists to resume their practice. Grossart responded stating that the Board is not asking anyone to go back to work. The Board is only putting forward the guideline that the Governor's office published for what a practitioner must do if they want to go back to work. It is essential to clarify that the Board is not forcing anyone to go back to work if they do not want to go back to work.



9 APPROVED

Grossart thanked everyone for their feedback and apologized to those who were not able to make a comment and invite them to submit their written comments to the Board Retzlaff-AMTA Oregon stated that the association decided to cancel the annual convention scheduled in April 2020. He noted that contact continuing education hours are going to be hard to come by as in-person classes like the ones offered by the association are being cancelled. Retzlaff expressed that he would like the Board to consider suspending contact requirement for the near future.

4) Board Business:

a. Phase one reopening Guidance Discussion Retzlaff-AMTA Oregon expressed that he was honored to serve in the personal service workgroup. He stated that the workgroup served an advisory role, providing comments and concerns on draft guidelines in two interactive meetings and in email correspondence. Ultimately, the Governor's office made the final determination on the OHA guidelines. I did not provide a summary evaluation before they were finalized or even know that the process was ending when it did. Although the workgroup was not tasked with evaluating questions about the overall safety of returning to work or other broader issues but rather to assess the feasibility of implementing potential safety and sanitation protocols, Retzlaff stated that he used the opportunity to raise concerns about risks to clients and therapists, reporting and enforcement of violations, availability of PPE, accommodations for high-risk workers, access to economic relief for people who are not ready to return, concerns about liability coverage, and the role of public input in the process. Rodriguez expressed that Retzlaff put forth a lot of questions and information to the workgroup. Rodriguez expressed that the frustration that is surfacing is being lumped together with personal services which are not uncommon in any other state. Questions where pose for the fact that massage therapists are asked to have PPE and figure out the best disinfecting approach. Of all the industries present at the workgroup, massage professionals have the most direct and prolong contact with others. Rodriquez stated that they were under the impression that massage therapy would probably not happen in phase 1. Nonetheless, it occurs only a week later. It is the Board's goal to define the OHA guideline further to make it more specific for the massage profession as it currently addresses personal services in general. Rodriguez stated that with regards to unemployment, there had not been much direction given on that. Rothenberger stated that massage therapists who worked for an LMT was furloughed and were able to receive unemployment. Ruark noted that he echoes the sentiments stated above. He said that he attended the meetings, although he could provide input, he wanted to ensure that the industry experts had the opportunity to contribute. In his opinion, the meetings were too short and quick to accomplish what needed to. Ruark stated that he was surprised when the information was published to the chambers of commerce in



10 APPROVED

Keizer, OR. In his opinion, the processed was rushed and the result geared towards larger licensing boards. Ruark stated that the Board could add to the OHA guideline but cannot eliminate from it. Embleton stated that she is always amazed by the great work the Oregon Board of Massage Therapist does for the profession and its massage therapists. Grossart stated that he reviewed the survey result and most of the questions addressed in the survey are issues that we have heard thus far in today's Board meeting such as PPEs, bathroom issue and why are we going back to work when there is another wave coming up. Ruark stated that what he is hoping to accomplish with the Board at the meeting today is to look at the OHA guidelines and tailor it towards massage therapists and provide clarity and definition to some of the terms. The Board reviewed the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) Phase One reopening guidance and made the following modifications to tailor the Guidance to the massage profession. Here is the link to the OHA guidance document. The Board clarified that the following information is supplemental to the Reopening Guidance and specific to Oregon Licensed Massage Therapists.

• Oregon LMT's, as part of the therapy they provide, usually provide a client with water after a

massage therapy session. The Reopening Guidance requires the removal of all unnecessary items such as magazines, newspapers, service menus, and any other unnecessary items such as paper products, snacks, and beverages. The Board suggests that before the massage therapy session, the client be informed to bring their water and leave it with their personal belongings (e.g. in their car) for use after the massage.

