California Massage Therapy Council: business of massage.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when AB 2194 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on AB 2194.
You're tracking AB 2194
We'll email you the moment it moves.
AB 2194 — California Massage Therapy Council: business of massage.
Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 411, Statutes of 2016.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed Assembly
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 18, 2016. Enacted.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
HighHow often bills like it became law.
-
Enacted
Current position in the legislative process.
-
3 sponsors
1 primary, 2 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 8 recorded votes so far.
Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.
Summary
The Massage Therapy Act, until January 1, 2017, provides for certification of massage practitioners and massage therapists by the California Massage Therapy Council. Existing law states the intent of the Legislature regarding that act. Existing law also provides for the council to be governed by an interim board of directors until September 15, 2015, and for the appointment of a new board of directors having 4-year terms. Existing law prohibits a certificate from being denied and a holder of a certificate from being disciplined except according to specified procedures and authorizes a court to find that other procedures are fair and reasonable when the full circumstances of the denial or discipline are considered. Existing law authorizes an applicant or certificate holder to challenge a denial or discipline decision in a court of competent jurisdiction if challenged within one year after the effective date of the denial or discipline. Existing law authorizes the council to discipline an owner or operator of a massage business or establishment who is certified for the conduct of all individuals providing massage for compensation on the business premises. That act requires the council to immediately suspend, on an interim basis, the certificate of a certificate holder if the council receives notice that a certificate holder has been arrested and charges have been filed alleging a violation of certain provisions of law and requires the council to notify an establishment or employer of the suspension by email within 10 business days. That act authorizes the council, if it determines that a certificate holder has committed an act punishable as a sexually related crime, to immediately suspend the certificate of that certificate holder, and provides that the certificate holder has the right to request a hearing to challenge the suspension. By June 1, 2016, existing law requires the council to provide a report to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature that includes specified information. This bill would revise the intent of the Legislature, as specified. The bill would require local governments to impose and enforce only reasonable and necessary fees and regulations on massage businesses and massage establishments, in keeping with the requirements of existing law and being mindful of the need to protect legitimate business owners and massage professionals, particularly sole providers. The bill would extend the operation of these provisions to January 1, 2021, and make nonsubstantive changes to delete obsolete provisions related to the interim board. The bill would also authorize the council to discipline an owner or operator of a massage business or establishment under those circumstances if the owner or operator is an applicant for certification. This bill would provide that a procedure meets the requirements for fair procedure if certain procedures are followed. The bill would authorize a final decision to deny or impose discipline to be based solely on a written statement or declaration made under penalty of perjury, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize an applicant or certificate holder to challenge a denial or discipline decision in a court of competent jurisdiction within 90 days after the effective date of the decision. The bill would provide that a certificate issued under that act is not a fundamental vested right and would require judicial review of a denial or disciplinary decision by the council to be conducted using the substantial evidence standard of review. The bill would additionally authorize the council to notify an establishment or employer of the suspension of a certificate by first-class mail, and would authorize a certificate holder whose certificate is suspended to request an oral hearing or consideration of a written statement to challenge the suspension. The bill would instead require that report to be submitted by January 1, 2017. Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county for unincorporated areas to enact an ordinance providing for the licensing for regulation of the business of massage when carried on within the city or county. Existing law authorizes that ordinance to condition the issuance of a license to engage in the business of massage upon proof that a massage business meets specified reasonable standards set by the ordinance. Existing law prohibits a city, county, or city and county from requiring a massage establishment to have specified internal physical structures, including windows, and requiring a person certified under the Massage Therapy Act to undergo a background check beyond what is required by the Massage Therapy Act. This bill would prohibit a city, county, or city and county from requiring a massage establishment to have a shower or bath and would also specify that a background check includes a criminal background check or requiring submission of fingerprints for a federal or state criminal background check. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill Text
- Chaptered 09/21/16 - Chaptered Current pdf September 21, 2016
- Enrolled 09/02/16 - Enrolled pdf September 02, 2016
- Amended 08/19/16 - Amended Senate pdf August 19, 2016
- Amended 08/15/16 - Amended Senate pdf August 15, 2016
- Amended 08/01/16 - Amended Senate pdf August 01, 2016
- Amended 06/20/16 - Amended Senate pdf June 20, 2016
- Amended 04/19/16 - Amended Assembly pdf April 19, 2016
- Amended 04/05/16 - Amended Assembly pdf April 05, 2016
- Introduced 02/18/16 - Introduced pdf February 18, 2016
- AB2194 View text html
Action History
-
Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 411, Statutes of 2016.
