The House of Delegates was a hive of activity on the evening of September 23^rd at the AMTA National Convention in Minneapolis.  Enthusiastic representatives from all fifty states and the District of Columbia arrived early at the large meeting room to prepare for the exciting event about to take place.  On the agenda:  a lively debate of the proposed adoption of six new position statements and one recommended change in the AMTA by-laws.

To help expedite the process ahead, delegates had been carefully, albeit humorously, instructed in the art of Parliamentary Procedures the night before.  We practiced official-sounding statements such as, “I move the previous question,” and “point of information,” and “I second the motion,” all with very satisfying effect.

Additionally, delegates practiced sprinting to one of two microphones located on opposite sides of the vast room.  One mike, labeled “pro” and intended for those voicing statements in favor of a position, was conveniently located next to Colorado delegates.  The other mike, however - the mike labeled “con”- was unfortunately situated across a vast sea of tote-bags, backsides, and tightly-packed, beverage-laden tables.  Those of us from Colorado viewed this formidable gauntlet with trepidation.

Practice now well behind, all eagerly awaited the official commencement.  At last the outer doors were closed and cell phones were set to stun.  A hush descended on the packed room.  Shirley Cooper, HODOC member, led us in the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silent reflection.  Then Dan Barrow, the House Moderator, called the meeting to order.

As a first-timer to the House of Delegates experience, I must say that what followed next is imprinted in my mind as an adrenaline-charged, kaleidoscope of events.  The first position statement was introduced and the debate started in earnest. Fast-paced, astute, insightful – the commentary from peers and colleagues enlightened and provoked.  I was so caught up in the process that I forgot to take notes.

Soon, the allotted time for debate ran out and we were called to vote.  Using nifty little electronic devices that resemble the James-Bond version of an i-phone, we carefully entered our vote and watched on large screens at the front of the room as a computer immediately tallied the vote.

The second position statement regarding portability of licensure was introduced and I think that I momentarily lost consciousness.  It was my turn to speak at the mike.  Usually confident, I suddenly felt like a ten-year-old at her first piano recital and froze up.  Kim elbowed me and whispered, “Good luck!”  I came to.  My goal was to get to the microphone labeled “con” before the line got so long that we ran out of debate time.  The gauntlet loomed ahead. I eyed the long, narrow passageway of densely packed humanity that stood between me and the mike, sucked it in, and made a side-ways, crab-like dash for it.

Everything went well until I got near the end of the row where the aisle inexplicably narrowed.  Sandwiched between seated delegates from Florida, Georgia and Maryland, I faced a choice: go back the way I came and risk losing the opportunity to debate, or forge ahead and reach the mike only four feet away.  I thought of the Colorado members back home who were counting on me and chose the latter. Though no serious injuries ensued, the trail of fluttering papers that cascaded to the floor in my wake was mesmerizing!

Mission accomplished!  I reached the mike, said my piece with reasonable coherence, and survived to write about the experience.  The remaining position statements were debated in much the same manner, as was the recommended change to the by-laws.  I had a another opportunity to speak, but chose not to run the gauntlet a second time and took the long way around.  Though I made it to the debate line, time ran out before I had an opportunity to voice my views.  Lesson learned: if it’s worth saying, run the gauntlet every time!

Here is a brief follow-up of the final results of Position Statement #2 (Portability of Licensure):

Votes for: 51

Votes against: 88

The position statement failed.

Though many support the idea of portability of licensure, some of the objections to adopting this as a position statement included questions about who would regulate the process; also, there were concerns about the wide range of schooling requirements in different states.  The overall tone in the room suggested that the position statement needs honing before being adopted.

The final vote on the recommendation statement that would make an allowance for non-supervised courses – i.e. distance learning – was much closer:

Votes for: 71

Votes against: 67

The proposed change still failed because a 2/3 majority was needed.

Debate was most heated around this issue and emotions ran high.  Those voting for the change cited several advantages:  flexibility, increased membership, reduced cost.  Those voting against the change expressed concerns about giving up quality for convenience, in addition to questioning who would benefit more: schools or students?  Others felt that on-line training might diminish our rights as professional experts: do we want more students or do we want better students?

In summary, I sincerely wish to encourage Colorado members to consider volunteering as a chapter delegate.  It’s interesting, eye-opening, and informative- an excellent opportunity to give voice to the common concerns we all experience in the massage therapy profession.

- Michelle Howard