• Oregon LMT's are not required to create client records (e.g. SOAP notes). However, with the

Guidance requirement to keep client contact information for sixty (60) days to aid in contact tracing. It is recommended that LMT's record that they asked the required screening questions with the resulting answers. It is also recommended that LMT's keep those records for as long as required under Oregon law.

• In the Guidance provide, the use of "Capes" is mentioned. Since Massage Therapists do not use "Capes" in their practice, a cape is not required.

• The Personal Services Guidance states that each practitioner should wear a clean smock with each client. Businesses may consider using disposable smocks/gowns for one-time use. OBMT has reached out to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for direction on this requirement since LMT's generally do not use smocks in their practice. In response, the Governor’s Office, the Oregon Health Authority and the Department of Justice all agree that the guidance doesn’t require the practitioner to wear a smock if the practitioner does not wear one as part of one’s profession. Nonetheless, LMTS should change from anything that touches the client.

• The Guidance states that you should wash hands with soapy, warm water, for a minimum of 20 seconds between each client service. Since many massage therapists use elbows, feet, forearms, etc.,

https://sharedsystems.dhsoha.state.or.us/DHSForms/Served/le2342F.pdf



11 APPROVED

the Board recommends that you should wash or sanitize any part of the body that comes into direct, skin to skin contact with a client.

• The Board has received questions regarding the requirement to thoroughly clean restroom facilities at least once daily and ensure adequate sanitary supplies (soap, toilet paper, hand sanitizer) throughout the day. Some of the questions regarding restrooms were more specifically about restrooms shared with other businesses in a complex where the landlord cleans the restroom. The answer is that you are required to comply with these requirements for your client's safety so you must have a conversation with your landlord and inform them and ensure this requirement is met.

Rodriguez expressed that it is important for massage therapists to be aware that anything a massage therapist does may not remove the massage therapist 100 percent from the transmission of the Virus.

Combe hopes the Board can mirror the OHA guideline in question to the Board's communicable disease guideline. Combe moved to approve the updates to the OHA guidelines as discussed. Second the motion: Rothenberger. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriquez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

The Board took a short break at 12:00 pm The Board returned to public session at 12:10 pm

b. Director's Report Financial Report: Ruark updated the Board on the Board's finances. At the end of April 2020, the Board had $872,000 in income and approximately $580,000 in expenditures, giving us a surplus income of $250,000. The majority of the increase is in the categories of civil penalty and licensure fees. The Board has seen a reduction in revenue in licensure, fingerprint processing fees, initial licensure fees. At the end of April, the Board had a surplus of approximately $7,000. The Board has spent close to $20,000 to purchase items for the office to facilitate social distancing and telecommuting. The outlook for the Board is excellent as the Board is not part of the general fund. Combe thanked the Executive Director Robert Ruark and staff on everything that they are doing to keep the Board operating during this time of uncertainty. Combe went on to ask if the equipment acquired by the Board for telecommuting are transferable to the post-pandemic office equipment at some point for long term use. Ruark responded stating that, what the pandemic has done for a lot of agencies is point out the areas in which agencies are ill-prepared. One of those weaknesses identified were agencies’ inability to telecommute in a moment's notice. Ruark noted that in most cases where the Board had equipment, the technology was either outdated or could not withstand the current technological advancement. For example, the Board currently has two laptops issued to staff members that do not have the capability for video conferencing as the laptops are not equipped with a camera. The Board was very limited with



12 APPROVED

regards to having adequate technology to accommodate telecommuting for staff. Ruark stated. The purchase of the new equipment means that the Board is now in a position to provide telecommuting for staff when necessary with equipment that are fully functional. Odle thanked Ruark for getting the Board up and running so quickly to telecommute as other agencies are currently in the inception phase or still struggling to get that setup.

c. Compliance Report: As of May 8, 2020, the Board received nine (9) complaints from the public since the last March 16, 2020 Board Meeting.

• Six (6) of these complaints allege noncompliance with the Governor's issued Executive Order 20-12 issued 03/23/2020

• Three (3) of the respondents are LMTs, Three Unlicensed

As of May 8, 2020, 92 disciplinary cases have been open. 17 disciplinary cases are currently in settlement negotiations;

Four (4) cases have been forwarded to Dept. of Justice for hearing; Two (2) cases issued Final Default Orders have requested judicial review.

d. Staffing Update: Ruark stated that the part-time student hired to continue the digitalization project of scanning licensing files into the database is currently on hold until the pandemic is over, however, the employee is continuing to work on preparing the documents for scanning. Ruark also stated that he hired a temporary employee to cover a staff member during an approved long-term leave of absence. Ruark noted that now that the employee is back, and the agency is faced with a new need as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ruark plans to extend the temporary position to assist the Board in the day-to-day operations such as answering phones and receiving mail as the Board staff continue to observe social distancing and telecommute until the pandemic is over.

e. Compliance Manager: Ruark stated that On March 23, 2020, he received approval to start the hiring process for the open Compliance Manager Position. The approval came at about the same time as the COVID19 Pandemic, and the State of Oregon response began reducing staffing and services to several state agencies, leaving me to recruit for the position during a Pandemic or wait until after the Pandemic to start the recruitment process, which could be many months from now. Ruark stated that after talking with Human Resources about the various options available to him, he found that he could direct appoint someone for the position under HR Policy. Ruark expressed that throughout his career, he had the option to direct appoint in many positions but have never exercised that option in the past, however, given the situation we are facing with regards to the pandemic, he decided to direct appoint the



13 APPROVED

Compliance Manager Position. Ruark stated that after searching for a suitable candidate that met the immediate needs of the Board and after ensuring through Human Resources that the candidate met the qualifications for this position, he made a job offer to one of the Board's part-time investigators Jeff Van Laanen. Ruark stated that Mr. Van Laanen accepted the offer and will be assuming the position of Compliance Manager on May 11, 2020. Ruark went on to state that Mr. Van Laanen comes to the Board from the Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission where he worked as the Legal Liaison for the Commission. Also, Mr. Van Laanen brings years of investigative and management experience that will be instrumental to the Board and the team.

Van Laanen thanked the Board and the Executive Director for the opportunity to serve as the Compliance Manager for the Board. Van Laanen expressed that he is very excited and cannot wait to get started.

f. Financial Review audit response:

Ruark updated the Board on the financial review response to the auditor stating that the Board acknowledged that there are somethings that the Board needed to work on such as incomplete procedure, cash control and journal entry issues. Ruark noted that having a compliance manager would allow in to focus on addressing items on the Board and office strategic plans.

g. Proposed Resolution for FSMTB Annual Meeting Combe updated the Board stating that he did hear back from some of the states who raised similar questions at the last FSMTB annual meeting. He contacted the nominating committee chair to seek clarification on why Robert's rules or parliamentary procedure where not being followed in the election processes. The answer he received was, they would get back to him with clarification. As opposed to writing a resolution, Combe recommends looking at the federation’s by-laws for the answers. Furthermore, Combe noted that another issue of concern was the notion of secrecy, where delegates were not allowed to take back and share certain information with their respectful member boards. h. 2020 Traveling Board Meeting:

Ruark updated the Board on the 2020 travelling board meeting stating that given the current situation with the pandemic, the Board should consider postponing the travelling board meeting to next year. Rodriguez agreed to postpone the travelling board meeting to 2021, given that the Board staff may be the last to return to regular business operations. Rodriguez went on to state that since the Board tends to have the travelling meeting at the location where there are massage schools perhaps, the Board may consider having an all-school meeting instead or have one of the board meetings perhaps the July meetings to focus on schools. Foster-Wexler inquired if there is a requirement that the Board have a two-day business meeting. Grossart responded stating that the only requirement is to meet every two months.