-
Approved by the Governor.
-
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2:30 p.m.
-
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 77. Noes 1. Page 6539.).
-
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
-
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 5415.).
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
-
Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
-
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 11).
-
Referred to APPR. suspense file.
-
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (June 27).
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.
-
Referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.
-
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
-
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 4685.)
-
Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.
-
From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 19. Noes 0.) (April 27).
-
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Read second time and amended.
-
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (April 12).
-
Re-referred to Com. on B. & P.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B. & P. Read second time and amended.
-
Referred to Com. on B. & P.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee March 20.
-
Read first time. To print.
Sponsors
- Brough · Cosponsor
- Salas · Primary
- Hill · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 2 co-sponsors · 119 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Salas
Co-sponsors (2)
- Brough
- Hill
Not signed on (119)
119 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 119 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 67 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Democratic | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 77 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 96% | 1% | 0% | 3% |
How each member voted (80)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Achadjian | — | Yea |
| Baker | — | Yea |
| Bloom | — | Yea |
| Brough | — | Yea |
| Brown | — | Yea |
| Low | — | Yea |
| Maienschein | — | Yea |
| Mathis | — | Yea |
| O'Donnell | — | Yea |
| Rendon | — | Yea |
| Santiago | — | Yea |
| Wagner | — | Yea |
| Weber | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Cooper | — | Yea |
| Salas | — | Yea |
| Olsen | — | Yea |
| Gatto | — | Yea |
| Burke | — | Yea |
| Hadley | — | Yea |
| Harper | — | Yea |
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Yea |
| Campos | — | Yea |
| Kim | — | Yea |
| Levine | — | Yea |
| Linder | — | Yea |
| Mayes | — | Yea |
| McCarty | — | Yea |
| Atkins | — | Yea |
| Chang | — | Yea |
| Bonilla | — | Yea |
| Medina | — | Yea |
| Lopez | — | Yea |
| Melendez | — | Yea |
| Alejo | — | Yea |
| Bigelow | — | Yea |
| Chau | — | Yea |
| Chiu | — | Yea |
| Chu | — | Yea |
| Chávez | — | Yea |
| Cooley | — | Yea |
| Dababneh | — | Yea |
| Daly | — | Yea |
| Mullin | — | Yea |
| Nazarian | — | Yea |
| Obernolte | — | Yea |
| Ridley-Thomas | — | Yea |
| Rodriguez | — | Yea |
| Steinorth | — | Yea |
| Thurmond | — | Yea |
| Ting | — | Yea |
| Waldron | — | Yea |
| Wilk | — | Yea |
| Williams | — | Yea |
| Wood | — | Yea |
| Gray | — | Not Voting |
| Dodd | — | Nay |
| Gordon | — | Not Voting |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Frazier | — | Yea |
| Gomez | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Yea |
| Cristina Garcia | — | Yea |
| Eduardo Garcia | — | Yea |
| Jim Patterson | — | Yea |
| Lorena Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Mark Stone | — | Yea |
| Roger Hernández | — | Yea |
| Travis Allen | — | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Gipson, Mike A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Irwin, Jacqui | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Gallagher, James | Republican | Yea |
| Grove, Shannon | Republican | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 36 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 39 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (39)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Anderson | — | Yea |
| Monning | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Fuller | — | Yea |
| Glazer | — | Yea |
| Allen | — | Yea |
| Cannella | — | Yea |
| Mitchell | — | Yea |
| De León | — | Yea |
| Galgiani | — | Yea |
| Hall | — | Yea |
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Hernandez | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Beall | — | Yea |
| Block | — | Yea |
| Hertzberg | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Hueso | — | Yea |
| Huff | — | Yea |
| Lara | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Leyva | — | Yea |