14 APPROVED

Ruark stated, saying that generally, the next Board meeting may not be as robust as previous meeting before the pandemic. Currently, the focus is to address the things that need to be accomplished at this moment which are, getting massage opened up, helping those in need of help but most importantly, getting the guideline tailored to the massage profession in Oregon and getting that to all licensees and interested parties.

i. Proposed Mega Agenda:

Grossart updated the Board on the proposed mega agenda stating that the mega agenda intends to ensure that essential business item are not missed. With this mega agenda, the Board would be able to use what is needed when it is required. The Board reviewed the mega agenda and agreed with all the agenda items.

j. Elections for Board Officers and Delegate to FSMTB Meeting Election of Board Officers: Grossart stated that he has been chair for three (3) years and would be exiting the Board in March due to term limit and the Board needs a new chair. Grossart moved to nominate and elected Christa Rodriguez for Board Chair. Second the motion: Chen. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriquez and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

Grossart moved to nominate and elected John Combe for Board Vice-Chair. Second the motion: Odle. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

Combe thanked Grossart for his service as chair to date.

Delegate to FSMTB Meeting:

Grossart stated that historically, the chair is usually the Board's delegate at the FSMTB Meeting. However, that is up to the newly elected chair, Christa Rodriquez to make that determination. Rodriguez responded stating that this year's FSMTB annual meeting falls on her proposed wedding date and therefore would not be able to attend should there be an FSMTB yearly meeting this year and would be unlikely that she would be able to participate in. Grossart also added that if budget permits, the Board likes to send new team members and, in this case, would be Odle and Van Laanen.

k. Executive Director Annual Performance Review



15 APPROVED

Grossart stated that Bob Ruark is doing an exceptional job as the Board's Executive Director especially having to do three jobs in the last two months and dealing with all the problems arising with the unprecedented pandemic and government bureaucracy. Grossart went on to state that he would also like to see continuation in the already improving communications with Board members and staff. Ruark inquired is the Board wanted him to step out of the room during the performance review. Grossart responded, stating that it would be challenging to have a performance review without the employee. Combe stated that Ruark hit the ground running while wearing multiple hats in the past few months. Combe expressed that he is glad that Ruark is the Executive Director and very excited about the direction in which the Executive Director is leading the Board and the changes that needs to happen. He added that finally having a full staff would aid in the realization of that vision. Combe went on to add that he is hopeful that the Board as a whole would support Ruark as the Executive Director. Rodriquez expressed that the Executive Director came through for the Board during an unprecedented time as the Board's interim Executive Director for a year and as the Executive Director during a pandemic and having to work on the fly and doing a lot of work on the off time as well. Rodriquez stated that she appreciates the constant communication with the Board, providing important updates as they become available and taking care of all other Board priorities. Rothenberger expressed that the Executive Director has done a fantastic job in all regards. Ruark expressed his gratitude to all the Board members and stated that the Oregon Board of Massage is a great Board to work for, and he appreciates everyone. Public Comment: Retzlaff-AMTA Oregon congratulated Christa Rodriquez and John Combe on their appointment as Board Chair and Vice-Chair respectively and thanked them for stepping up. Retzlaff also thanked Jon Grossart for his service to the Board. Retzlaff went on the welcome the new Board member Maria Odle and the new Compliance Manager Jeff Van Laanen. Retzlaff added that the clarification the Board provided during the discussion on the OHA Reopening Guideline about vinyl and nonporous surface for the guideline requirements is satisfactory. Retzlaff went on to express that he hopes the public can appreciate the efforts the Oregon Board of Massage Therapists puts into coordinating with the Governor's Office, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) other state agency during these unprecedented times. He stated that the Board serve as a conduit between massage therapists and policymakers, and because massage therapists do not get a firm answer does not mean coordination is not happening. Retzlaff thanked the Executive Director Ruark for his effective communication with licensees. Boyle thanked the Board for its effort to provide the best possible clarification on the OHA Reopening Guidelines. Boyle noted that her assumption with regards to outcall and chair massage would not be a part of phase 1. Boyle recommended that the Board added something to the Board's Frequently Asked Questions



16 APPROVED

(FAQs) as well as the Board's website to that effect. Boyle stated that with regards to the requirement on smocks and gowns, it should be up to the client to determine when it is appropriate to use in their practice based on the modality practiced. Boyle requested clarification on chair massage and the use of gloves. Grossart responded stating that portion of the guideline is recommended but not required. Ruark added that with regards to chair massage, he agrees with Boyle. The guideline requires that practitioners have scheduled appointments only, and massage therapist cannot practice while exercising social distancing. Ruark stated that this is something that will be added in the FAQs. Smith (2396) inquired is anything that was discussed about unemployment for people who do not feel safe going back to work or have the Person Protective Equipment (PPE) to practice safely. Would the Board advocate with the Governor's office on how long the unemployment can be applied for as some people have applied for unemployment and have received nothing in the past two months. Ruark stated that the unemployment concern is one that he continues to advocate when he attends the agency meetings on COVID-19. He continues to advocate for massage therapists at the agency meetings for massage therapists who do not feel safe returning to work for a plethora of reasons and how that would affect request for unemployment. Ruark stated that he is yet to receive a straight answer. However, he is under the impression that because some massage therapists may return to work at reduced time, this may be something that is taking into consideration by the employment agency when determining eligibility. It would behoove the massage therapist to note this when applying for unemployment. Because each case is different, it is difficult to provide a straight answer as there are some exemptions for people who are in the at-risk category that they may not have to go back to work and continue to get unemployment. Because a blanket answer is not forthcoming, it is best to contact the employment department directly. Schiff (23463) hydro collator parts need to be sterilized or disinfected before each use. Schiff stated that every other general guideline that he has come across states that hand sanitizer is acceptable; however, the guidelines fail to address hand washing requirement for the clients. He is wondering if he could offer hand sanitizer to clients to minimize the use of his bathroom. Because he does not know what is touched in the bathroom, it becomes a significant area of concern of viral transfer from person to person to surface. Grossart responded stating that the Board already clarified that hand sanitization or hand washing is sufficient. Schiff expressed that he is very pleased with the Executive Director, the Board Staff and Board members with the handling of everything during these difficult times. Schiff added that Bob Ruark is an excellent man and massage therapists are very happy that he is the Executive Director for the Oregon Board of Massage Therapist. Morton Gandy stated that she has three (3) clarifying items. First and foremost, when talking about outcalls, it should not be exclusively to chair massage as many massage therapists perform outcall to private homes, office and there is no guideless provided to address outcalls and there need to be a guideline of some sort for outcalls. Secondly, with regards to lotion and keeping things in airtight containers, Morton Gandy noted that she puts the lotion in individual containers for each client in a sealed jar. Would she have to dump the content in the



17 APPROVED

content if it is only used on each client? With regards to table heaters and fleeces, is it sufficient to only change the top sheets? Grossart responded, stating since there is no way to clean heating devices, it would be wise to forgo them. Morton Gandy thanked the Board and the Executive Director for doing a fantastic job. Morton Gandy went on to thank Jon Grossart for his service as Board Chair. Grossart called the Board into Executive Session at 12:45 am. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board may enter into Executive Session to discuss certain matters on the Agenda pursuant to ORS 192.660: To discuss certain matters on the Agenda pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2) (f) to consider information or records that are exempt by law from public inspection, ORS 192.501 (4); and/or To review, discuss, and consider written legal advice provided by the Department of Justice, pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2) (f) or to consult with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2) (h); and/or (3) To consider and discuss in executive session information obtained as part of an investigation of a licensee, applicant or other person alleged to be practicing in violation of law, pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2) (k) (L) and ORS 676.175. Prior to imposing a sanction authorized under ORS 687.081 or any rule of the Board, the Board shall consider, but is not limited to considering, the following factors: (a) The persons past history in observing the provisions of ORS 687.011 to 687.250, 687.895 and 687.991 and the rules of the Board; (b) the effect of the violation on public safety and welfare; (c) the degree to which the action subject to sanction violates professional ethics and standards of practice; (d) the economic and financial condition of the person subject to sanction; and (e) any mitigating factors that the Board may choose to consider; and/or to consider the employment of a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2) (a); and/or to consider the dismissal or discipline of a public officer, employee or staff member or hear complaints or charges brought against such a person if they do not request an open hearing pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(b). Prior to entering into Executive Session, the nature of and authority for holding the Executive Session will be announced.