| Liu | — | Yea |
| Mendoza | — | Yea |
| Moorlach | — | Yea |
| Morrell | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Pan | — | Yea |
| Pavley | — | Yea |
| Roth | — | Yea |
| Vidak | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Yea |
| Bill Berryhill | — | Yea |
| Mark Stone | — | Yea |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Yea |
| McGuire, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Nguyen, Stephanie | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Mendoza | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Lara | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Beall | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| McGuire, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Mendoza | — | Yea |
| Beall | — | Yea |
| Lara | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| McGuire, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 89% | 0% | 0% | 11% |
How each member voted (9)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Block | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Mendoza | — | Yea |
| Galgiani | — | Not Voting |
| Hernandez | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Yea |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 69 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 79 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 99% | 0% | 0% | 1% |
How each member voted (80)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Achadjian | — | Yea |
| Alejo | — | Yea |
| Baker | — | Yea |
| Bloom | — | Yea |
| Brough | — | Yea |
| Brown | — | Yea |
| Levine | — | Yea |
| Maienschein | — | Yea |
| Mathis | — | Yea |
| Olsen | — | Yea |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Rendon | — | Yea |
| Santiago | — | Yea |
| Wagner | — | Yea |
| Waldron | — | Yea |
| Williams | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Frazier | — | Yea |
| Gomez | — | Yea |
| Gordon | — | Yea |
| Burke | — | Yea |
| Harper | — | Yea |
| Salas | — | Yea |
| Kim | — | Yea |
| Linder | — | Yea |
| Low | — | Yea |
| Mayes | — | Yea |
| McCarty | — | Yea |
| Nazarian | — | Yea |
| O'Donnell | — | Yea |
| Chang | — | Yea |
| Chau | — | Yea |
| Chiu | — | Yea |
| Chu | — | Yea |
| Cooley | — | Yea |
| Cooper | — | Yea |
| Obernolte | — | Yea |
| Ridley-Thomas | — | Yea |
| Rodriguez | — | Yea |
| Steinorth | — | Yea |
| Thurmond | — | Yea |
| Weber | — | Yea |
| Wilk | — | Yea |
| Gatto | — | Yea |
| Gray | — | Yea |
| Atkins | — | Yea |
| Campos | — | Yea |
| Bonilla | — | Yea |
| Lopez | — | Yea |
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Yea |
| Bigelow | — | Yea |
| Chávez | — | Yea |
| Dababneh | — | Yea |
| Daly | — | Yea |
| Dodd | — | Yea |
| Medina | — | Yea |
| Melendez | — | Yea |
| Mullin | — | Yea |
| Ting | — | Yea |
| Wood | — | Yea |
| Hadley | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Not Voting |
| Cristina Garcia | — | Yea |
| Eduardo Garcia | — | Yea |
| Jim Patterson | — | Yea |
| Lorena Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Mark Stone | — | Yea |
| Roger Hernández | — | Yea |
| Travis Allen | — | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Gipson, Mike A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Irwin, Jacqui | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Gallagher, James | Republican | Yea |
| Grove, Shannon | Republican | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 15 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 19 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 95% | 0% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (20)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bigelow | — | Yea |
| Bloom | — | Yea |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Santiago | — | Yea |
| Wood | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Bonilla | — | Yea |
| Chang | — | Yea |
| Daly | — | Yea |
| Obernolte | — | Yea |
| Wagner | — | Yea |
| Weber | — | Yea |
| Eduardo Garcia | — | Yea |
| Lorena Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Roger Hernández | — | Not Voting |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Gallagher, James | Republican | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (16)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Baker | — | Yea |
| Bloom | — | Yea |
| Brough | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Gatto | — | Yea |
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Campos | — | Yea |
| Salas | — | Yea |
| Chávez | — | Yea |
| Dodd | — | Yea |
| Mullin | — | Yea |
| Ting | — | Yea |
| Wood | — | Yea |
| Gomez | — | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 2194 do?