5) Executive Session a. Compliance (192.660(2)(L)) The Board returned to Public Session at 2:54 pm.

6) Action on Executive Session Items Compliance Cases i. Case 2779 – Combe moved to Deny Facility's Motion to Stay. Second the motion: Foster-Wexler. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

ii. Case 2791 – Combe moved to Deny Licensee's Motion to Stay. Second the motion: Foster-Wexler. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

iii. Case 2850 – Rodriguez moved to Accept Stipulated Agreement and Voluntary Surrender of License negotiated by Board staff. Second the motion: Odle. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.



18 APPROVED

iv. Case 2741 – Foster-Wexler moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for violation of ORS 687.081(1)(a). For a total civil penalty of $1,000. Second the motion: Rothenberger. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

v. Case 2832 – Odle moved to Dismiss and Issue a Letter of Concern. Second the motion: Combe. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

vi. Case 2834 – Rothenberger moved to Dismiss and issue a Letter of Concern. Second the motion: Odle. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Recused: Rodriquez. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

vii. Case 2856 – Combe moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for violation of OAR 334-040-0010 (1),

ORS 687.021 (1)(b) &(d), Three (3) violations of ORS 687.021 (1) (a), four (4) violations of ORS 687.021 (1)(c). For a total civil penalty of $10,000. Second the motion: Foster-Wexler. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Recused: Grossart. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

viii. Case 2857 – Rothenberger moved to Dismiss with a letter of concern. Second the motion: Combe. In

favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Recused: Grossart. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

ix. Case 2858 – Combe moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for violation of ORS 687.021 (1)(b), Ten (10) violations of ORS 687.021 (1) (c), and Five (5) violations of OAR 334-040-0010 (12). For a total civil penalty of $16, 000. Second the motion: Foster-Wexler. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

x. Case 2859 - Combe moved to Issue a Letter of Concern. Second the motion: Rothenberger. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xi. Case 2864 – Foster-Wexler moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action denying facility permit application. Second the motion: Rodriguez. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xii. Case 2962 – Foster-Wexler moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action denying facility permit

application and access a civil penalty for tow (2) violations of OAR 334-040-0010 (12). For a total civil penalty of $2000. Second the motion: Rodriguez. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xiii. Case 2940 – Foster-Wexler moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for two (2) violations of ORS

687.021 (1) (a). For a total civil penalty of $2000. Second the motion: Rodriguez. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.



19 APPROVED

xiv. Case 2941 – Foster-Wexler moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for violation of ORS 687.021 (1) (a). For a total civil penalty of $1000. Second the motion: Rodriguez. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xv. Case 2942 – Foster-Wexler moved to Dismiss with a Letter of Concern. Second the motion: Rodriquez. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xvi. Case 2943 – Foster-Wexler to Dismiss with a Letter of Concern. Second the motion: Rodriquez. In

favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xvii. Case 2890 – Combe moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action revoking licensee's massage therapist

license. Second the motion: Rothenberger. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xviii. Case 2955 – Combe moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for violation of ORS 687.021 (1) (a). For

a total civil penalty of $1000. Second the motion: Rothenberger. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xix. Case 2956 – Combe moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for violation of ORS 687.021 (1) (a). For

a total civil penalty of $1000. Second the motion: Rothenberger. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xx. Case 2893 – Foster-Wexler moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for violation of ORS 687.021 (1) (b), two (2) violations of ORS 687.021 (1) (c), violation of ORS 687.021 (1) (d), and three (3) violations of OAR 334-040-0010 (12). For a total civil penalty of $7,000. Second the motion: Rodriguez. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xxi. Case 2938 – Foster-Wexler moved to Issue a Proposed Action for violation of ORS 687.021 (1) (a). For a

total civil penalty of $1,000. Second the motion: Rodriguez. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xxii. Case 2939 – Foster-Wexler moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for violation of ORS 687.021 (1)

(a). For a total civil penalty of $1,000. Second the motion: Rodriguez. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xxiii. Case 2900 – Chen moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for violation of ORS 687.021 (1) (a), ORS

687.021 (1) (b), ORS 687.021 (1) (d), OAR 334-040-0010 (12), Five (5) violations of ORS 687.021 (1) (c). For a total civil penalty of $9,000. Second the motion: Rothenberger. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.



20 APPROVED

xxiv. Case 2947 – Chen moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for violation of ORS 687.021 (1) (a). For a total civil penalty of $1,000. Second the motion: Rothenberger. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xxv. Case 2948 – Chen moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for violation of ORS 687.021 (1) (b), ORS

687.021 (1) (d), two (2) violations of OAR 334-040-0010 (12), Five (5) violations of ORS 687.021 (1) (c). For a total civil penalty of $9,000. Second the motion: Rothenberger. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xxvi. Case 2917 – Combe moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for violation of ORS 687.021 (1) (b),

ORS 687.021 (1) (d), Five (5) violations of ORS 687.021 (1) (c). For a total civil penalty of $7,000. Second the motion: Rothenberger. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xxvii. Case 2957 – Combe moved to Issue a Letter of Concern. Second the motion: Rothenberger. In favor:

Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xxviii. Case 2920– Foster-Wexler moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for violation of ORS 687.021 (1)

(b), ORS 687.021 (1) (d), two (2) violations of OAR 334-040-0010 (12), Five (5) violations of ORS 687.021 (1) (c). For a total civil penalty of $9,000. Second the motion: Odle. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xxix. Case 2949 – Foster-Wexler moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for violation of ORS 687.021 (1)

(a). For a total civil penalty of $1,000. Second the motion: Odle. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xxx. Case 2950 – Foster Wexler Moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action for violation of ORS 687.021 (1)

(a). For a total civil penalty of $1,000. Second the motion: Odle. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xxxi. Case 2951 – Foster Wexler Moved to Dismiss with a Letter of Concern. Second the motion: Odle. In

favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xxxii. Case 2929 – Rothenberger Moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action revoking licensee's massage therapist license. Second the motion: Combe. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

xxxiii. Case 2945 – Combe Moved to Issue a Notice of Proposed Action revoking licensee's massage therapist license. Second the motion: Rothenberger. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

7) Board Member Trainings:



21 APPROVED

Board members received required information Security Training.

8) Announcements Grossart expressed that he has enjoyed serving as the Board chair and look forward to the leadership of the new Board Chair Christa Rodriguez and Vice Chair John Combe. Grossart added that the Board needs to start looking for new Board members as three Board members will be reaching the end of their pointed term. One of the new Board members must be from the public health professional. Next Board meeting will be remotely on July 17, 2020, at 9 am remote via GoToMeeting (call-in information will be sent as part of the July meeting notice).

9) Adjourn Meeting: Rothenberger moved to adjourn the meeting. Second the motion: Combe. In favor: Chen, Combe, Foster-Wexler, Grossart, Odle, Rodriguez, and Rothenberger. Opposed: None. Motion carries.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:03pm.

Minutes - Oregon.gov

Documents

Transcript of Minutes - Oregon.gov