- The Massage Therapy Act, until January 1, 2017, provides for certification of massage practitioners and massage therapists by the California Massage Therapy Council. Existing law states the intent of the Legislature regarding that act. Existing law also provides for the council to be governed by an interim board of directors until September 15, 2015, and for the appointment of a new board of directors having 4-year terms. Existing law prohibits a certificate from being denied and a holder of a certificate from being disciplined except according to specified procedures and authorizes a court to find that other procedures are fair and reasonable when the full circumstances of the denial or discipline are considered. Existing law authorizes an applicant or certificate holder to challenge a denial or discipline decision in a court of competent jurisdiction if challenged within one year after the effective date of the denial or discipline. Existing law authorizes the council to discipline an owner or operator of a massage business or establishment who is certified for the conduct of all individuals providing massage for compensation on the business premises. That act requires the council to immediately suspend, on an interim basis, the certificate of a certificate holder if the council receives notice that a certificate holder has been arrested and charges have been filed alleging a violation of certain provisions of law and requires the council to notify an establishment or employer of the suspension by email within 10 business days. That act authorizes the council, if it determines that a certificate holder has committed an act punishable as a sexually related crime, to immediately suspend the certificate of that certificate holder, and provides that the certificate holder has the right to request a hearing to challenge the suspension. By June 1, 2016, existing law requires the council to provide a report to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature that includes specified information. This bill would revise the intent of the Legislature, as specified. The bill would require local governments to impose and enforce only reasonable and necessary fees and regulations on massage businesses and massage establishments, in keeping with the requirements of existing law and being mindful of the need to protect legitimate business owners and massage professionals, particularly sole providers. The bill would extend the operation of these provisions to January 1, 2021, and make nonsubstantive changes to delete obsolete provisions related to the interim board. The bill would also authorize the council to discipline an owner or operator of a massage business or establishment under those circumstances if the owner or operator is an applicant for certification. This bill would provide that a procedure meets the requirements for fair procedure if certain procedures are followed. The bill would authorize a final decision to deny or impose discipline to be based solely on a written statement or declaration made under penalty of perjury, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize an applicant or certificate holder to challenge a denial or discipline decision in a court of competent jurisdiction within 90 days after the effective date of the decision. The bill would provide that a certificate issued under that act is not a fundamental vested right and would require judicial review of a denial or disciplinary decision by the council to be conducted using the substantial evidence standard of review. The bill would additionally authorize the council to notify an establishment or employer of the suspension of a certificate by first-class mail, and would authorize a certificate holder whose certificate is suspended to request an oral hearing or consideration of a written statement to challenge the suspension. The bill would instead require that report to be submitted by January 1, 2017. Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county for unincorporated areas to enact an ordinance providing for the licensing for regulation of the business of massage when carried on within the city or county. Existing law authorizes that ordinance to condition the issuance of a license to engage in the business of massage upon proof that a massage business meets specified reasonable standards set by the ordinance. Existing law prohibits a city, county, or city and county from requiring a massage establishment to have specified internal physical structures, including windows, and requiring a person certified under the Massage Therapy Act to undergo a background check beyond what is required by the Massage Therapy Act. This bill would prohibit a city, county, or city and county from requiring a massage establishment to have a shower or bath and would also specify that a background check includes a criminal background check or requiring submission of fingerprints for a federal or state criminal background check. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
- Who sponsors AB 2194?
- AB 2194 is sponsored by Brough, Salas, and Hill.
- What is the current status of AB 2194?
- This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 18, 2016. Enacted.
- Where can I track AB 2194?
- Track AB 2194 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 2194
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of AB 2194
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →