Hello;

I received the following email from a state regulator. If anyone in Colorado has
an opinion about this please share it with me.
thanks
jim
Jim,
In June 2006, the Associated Bodywork and Massage Professionals and the Colorado
Chapter of the American Massage Therapy Association filed a sunrise application
with the State of Colorado requesting the State to regulate, through licensure,
massage therapists.
It is the duty of the Office of Policy, Research and Regulatory Reform to
conduct an analysis of this application to determine whether regulating massage
therapists would serve to protect the health, safety or welfare of the citizens
of Colorado.
As part of this analysis, we solicit input from interested parties and
stakeholders.  I understand that you are affiliated with the Rolfing institute
in Boulder, and as such, I would like to get your reaction to this proposal for
licensing.
--
Jim Pascucci
Advanced Rolfer
www.JimtheRolfer.com
www.equinesi.com
Author of Equine Structural Integration: Myofascial Release Manual

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi All,
   Its been a while since posting.

   Great to have another school join the ranks with such reputed teachers.  We
can all but benefit from more well trained practitioners.

   I haven't managed to keep up with all the recent posts due to the birth of my
third.  However, with the dozen or so that I did manage to read of the heated
back and forth (too hot to touch!), something odd occurred to me about your last
message, Shawn.  I could well have missed it, but did you at any time mention
your relationship to the new school you were promoting?  If so, thanks (perhaps
it should have been in your first post).  If not, don't you think it would have
been prudent (for the sake of transparency)?
   Thanks
   Eli


_________________________________________

       Eli Therapeutic Massage
                  Affordable Massage Therapy
                            and Structural Integration
_________________________________________
BostonMassage@...      (617) 776-9494
                   www.EliThompson.com


---------------------------------
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting  gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A little history:


     The following web site is from the Rolf site.   It is a published study
done in 1977 at UCLA, by Valerie Hunt, Rolfer with  Roselyn Bruyere, author and
energy healer.  Roselyn has written several  books..the most famous is
"Wheels of Light" about Chakras and energy  healing.  The movie "Resurrection"
was
written about her life.  In  this study of 1977 the idea was to see if Rolfing
would effect the energy fields  as reported by Roselyn.  The work did provide
positive effects as reported  by Roselyn.  This is way off of the radar of
conventional medicine and  research but valid, I say, nevertheless.  During our
Hellerwork training of  1985 we studied the report and saw the movie.


_http://www.somatics.de/HuntStudy.html_
(http://www.somatics.de/HuntStudy.html)


May you be  ageless and happy,
With love to share with all...
It's happening  already....




************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Linda and All,



There are several excellent books/courses out there to learn more about the
chakras. I personally recommend, "Hands of Light" by Barbara Brennan. It's
complex and detailed but also a fascinating perspective of the Human Energy
Field.



Word has it that Ida Rolf could see/sense energy fields and chakras. I'll do
my best not to misquote her, "The body is there, you can't deny it. Why mess
around with non-physical things like human auras?"



She has a point. I believe whatever work we are doing, be it SI,
acupuncture, chiro, osteo, CS, VM, massage, energy work.we are affecting all
levels of a person's human being. I do believe intent is key. If your intent
(and belief structure) is to reorganize the 5th level of the aura, you're
doing that and it will have an effect on the other levels, including the
physical. The affect will be strongest on the 5th level of the field, but
will ripple throughout the human being. In what way, how much will it show
up in the other levels is hard to say. Clear intent, an open heart and
holding the highest good for the client works magic in whatever work we do.



I have a 4-year training in energy work. The "energy work" I do is not so
much restructuring chakras or clearing energy fields, but reconnecting
people to their bodies via the very physical work of SI. Physical work like
SI *is* energy work and so is vice versa. The main problem I see with a lot
of energy work (as in chakras/auras) is BOTH the practitioner and client can
delude themselves about what is really happening. They can be in denial
about what their intent truly is. I've seen clients disconnect from their
body while receiving energy work. Is this always a bad thing, disconnecting?
No, but I think more often the case is the disconnect is exactly what
they've been doing for a long time and now they are paying money to try to
reconnect but the non-physical woo-woo-mystery of energy work can be
daunting. Energy work, from my personal experience, is more difficult to
integrate. Don't get me wrong, it is very powerful work when done correctly.
Most people cannot argue that they don't feel a shift/change when you stick
your fingers lovingly into their psoas for the first time in their life.



Is one method better than another? I don't believe so. It's what works for
each client and how they respond to it. I responded much more consciously to
SI than I ever did to energy work. I know on some level that the energy work
did shift things, but it is so much more difficult for me to integrate it as
my pattern is to disconnect from my body. Receiving SI connected me with my
body in a very profound way that nothing else ever had.



Specifically how the chakras relate to SI, I believe we do via working the
"power points": ankles, knees, hips, sternum/diaphragm, spine, neck,
shoulders, elbows, wrists. All these areas have more or less direct
relations with the major chakras of the body. So, yes, you are affecting the
chakras if you do SI work. You might also tell your client that Ida Rolf was
big into (Tantric) yoga and it was a major influence in her creation of SI.



Best,

Jason



Jason Rumohr, CHP LMP

Hellerwork Structural Integration

1904 3rd Avenue, Suite 246  ::  Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 941-8811  ::   <mailto:jason@...> jason@...

  <http://www.jasonrumohr.com> www.jasonrumohr.com









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Group,


I have heard anbout chactras and read abut them in books.

But my question is how does SI directly relate to the chactras?  Or does it Not!

Does anyone know?   My training did not mention anything about this.


I have a Yoga client who asked about it and who I told I would ask others.

Please hlep me sound knowlegable.

Thanks

Linda

Yes, no surprises there. I know all about organizing....I organized a 6 day
continuing education SI workshop for the GSI in Toronto way back in 1991. Stacey
Mills taught the workshop and what a treat it was to study with her!


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Michael Vilain
   To: Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 5:19 PM
   Subject: Re: [Structural_Integration] Training class in Toronto


   >I am happy to announce it became official today that for the first time
   >ever a training class for Structural Integration will be held in
   >Toronto from October 15 - November 16, 2007. The International School
   >of Structural Integration will be running the class. I will be
   >organizing it. For more information see www.theissi.org.
   >The ISSI has been approved by the IASI as an accredited Structural
   >Integration School.

   That's great. It's fun to have a "local training" going on and even
   be part of it.

   Finding the space, getting the tables and benches needed, AV
   equipment, white boards and dry-erase pens, organizing the linen
   service (if it's not at an existing massage school), and even making
   the emergency run for gloves (both latex and nyplex) and KY--it's a
   lot of work! My hat's off to you. All I ever did for my local
   training was the computer stuff.

   Now I see why you're so excited and announced the class.
   --

   Michael Vilain, Certified Advanced Rolfer
   michael@... http://www.vilain.com

   Balance is a state of being;
   Symmetry is an appearance;
   Organization is a state of function, being, and movement;
   Gravity is the opposite of comedy.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Shawn,

I think it is Great that a class is going to happen in Toronto, and good on you
for helping to
make it happen.

From the web site I am not clear.  Is the new schools format, a double class, as
at the
RISI or Guild, or is it a one time thing?

Do you know, it wasn't clear to me.

Hyatt

I just knew you wouldn't leave it alone.
Down, down boy.


>I am happy to announce it became official today that for the first time
>ever a training class for Structural Integration will be held in
>Toronto from October 15 - November 16, 2007. The International School
>of Structural Integration will be running the class. I will be
>organizing it. For more information see www.theissi.org.
>The ISSI has been approved by the IASI as an accredited Structural
>Integration School.

That's great.  It's fun to have a "local training" going on and even
be part of it.

Finding the space, getting the tables and benches needed, AV
equipment, white boards and dry-erase pens, organizing the linen
service (if it's not at an existing massage school), and even making
the emergency run for gloves (both latex and nyplex) and KY--it's a
lot of work!  My hat's off to you.  All I ever did for my local
training was the computer stuff.

Now I see why you're so excited and announced the class.

>I am happy to announce it became official today that for the first time
>ever a training class for Structural Integration will be held in
>Toronto from October 15 - November 16, 2007. The International School
>of Structural Integration will be running the class. I will be
>organizing it. For more information see www.theissi.org.
>The ISSI has been approved by the IASI as an accredited Structural
>Integration School.

That's great.  It's fun to have a "local training" going on and even
be part of it.

Finding the space, getting the tables and benches needed, AV
equipment, white boards and dry-erase pens, organizing the linen
service (if it's not at an existing massage school), and even making
the emergency run for gloves (both latex and nyplex) and KY--it's a
lot of work!  My hat's off to you.  All I ever did for my local
training was the computer stuff.

Now I see why you're so excited and announced the class.
--

Michael Vilain, Certified Advanced Rolfer
michael@...  http://www.vilain.com

Balance is a state of being;
Symmetry is an appearance;
Organization is a state of function, being, and movement;
Gravity is the opposite of comedy.

I am happy to announce it became official today that for the first time
ever a training class for Structural Integration will be held in
Toronto from October 15 - November 16, 2007. The International School
of Structural Integration will be running the class. I will be
organizing it. For more information see www.theissi.org.
The ISSI has been approved by the IASI as an accredited Structural
Integration School.

Tom,

I appreciate your input here and it's good to get to know a little more about
you.
Be well in your travels,

Best,
Shawn
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Thomas Myers
   To: Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 7:11 AM
   Subject: Re: [Structural_Integration] IASI


   Marilyn

   Personally, as I develop the KMI school along its own lines and IASI
   continues to unfold, I would actively campaign against tarring the
   whole SI field with the brush of 'Rolfing®'.

   The word comes with a lot of baggage about pain and overly aggressive
   work, the logo is a great graphic but seriously out of date and
   inaccurate, and the term ties this work - now being contributed to by
   a host of people - to one person's name. The Rolf Institute (of
   which I am still a proud member) can keep the word, the logo, the
   brand identification.

   We need to develop a new and up-to-date branding of Structural
   Integration, a process which will take until 2020 at least, but is
   worth our while.

   I deeply honor Ida Rolf, without whom many lives, including my own,
   would be more impoverished, but I am totally convinced that she would
   support the diversification and development of her work - including
   the development that is going on full-steam at the RISI, but not
   neglecting the developments that are going on in GSI, Heller, Soma,
   IPSB, KMI, and all the other schools, including the new ISSI -
   welcome, Andy and Nilce!

   Tom M

   PS - I'm off the list now for a bit - back on the road - been nice to
   participate

   On May 27, 2007, at 4:13 PM, marilyn beech wrote:

   > Garrell,
   >
   > IASI doesn't have any intention of trying to make the RISI give up its
   > trademark on the term Rolfing. It isn't any of our business. just
   > as it's
   > none of our business to police their trademark. If you go to the
   > RISI and
   > pay your dues you get to call yourself a Rolfer, if you go to
   > another school
   > you get to call yourself a Structural Integrator. It's what we all
   > are.
   > IASI's intention is to make the term Structural Integrator the
   > meaningful
   > term in the long run, and the Rolf Institute is doing its best to
   > make that
   > happen as well.
   >
   > Marilyn
   >
   > _____
   >
   > From: Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com
   > [mailto:Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
   > Garrell Herndon
   > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 10:56 PM
   > To: Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com
   > Subject: Re: [Structural_Integration] IASI
   >
   > Does this mean there will be an effort to control the term
   > "Structural Integration",
   > like our big brother the rolf institute controls the use of Dr.
   > Rolf's name?
   >
   > I like the idea of one big happy family, but it seems far from
   > happening in our
   > own family of SI practitioners. I guess it's natural for squabbles
   > amongst siblings.
   >
   > I'd like to see IASI work with the RI to get them to call off the
   > lawyers, and
   > to ease off on the trademark thing.
   >
   > --garrell
   >
   > On May 26, 2007, at 5:41 PM, marilyn beech wrote:
   >
   > > Shawn,
   > >
   > > Just a tad bit of history about the inception of IASI. The idea
   > > came up at a
   > > Rolfing workshop here in Montana a number of years ago, shortly
   > > after a
   > > nasty piece of legislation introduced by the PT's was shot down in
   > > committee
   > > after a LOT of work on the part of the bodywork community. They had
   > > tried to
   > > make it illegal for anyone to get bodywork of any kind except from a
   > > licensed PT. It would have put all of us out of business. So Lisa
   > > Fairman,
   > > Liz Gaggini and I mulled this over for awhile and finally resolved
   > > that we
   > > had to stop talking and do something - create an umbrella
   > > organization for
   > > the profession of SI that would eventually have the legal teeth to
   > > go after
   > > those pesky weekend wonder workshops that you don't like and make
   > > them stop
   > > calling themselves "just like Rofers" or say they are teaching
   > > Structural
   > > integration, and would be able to champion the profession in the
   > > legislatures. We intended to and actually have been working
   > > internationally.
   > > In fact, we've had our biggest success with getting one of these
   > > weekend
   > > wonder "SI" teachers out of business up in Canada - the Massage/
   > > Bodywork
   > > oversight organizations there were quite happy to work with us, and
   > > have
   > > asked how they can be of further help.
   > >
   > > So that was our initiating impetus - the near demise of our
   > > practice in this
   > > state, and watching the plethora of "SI" teaching coming along with
   > > no way
   > > at all to rein them in. It looked like Dr. Rolf's great idea was
   > > sinking
   > > quickly. It's not out of the woods yet by a long stretch, but we're
   > > in a bit
   > > better position to do something about it after 3 years of really
   > > hard work
   > > from the IASI Board and many other volunteers. I'm impressed with
   > > what we've
   > > been able to do so far, and I know that the best chance we have of
   > > regulating what SI is and how it's taught is going to come
   > through the
   > > efforts of this organization. We cannot do it individually, and the
   > > schools
   > > are not the correct vehicles for this effort.
   > >
   > > And in answer to one question of yours - in New York most of the
   > > Structural
   > > Integrators that are currently practicing are doing so illegally.
   > The
   > > licensing laws there require that SI practitioners attend one of
   > > the Massage
   > > schools in the state (which I believe are 1000 hour schools with
   > > about 80
   > > hours of SI). People coming out of that school can call themselves
   > > Structural Integrators (with this tiny number of training hours),
   > but
   > > Rolfers who've been in practice for 30 years cannot. I believe that
   > > at least
   > > 2 SI practitioners have had their offices invaded by the police and
   > > they've
   > > been forcefully put out of business. Others have left the state.
   > > Others
   > > still practice but do so illegally. Every state has its own story,
   > > and it
   > > sounds like whatever state you are in is one of the few left where
   > > licensing
   > > is not an issue. You're lucky! Enjoy it!
   > >
   > > Marilyn
   > >
   > > _____
   > >
   > > From: Structural_Integrat
   > <mailto:Structural_Integration%40yahoogroups.com> ion@yahoogroups.com
   > > [mailto:Structural_Integrat
   > <mailto:Structural_Integration%40yahoogroups.com>
   > ion@yahoogroups.com] On
   > Behalf Of Shawn
   > > Aarons
   > > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:01 AM
   > > To: Structural_Integrat <mailto:Structural_Integration%
   > 40yahoogroups.com>
   > ion@yahoogroups.com
   > > Subject: Re: [Structural_Integration] IASI
   > >
   > > Thomas,
   > >
   > > If I may go all Gestalt on you... there are many ways of
   > > interpreting what
   > > we read, see, experience.
   > > Speak for yourself when you say IASI is us. It's not me, IASI is a
   > > self
   > > voted in organization whereby no practitioner is obligated to be a
   > > part of
   > > in order to do their work. I did not even know about this
   > > organization until
   > > I joined this group. I don't have a problem with the IASI, it is
   > > possible
   > > their intentions are good.
   > >
   > > And I don't worry about surviving in this work without them. I
   > > think there's
   > > much fear driven paranoia about legislation and such, this has
   > been an
   > > ongoing debate for decades. The policies will always depend on the
   > > state or
   > > province.
   > > I am interested to hear from people here about their experience of
   > > being
   > > unable to do their body work practice where they are because of
   > > legislation.
   > >
   > > What worries me even more regarding the work getting lost are the
   > > practitioners who are teaching weekend workshops to massage
   > > therapists,
   > > chiropractors, physiotherapists, etc, and then they go off and
   > > stick an
   > > elbow in someones rib cage and say they are doing Rolfing. I have
   > > had many
   > > people come to me and tell me of these experiences. Let me say
   > > again that
   > > Structural Integration as Ida Rolf taught it is a process, not a
   > > technique,
   > > that involves the ten session recipe to begin with. Based on reading
   > > everything she ever wrote and published and stories from my teacher
   > > and
   > > others who knew her, her vision was evolutionary. It wasn't about
   > > how to
   > > de-rotate a rib (did she not have a saying...'where you think it
   > > is, it
   > > ain't'), it is about making space in the body and allowing the
   > > bones to find
   > > their place in an optimal alignment. It is about giving the client
   > > space to
   > > breath and to feel, so they can learn to stand on their own two
   > > feet. I
   > > understand she had a saying, we are not the therapist, gravity is
   > the
   > > therapist.
   > >
   > > Shawn Aarons
   > >
   > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > From: Thomas Myers
   > > To: Structural_Integrat <mailto:Structural_Integration%
   > > 40yahoogroups.com>
   > > ion@yahoogroups. <mailto:ion%40yahoogroups.com> com
   > > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:21 PM
   > > Subject: Re: [Structural_Integration] IASI
   > >
   > > Dear Garrell
   > >
   > > Of course it's your choice, but if I may go all NLP on you...
   > >
   > > 'Show me' implies a 'them and us' mentality familiar to me from my
   > > days at the Institute. I am sorry to see it arising again, I thought
   > > maybe we'd outgrown it.
   > > IASI is us. Ain't no them.
   > >
   > > And no, sir: no one will get a couple of hundred dollars worth of
   > > value out of their membership at this point, except those few who
   > > might get several referrals from the website. The international
   > > members get even less, since this whole expensive test thingie has
   > > little to no impact on them.
   > >
   > > But personal benefit is not a good reason to join IASI right now.
   > > The benefit of joining and paying the money is for the long-term
   > > viability of the profession, not to your particular practice at this
   > > particular time. It's about fraternity among schools, and longevity
   > > for the next generation of practitioners, and research, and being in
   > > touch with interesting ideas and relevant developments. It takes a
   > > 10 years or more to build this value, not the mere the 3-4 years
   > IASI
   > > has been going.
   > >
   > > I don't understand your last sentence, but I fear if everyone takes
   > > your attitude, within a couple of decades, we simply won't have any
   > > business ... period.
   > >
   > > Regards
   > > Tom Myers
   > >
   > > On May 26, 2007, at 7:02 AM, Garrell Herndon wrote:
   > >
   > > > Greetings to you all,
   > > >
   > > > We've decided to let our membership go. We'll keep an eye on what
   > > > IASI really does, and take it one year at a time. There's been
   > > little
   > > > benefit to supporting this organization, other than the
   > yearbook. We
   > > > have extra copies, if anyone needs one. We'll let them go for a
   > > > bargain, say $100. In the future, if it seems necessary, we can
   > re-
   > > > join. Sounds like the test will be no problem to pass. If it is, I
   > > > don't have any business doing this work.
   > > >
   > > > --garrell
   > > > born and raised in the show-me state
   > > >
   > > >
   > >
   > > Thomas Myers
   > > 318 Clarks Cove Rd
   > > Walpole ME 04573 USA
   > > www.AnatomyTrains.net
   > > kinesis@tidewater. <mailto:kinesis%40tidewater.net> net
   > >
   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > >
   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > >
   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > >
   > >
   > >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >
   >

   Thomas Myers
   318 Clarks Cove Rd
   Walpole ME 04573 USA
   www.AnatomyTrains.net
   kinesis@...

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tom,

You should not beat around the Bush, (intended).  Perhaps you should just
directly say
what you mean.


I don't like having to be a member of my local library, so do not look for me to
join
IASI.  Joining  things doesn't work for me. but sad realities make IASI a
reality.

But I tell you, Mr. NLP, the day will come when IASI will do something
beauocratic.
when it enforces some 'policy'.  When some genius does something that is so far
beyond
the norm they are considered heritics.

Call me negative, but organizations, be it a government or a club or a
professional group
are not in my opinion places of enliving energy.


You see Tom, you are just misguided about what is going on in Iraq.  Soon the
people will
see that we are there to help them, they will begin to appreciate what we are
doing from
the goodness of our hearts, only to help.......Blah....blah


No Les, no more.




> American 'freedom' no longer exists, except in the unimportant - the
> freedom to gas up and hurtle down the highway, alone and surrounded
> by a couple of tons of complex metal and the latest electronic toys.
>
> While we were watching our stocks rise, our constitutionally based
> society was reconfigured behind the media scrim as a feudal
> oligarchy, which has overturned the right to a speedy trial, ignored
> infrastructure, spied on its citizens, widened the breach between
> rich and poor, lied its way into a woefully mismanaged foreign
> adventure, even reinstated torture rules not allowed since our
> nation's inception, let alone since the Geneva Conventions.
>
> Last November's election sent a clear message (end this war), which
> has been ignored even by (most of) the people elected by it.
>
> And while the world fries, the greatest resource user and polluter
> stands by, doing nothing, offering no sacrifice, no 'can do' attitude
> vis-a-vis the clearly Christian attitude of stewardship of the planet
> (how many Biblical references to shepherds can we ignore?), paltry
> money into alternative energy, regulations designed to protect
> manufacturer's and avoid real clean-up...
>
> Stop, Tom, stop...
>
> Stay on your side of the border, Shawn, it's getting dangerous down
> here.

Marilyn

Personally, as I develop the KMI school along its own lines and IASI
continues to unfold, I would actively campaign against tarring the
whole SI field with the brush of 'Rolfing®'.

The word comes with a lot of baggage about pain and overly aggressive
work, the logo is a great graphic but seriously out of date and
inaccurate, and the term ties this work - now being contributed to by
a host of people - to one person's name.  The Rolf Institute (of
which I am still a proud member) can keep the word, the logo, the
brand identification.

We need to develop a new and up-to-date branding of Structural
Integration, a process which will take until 2020 at least, but is
worth our while.

I deeply honor Ida Rolf, without whom many lives, including my own,
would be more impoverished, but I am totally convinced that she would
support the diversification and development of her work - including
the development that is going on full-steam at the RISI, but not
neglecting the developments that are going on in GSI, Heller, Soma,
IPSB, KMI, and all the other schools, including the new ISSI -
welcome, Andy and Nilce!

Tom M

PS - I'm off the list now for a bit - back on the road - been nice to
participate


On May 27, 2007, at 4:13 PM, marilyn beech wrote:

> Garrell,
>
> IASI doesn't have any intention of trying to make the RISI give up its
> trademark on the term Rolfing. It isn't any of our business. just
> as it's
> none of our business to police their trademark. If you go to the
> RISI and
> pay your dues you get to call yourself a Rolfer, if you go to
> another school
> you get to call yourself a Structural Integrator. It's what we all
> are.
> IASI's intention is to make the term Structural Integrator the
> meaningful
> term in the long run, and the Rolf Institute is doing its best to
> make that
> happen as well.
>
> Marilyn
>
> _____
>
> From: Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Garrell Herndon
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 10:56 PM
> To: Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Structural_Integration] IASI
>
> Does this mean there will be an effort to control the term
> "Structural Integration",
> like our big brother the rolf institute controls the use of Dr.
> Rolf's name?
>
> I like the idea of one big happy family, but it seems far from
> happening in our
> own family of SI practitioners. I guess it's natural for squabbles
> amongst siblings.
>
> I'd like to see IASI work with the RI to get them to call off the
> lawyers, and
> to ease off on the trademark thing.
>
> --garrell
>
> On May 26, 2007, at 5:41 PM, marilyn beech wrote:
>
> > Shawn,
> >
> > Just a tad bit of history about the inception of IASI. The idea
> > came up at a
> > Rolfing workshop here in Montana a number of years ago, shortly
> > after a
> > nasty piece of legislation introduced by the PT's was shot down in
> > committee
> > after a LOT of work on the part of the bodywork community. They had
> > tried to
> > make it illegal for anyone to get bodywork of any kind except from a
> > licensed PT. It would have put all of us out of business. So Lisa
> > Fairman,
> > Liz Gaggini and I mulled this over for awhile and finally resolved
> > that we
> > had to stop talking and do something - create an umbrella
> > organization for
> > the profession of SI that would eventually have the legal teeth to
> > go after
> > those pesky weekend wonder workshops that you don't like and make
> > them stop
> > calling themselves "just like Rofers" or say they are teaching
> > Structural
> > integration, and would be able to champion the profession in the
> > legislatures. We intended to and actually have been working
> > internationally.
> > In fact, we've had our biggest success with getting one of these
> > weekend
> > wonder "SI" teachers out of business up in Canada - the Massage/
> > Bodywork
> > oversight organizations there were quite happy to work with us, and
> > have
> > asked how they can be of further help.
> >
> > So that was our initiating impetus - the near demise of our
> > practice in this
> > state, and watching the plethora of "SI" teaching coming along with
> > no way
> > at all to rein them in. It looked like Dr. Rolf's great idea was
> > sinking
> > quickly. It's not out of the woods yet by a long stretch, but we're
> > in a bit
> > better position to do something about it after 3 years of really
> > hard work
> > from the IASI Board and many other volunteers. I'm impressed with
> > what we've
> > been able to do so far, and I know that the best chance we have of
> > regulating what SI is and how it's taught is going to come
> through the
> > efforts of this organization. We cannot do it individually, and the
> > schools
> > are not the correct vehicles for this effort.
> >
> > And in answer to one question of yours - in New York most of the
> > Structural
> > Integrators that are currently practicing are doing so illegally.
> The
> > licensing laws there require that SI practitioners attend one of
> > the Massage
> > schools in the state (which I believe are 1000 hour schools with
> > about 80
> > hours of SI). People coming out of that school can call themselves
> > Structural Integrators (with this tiny number of training hours),
> but
> > Rolfers who've been in practice for 30 years cannot. I believe that
> > at least
> > 2 SI practitioners have had their offices invaded by the police and
> > they've
> > been forcefully put out of business. Others have left the state.
> > Others
> > still practice but do so illegally. Every state has its own story,
> > and it
> > sounds like whatever state you are in is one of the few left where
> > licensing
> > is not an issue. You're lucky! Enjoy it!
> >
> > Marilyn
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: Structural_Integrat
> <mailto:Structural_Integration%40yahoogroups.com> ion@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:Structural_Integrat
> <mailto:Structural_Integration%40yahoogroups.com>
> ion@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Shawn
> > Aarons
> > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:01 AM
> > To: Structural_Integrat <mailto:Structural_Integration%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> ion@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Structural_Integration] IASI
> >
> > Thomas,
> >
> > If I may go all Gestalt on you... there are many ways of
> > interpreting what
> > we read, see, experience.
> > Speak for yourself when you say IASI is us. It's not me, IASI is a
> > self
> > voted in organization whereby no practitioner is obligated to be a
> > part of
> > in order to do their work. I did not even know about this
> > organization until
> > I joined this group. I don't have a problem with the IASI, it is
> > possible
> > their intentions are good.
> >
> > And I don't worry about surviving in this work without them. I
> > think there's
> > much fear driven paranoia about legislation and such, this has
> been an
> > ongoing debate for decades. The policies will always depend on the
> > state or
> > province.
> > I am interested to hear from people here about their experience of
> > being
> > unable to do their body work practice where they are because of
> > legislation.
> >
> > What worries me even more regarding the work getting lost are the
> > practitioners who are teaching weekend workshops to massage
> > therapists,
> > chiropractors, physiotherapists, etc, and then they go off and
> > stick an
> > elbow in someones rib cage and say they are doing Rolfing. I have
> > had many
> > people come to me and tell me of these experiences. Let me say
> > again that
> > Structural Integration as Ida Rolf taught it is a process, not a
> > technique,
> > that involves the ten session recipe to begin with. Based on reading
> > everything she ever wrote and published and stories from my teacher
> > and
> > others who knew her, her vision was evolutionary. It wasn't about
> > how to
> > de-rotate a rib (did she not have a saying...'where you think it
> > is, it
> > ain't'), it is about making space in the body and allowing the
> > bones to find
> > their place in an optimal alignment. It is about giving the client
> > space to
> > breath and to feel, so they can learn to stand on their own two
> > feet. I
> > understand she had a saying, we are not the therapist, gravity is
> the
> > therapist.
> >
> > Shawn Aarons
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Thomas Myers
> > To: Structural_Integrat <mailto:Structural_Integration%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > ion@yahoogroups. <mailto:ion%40yahoogroups.com> com
> > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Structural_Integration] IASI
> >
> > Dear Garrell
> >
> > Of course it's your choice, but if I may go all NLP on you...
> >
> > 'Show me' implies a 'them and us' mentality familiar to me from my
> > days at the Institute. I am sorry to see it arising again, I thought
> > maybe we'd outgrown it.
> > IASI is us. Ain't no them.
> >
> > And no, sir: no one will get a couple of hundred dollars worth of
> > value out of their membership at this point, except those few who
> > might get several referrals from the website. The international
> > members get even less, since this whole expensive test thingie has
> > little to no impact on them.
> >
> > But personal benefit is not a good reason to join IASI right now.
> > The benefit of joining and paying the money is for the long-term
> > viability of the profession, not to your particular practice at this
> > particular time. It's about fraternity among schools, and longevity
> > for the next generation of practitioners, and research, and being in
> > touch with interesting ideas and relevant developments. It takes a
> > 10 years or more to build this value, not the mere the 3-4 years
> IASI
> > has been going.
> >
> > I don't understand your last sentence, but I fear if everyone takes
> > your attitude, within a couple of decades, we simply won't have any
> > business ... period.
> >
> > Regards
> > Tom Myers
> >
> > On May 26, 2007, at 7:02 AM, Garrell Herndon wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings to you all,
> > >
> > > We've decided to let our membership go. We'll keep an eye on what
> > > IASI really does, and take it one year at a time. There's been
> > little
> > > benefit to supporting this organization, other than the
> yearbook. We
> > > have extra copies, if anyone needs one. We'll let them go for a
> > > bargain, say $100. In the future, if it seems necessary, we can
> re-
> > > join. Sounds like the test will be no problem to pass. If it is, I
> > > don't have any business doing this work.
> > >
> > > --garrell
> > > born and raised in the show-me state
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Thomas Myers
> > 318 Clarks Cove Rd
> > Walpole ME 04573 USA
> > www.AnatomyTrains.net
> > kinesis@tidewater. <mailto:kinesis%40tidewater.net> net
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

Thomas Myers
318 Clarks Cove Rd
Walpole ME 04573 USA
www.AnatomyTrains.net
kinesis@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

American 'freedom' no longer exists, except in the unimportant - the
freedom to gas up and hurtle down the highway, alone and surrounded
by a couple of tons of complex metal and the latest electronic toys.

While we were watching our stocks rise, our constitutionally based
society was reconfigured behind the media scrim as a feudal
oligarchy, which has overturned the right to a speedy trial, ignored
infrastructure, spied on its citizens, widened the breach between
rich and poor, lied its way into a woefully mismanaged foreign
adventure, even reinstated torture rules not allowed since our
nation's inception, let alone since the Geneva Conventions.

Last November's election sent a clear message (end this war), which
has been ignored even by (most of) the people elected by it.

And while the world fries, the greatest resource user and polluter
stands by, doing nothing, offering no sacrifice, no 'can do' attitude
vis-a-vis the clearly Christian attitude of stewardship of the planet
(how many Biblical references to shepherds can we ignore?), paltry
money into alternative energy, regulations designed to protect
manufacturer's and avoid real clean-up...

Stop, Tom, stop...

Stay on your side of the border, Shawn, it's getting dangerous down
here.

On May 27, 2007, at 8:04 PM, Shawn Aarons wrote:

> Les,
>
> No, I don't really know much about Thomas Myers. Thanks for the
> information. It sounds like the Americans do need some support for
> maintaining the freedom to practice. It's so interesting that the
> American government boasts of the freedom the people there supposedly
> have (and continue to fight for), and yet there is so much control
> and really not as much freedom as I imagined. I have more empathy
> hearing all these accounts of oppression in the world of touch
> therapists. I sincerely hope things work out in favour for all the SI
> practitioners in the US and elsewhere.
>
> Shawn
>
> --- In Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com, les_birdsell
> <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> > It has been three years since I have been moved to write.
> >
> > Some points:
> >
> > I wonder if Shawn is aware that Thomas was a forceful
> > organizer of IASI. Perhaps it's originating organizer.
> >
> > I personally do not like IASI, for reasons of my own.
> >
> > However, there is NO OTHER umbrella organization.
> >
> > The Rolf Instititue dropped that ball years ago. No other school
> is capable of
> > carring it off. IASI, faults, warts and TEST Mess-Up, is the only
> thing out there
> > that looks like it has a chance to support SI.
> >
> > I am somewhat familar with the unfettered ability that
> practitioners in Ontario are
> > lucky enough to work under. I am told Quebec is even more wide
> open.
> > Indeed i have heard No horror stories from Canada.
> >
> > Unfortunately, In some states the American practitioners are not so
> lucky.
> >
> > Remember, We Americans think we ARE the world.
> >
> > it is Best, in my opinion that SI not be crushed by the economic
> and power politics of
> > other American groups, and that is how things happen in America.
> >
> > Yes, IASI might have been more honest and called it the American
> Association
> > of Structral Integration (that seeks international members). But
> they didn't.
> >
> > they seek to do a job, that in my opinion if the Rolf Institute had
> not been so
> > snoby would have started full filling years ago.
> >
> > My opinionated opinion. Please note all that it has been openly
> expressed
> > that way.
> >
> > Les
> >
> >
> > > Thomas,
> > >
> > > If I may go all Gestalt on you... there are many ways of
> interpreting what we
> > > read, see, experience.
> >
> > > Speak for yourself when you say IASI is us. It's not me, IASI is
> a self voted
> > > in organization whereby no practitioner is obligated to be a part
> of in order
> > > to do their work. I did not even know about this organization
> until I joined
> > > this group. I don't have a problem with the IASI, it is possible
> their
> > > intentions are good.
> > >
> > > And I don't worry about surviving in this work without them. I
> think there's
> > > much fear driven paranoia about legislation and such, this has
> been an ongoing
> > > debate for decades. The policies will always depend on the state
> or province.
> > > I am interested to hear from people here about their experience
> of being
> > > unable to do their body work practice where they are because of
> legislation.
> > >
> > > What worries me even more regarding the work getting lost are the
> > > practitioners who are teaching weekend workshops to massage
> therapists,
> > > chiropractors, physiotherapists, etc, and then they go off and
> stick an elbow
> > > in someones rib cage and say they are doing Rolfing. I have had
> many people
> > > come to me and tell me of these experiences. Let me say again
> that Structural
> > > Integration as Ida Rolf taught it is a process, not a technique,
> that involves
> > > the ten session recipe to begin with. Based on reading everything
> she ever
> > > wrote and published and stories from my teacher and others who
> knew her, her
> > > vision was evolutionary. It wasn't about how to de-rotate a rib
> (did she not
> > > have a saying...'where you think it is, it ain't'), it is about
> making space
> > > in the body and allowing the bones to find their place in an
> optimal
> > > alignment. It is about giving the client space to breath and to
> feel, so they
> > > can learn to stand on their own two feet. I understand she had a
> saying, we
> > > are not the therapist, gravity is the therapist.
> > >
> > > Shawn Aarons
> > >
> >
>
>
>

Thomas Myers
318 Clarks Cove Rd
Walpole ME 04573 USA
www.AnatomyTrains.net
kinesis@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Shawn:

Yes a SI school.

KMI= Kinesis Myofascial Integration as developed by..... Thomas Myers.

His website http://www.anatomytrains.com/kmi gives the overview and
the background of the organization and a bio somewhere on the web
about Tom.

It was at a weekend workshop of breath by Leon Chaitow, where I was
introduced to Tom's book Anatomy Trains. Leon was finishing up his
demo and had several books on this podium. He picked up the Anatomy
Trains and praised it highly.

I went and bought the book and couldn't put it down.. for whatever
reason it resonated strongly with me and I went down the KMI rabbit
hole.. most willingly and as most, with no small commitment.

As for the concept of freedom in America... I've got to follow my own
advice and exhale.... otherwise I rant for hours....

best to you Shawn.

fred


--- In Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com, "Shawn Aarons"
<shawn.aarons@...> wrote:
>
> Fred,
>
> Thank you for your response. Hearing your story and other stories
of legislation hell for SI practitioners gives me a better
understanding of your desire to support the IASI. I suppose I have
been lucky to practice all these years without hassle.
> Has the IASI been helpful as of yet in that arena?
> And can you tell me what KMI stands for? Is that a Structural
Integration school? I have not heard of it.
>
> Shawn
>
>
>

marilyn beech wrote:
> Keith,
>
> Thanks for the info - you're a fount of wisdom. Watch out, you'll get
> yourself drafted onto an IASI committee..
>
> I think Michael warned you.
>
> Marilyn
>

Being involved in life has its hazards. Being uninvolved in life is
rejection of a gift beyond imagining.

...Keith

p.s. I was reading a bit from Christina Baldwin's book "Storycatching" this
afternoon. Some great writing.
<http://www.ramblemuse.com/massagebib/massagebib.php?catname=community#Baldwin20\
05>

Also see Baldwin's website at <http://www.peerspirit.com/> and the
StoryCatcher Network at <http://www.storycatcher.net/>

"Story provides the map for how we live our lives.
Story builds bridges where opinion builds walls.
We create the world we want by making the story we want."

Stories may also be about touch and nonverbal communication as well as the
pictures and memories we paint with out words and hearts.

...Keith


--

+----------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
I Keith Eric Grant           I Writers love language, and they will      I
I <keg@...>       I arrange and rearrange their words until   I
I http://www.ramblemuse.com/ I they come alive on the page. The meanings I
I----------------------------I may be stretched and changed, but if a    I
I Over the hills, but not    I writer is successful, he or she will lure I
I too far away from the      I the reader into a world where deeper      I
I San Francisco East Bay     I realities unfold. ...  Mark Robert        I
I                            I Waldman, "The Spirit of Writing".         I
+----------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

Shawn Aarons wrote:
> In any event, there is no movement right now in the provincial government to
> regulate touch therapies outside of massage therapy, chiropractic,
> physiotherapy, naturopathy, accupuncture and TCM. All touch therapists of a
> holistic nature in Ontario are free to practice without requirements outside
> of their training facilities.
> However, the movement to regulate psycotherapy is in process with the
> Ontario Government and it's looking like it will become official in the next
> couple of years, maybe sooner.
>
> Shawn

Shawn,

Ontario uses a single list of controlled acts. Unless they create a new
controlled act and unless a profession wants to be part of the health care
system, regulation as health care won't happen. I know that massage doesn't
use any reserved acts in BC. I don't see anything in that controlled acts
list which would lead to a different conclusion in Ontario.

The Ontario list of controlled acts is at:
<http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/91r18_e.htm#BK23>

The British Columbia list of reserved acts is at:
<http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/leg/hpc/review/reserved-list.html>

The closest match for touch is Ontario's #4:
"4. Moving the joints of the spine beyond the individual’s usual
physiological range of motion using a fast, low amplitude thrust."

BC's equivalent is 2(c):
"movement of the joints of the spine beyond the limits the body can
voluntarily achieve but within the anatomical range of motion using a high
velocity, low amplitude thrust;"

These, however, are clearly about not doing chiropractic manipulation unless
having the prerequisite training. It was just such restrictive language,
by-the-way, that the California Chiropractic Association objected to in
SB412 and then SB731 this session. The language had been closely modeled on
Ontario's restriction and was also comparable to that in a number of U.S.
states.

Back to Ontario, unless one is doing one of these acts and not practicing as
part of the health system, one isn't regulated as health care.

There might be other provincial laws restricting commercial touch, but these
aren't akin to professional licensing. I have not been referring to anything
beyond what's under the RHPA and the 15 year review of the RHPA. My original
reference to Ontario was regarding the review report they did on the basis
for health care regulation/deregulation as part of that renewal, not to any
pending new legislation. That comment was not specific to holistic touch,
but to how the states and provinces view health care licensing in general.

...Keith

--

+----------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
I Keith Eric Grant           I Writers love language, and they will      I
I <keg@...>       I arrange and rearrange their words until   I
I http://www.ramblemuse.com/ I they come alive on the page. The meanings I
I----------------------------I may be stretched and changed, but if a    I
I Over the hills, but not    I writer is successful, he or she will lure I
I too far away from the      I the reader into a world where deeper      I
I San Francisco East Bay     I realities unfold. ...  Mark Robert        I
I                            I Waldman, "The Spirit of Writing".         I
+----------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

Les,

No, I don't really know much about Thomas Myers. Thanks for the
information. It sounds like the Americans do need some support for
maintaining the freedom to practice. It's so interesting that the
American government boasts of the freedom the people there supposedly
have (and continue to fight for), and yet there is so much control
and really not as much freedom as I imagined. I have more empathy
hearing all these accounts of oppression in the world of touch
therapists. I sincerely hope things work out in favour for all the SI
practitioners in the US and elsewhere.

Shawn


--- In Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com, les_birdsell
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> It has been three years since I have been moved to write.
>
> Some points:
>
> I wonder if Shawn is aware that Thomas was a forceful
> organizer of IASI. Perhaps it's originating organizer.
>
> I personally do not like IASI, for reasons of my own.
>
> However, there is NO OTHER umbrella organization.
>
> The Rolf Instititue dropped that ball years ago.  No other school
is capable of
> carring it off.  IASI, faults, warts and TEST Mess-Up, is the only
thing out there
> that looks like it has a chance to support SI.
>
> I am somewhat familar with the unfettered ability that
practitioners in Ontario are
> lucky enough to work under.  I am told Quebec is even more wide
open.
> Indeed i have heard No horror stories from Canada.
>
> Unfortunately, In some states the American practitioners are not so
lucky.
>
> Remember, We Americans think we ARE the world.
>
> it is Best, in my opinion that SI not be crushed by the economic
and power politics of
> other American groups, and that is how things happen in America.
>
> Yes, IASI might have been more honest and called it the American
Association
> of Structral Integration (that seeks international members).  But
they didn't.
>
> they seek to do a job, that in my opinion if the Rolf Institute had
not been so
> snoby would have started full filling years ago.
>
> My opinionated opinion.  Please note all that it has been openly
expressed
> that way.
>
> Les
>
>
> > Thomas,
> >
> > If I may go all Gestalt on you... there are many ways of
interpreting what we
> > read, see, experience.
>
> > Speak for yourself when you say IASI is us. It's not me, IASI is
a self voted
> > in organization whereby no practitioner is obligated to be a part
of in order
> > to do their work. I did not even know about this organization
until I joined
> > this group. I don't have a problem with the IASI, it is possible
their
> > intentions are good.
> >
> > And I don't worry about surviving in this work without them. I
think there's
> > much fear driven paranoia about legislation and such, this has
been an ongoing
> > debate for decades. The policies will always depend on the state
or province.
> > I am interested to hear from people here about their experience
of being
> > unable to do their body work practice where they are because of
legislation.
> >
> > What worries me even more regarding the work getting lost are the
> > practitioners who are teaching weekend workshops to massage
therapists,
> > chiropractors, physiotherapists, etc, and then they go off and
stick an elbow
> > in someones rib cage and say they are doing Rolfing. I have had
many people
> > come to me and tell me of these experiences. Let me say again
that Structural
> > Integration as Ida Rolf taught it is a process, not a technique,
that involves
> > the ten session recipe to begin with. Based on reading everything
she ever
> > wrote and published and stories from my teacher and others who
knew her, her
> > vision was evolutionary. It wasn't about how to de-rotate a rib
(did she not
> > have a saying...'where you think it is, it ain't'), it is about
making space
> > in the body and allowing the bones to find their place in an
optimal
> > alignment. It is about giving the client space to breath and to
feel, so they
> > can learn to stand on their own two feet. I understand she had a
saying, we
> > are not the therapist, gravity is the therapist.
> >
> > Shawn Aarons
> >
>

I think the provincial legislation you are referring to in Ontario
regarding holistic health practitioners is what I was referring to in
my initial message regarding the intention of the government
to 'crack down' on illicit bodyrub parlours. They did pass a bylaw
around 5 years ago, but it has never been enforced.
I don't know if you have ever been to Toronto, but if you have you
might have noticed there are illicit massage parlours all over the
city. Even with the bylaw the parlours continue to operate. They
front as holistic therapy or aesthetic salons. I once went into one
thinking it was an aesthetic salon and at the front desk was a city
bylaw enforcement officer having a friendly chat with the owner as if
they were good friends. I asked the price for a service and after
they told me the price and having had a look around realized this was
an illicit bodyrub operation, and that they must be one of the 25 to
be granted a license.
I don't know if the province intends to crack down on holistic
therapies, but it doesn't look like it will be anytime soon, and I
suppose it could happen one day. In the meantime I am fortunate to
continue doing the good work of Dr. Rolf.

Shawn

--- In Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com, Keith Eric Grant
<keg@...> wrote:
>
> Shawn Aarons wrote:
> > Keith,
> > I looked at the attached site reporting legislation and holistic
body work
> > was not included in it.
> >
> > Shawn
> >
>
> Shawn,
>
> Under section 12 of the recent "new directions" report
>
<http://www.hprac.org/en/reports/resources/New_Directions_April_2006_E
N.pdf>
>
> "Again, it is difficult to see the merit in establishing a parallel
framework
> to the RHPA, particularly when the RHPA is also the regulatory
mechanism for
> a number of professions that provide complementary and alternative
> therapies, including chiropractic, massage therapy and most notably
the
> recent proposed addition of Traditional Chinese Medicine and
acupuncture.
> Given the presence and merit of the existing regulatory framework,
this
> option was rejected."
>
> The 1991 RHPA includes a that Massage Therapy Act.
> <http://www.hprac.org/en/keylegislation/keylegislation.asp>
>
> That is probably where regulation of touch therapies current sits
in
> Ontario. The equivalent regulation in British Columbia is at
> <http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/leg/hpc/review/part-i/update-
massage.html>.
>
> This is from the BC 1999 scope of practice reviews.
> <http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/leg/hpc/review/part-i/update-
massage.html>
>
> In either the case of Ontario or BC, any further bodywork scope of
practice
> acts would end up within this framework. I think the decision tree
is about
> like: 1) It has little potential for harm and isn't health care --
don't
> regulate it. 2) It presents significant potential hazards and
little or no
> health benefit -- make it illegal. 3) If not 1) or 2) regulate it
as health
> care.
>
> ...Keith
>
>
> --
>
> +----------------------------+--------------------------------------
-----+
> I Keith Eric Grant           I Writers love language, and they
will      I
> I <keg@...>       I arrange and rearrange their words until   I
> I http://www.ramblemuse.com/ I they come alive on the page. The
meanings I
> I----------------------------I may be stretched and changed, but if
a    I
> I Over the hills, but not    I writer is successful, he or she will
lure I
> I too far away from the      I the reader into a world where
deeper      I
> I San Francisco East Bay     I realities unfold. ...  Mark
Robert        I
> I                            I Waldman, "The Spirit of
Writing".         I
> +----------------------------+--------------------------------------
-----+
>

In any event, there is no movement right now in the provincial government to
regulate touch therapies outside of massage therapy, chiropractic,
physiotherapy, naturopathy, accupuncture and TCM. All touch therapists of a
holistic nature in Ontario are free to practice without requirements outside
of their training facilities.
However, the movement to regulate psycotherapy is in process with the
Ontario Government and it's looking like it will become official in the next
couple of years, maybe sooner.

Shawn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Eric Grant" <keg@...>
To: <Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: FW: [Structural_Integration] iasi membership


> Shawn Aarons wrote:
>> Keith,
>> I looked at the attached site reporting legislation and holistic body
>> work
>> was not included in it.
>>
>> Shawn
>>
>
> Shawn,
>
> Under section 12 of the recent "new directions" report
> <http://www.hprac.org/en/reports/resources/New_Directions_April_2006_EN.pdf>
>
> "Again, it is difficult to see the merit in establishing a parallel
> framework
> to the RHPA, particularly when the RHPA is also the regulatory mechanism
> for
> a number of professions that provide complementary and alternative
> therapies, including chiropractic, massage therapy and most notably the
> recent proposed addition of Traditional Chinese Medicine and acupuncture.
> Given the presence and merit of the existing regulatory framework, this
> option was rejected."
>
> The 1991 RHPA includes a that Massage Therapy Act.
> <http://www.hprac.org/en/keylegislation/keylegislation.asp>
>
> That is probably where regulation of touch therapies current sits in
> Ontario. The equivalent regulation in British Columbia is at
> <http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/leg/hpc/review/part-i/update-massage.html>.
>
> This is from the BC 1999 scope of practice reviews.
> <http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/leg/hpc/review/part-i/update-massage.html>
>
> In either the case of Ontario or BC, any further bodywork scope of
> practice
> acts would end up within this framework. I think the decision tree is
> about
> like: 1) It has little potential for harm and isn't health care -- don't
> regulate it. 2) It presents significant potential hazards and little or no
> health benefit -- make it illegal. 3) If not 1) or 2) regulate it as
> health
> care.
>
> ...Keith
>
>
> --
>
> +----------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
> I Keith Eric Grant           I Writers love language, and they will      I
> I <keg@...>       I arrange and rearrange their words until   I
> I http://www.ramblemuse.com/ I they come alive on the page. The meanings I
> I----------------------------I may be stretched and changed, but if a    I
> I Over the hills, but not    I writer is successful, he or she will lure I
> I too far away from the      I the reader into a world where deeper      I
> I San Francisco East Bay     I realities unfold. ...  Mark Robert        I
> I                            I Waldman, "The Spirit of Writing".         I
> +----------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Shawn Aarons wrote:
> Keith,
> I looked at the attached site reporting legislation and holistic body work
> was not included in it.
>
> Shawn
>

Shawn,

Under section 12 of the recent "new directions" report
<http://www.hprac.org/en/reports/resources/New_Directions_April_2006_EN.pdf>

"Again, it is difficult to see the merit in establishing a parallel framework
to the RHPA, particularly when the RHPA is also the regulatory mechanism for
a number of professions that provide complementary and alternative
therapies, including chiropractic, massage therapy and most notably the
recent proposed addition of Traditional Chinese Medicine and acupuncture.
Given the presence and merit of the existing regulatory framework, this
option was rejected."

The 1991 RHPA includes a that Massage Therapy Act.
<http://www.hprac.org/en/keylegislation/keylegislation.asp>

That is probably where regulation of touch therapies current sits in
Ontario. The equivalent regulation in British Columbia is at
<http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/leg/hpc/review/part-i/update-massage.html>.

This is from the BC 1999 scope of practice reviews.
<http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/leg/hpc/review/part-i/update-massage.html>

In either the case of Ontario or BC, any further bodywork scope of practice
acts would end up within this framework. I think the decision tree is about
like: 1) It has little potential for harm and isn't health care -- don't
regulate it. 2) It presents significant potential hazards and little or no
health benefit -- make it illegal. 3) If not 1) or 2) regulate it as health
care.

...Keith


--

+----------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
I Keith Eric Grant           I Writers love language, and they will      I
I <keg@...>       I arrange and rearrange their words until   I
I http://www.ramblemuse.com/ I they come alive on the page. The meanings I
I----------------------------I may be stretched and changed, but if a    I
I Over the hills, but not    I writer is successful, he or she will lure I
I too far away from the      I the reader into a world where deeper      I
I San Francisco East Bay     I realities unfold. ...  Mark Robert        I
I                            I Waldman, "The Spirit of Writing".         I
+----------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

Keith,

Thanks for the info - you're a fount of wisdom. Watch out, you'll get
yourself drafted onto an IASI committee..

I think Michael warned you.

Marilyn



   _____

From: Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Keith Eric
Grant
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:45 AM
To: Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Structural_Integration] IASI



marilyn beech wrote:
> Shawn,
>
> Just a tad bit of history about the inception of IASI. The idea came up at
a
> Rolfing workshop here in Montana a number of years ago, shortly after a
> nasty piece of legislation introduced by the PT's was shot down in
committee
> after a LOT of work on the part of the bodywork community. They had tried
to
> make it illegal for anyone to get bodywork of any kind except from a
> licensed PT. It would have put all of us out of business.

Marilyn,

Organizing to have the clout to gain protection from the turf interests of
other professions is an item I well understand. It is unfortunate that in
the U.S., regulation has not yet reorganized to explicitly recognize the
value to the consumer of overlapping scopes of practice, as has been done in

Ontario and British Columbia. The Pew Health Commission also recommended
changes along these lines to bring the U.S. into the 21st Century.

In California, we essentially faced a battle with the California
Chiropractic Association seeing the effort to get massage out of local
regulation as an opportunity to try to remove passive stretching from the
massage scope of practice. This wasn't an attempt to extend the scope of
practice, just to state it has been done in numerous states and provinces.
It wasn't also simply a matter of bad phrasing.

For those interested in such things, I pretty much blogged the entire battle

and the supporting evidence (only available on the massage side) from
mid-October 2006 to November 2006. You can find it by scrolling down at
<http://www.ramblemu <http://www.ramblemuse.com/blogger/mps_0605.html>
se.com/blogger/mps_0605.html>

This also includes links to items in the turf battle between the DCs and
PTs.

While it is contained within all of that, I'll also note that I wrote an
extensive white paper noting that passive stretching is and has long been an

intrinsic part of massage practice. This includes both links from books and
direct statements I solicited from a number of massage educators.

Use of Passive Range of Motion in Massage Training and Practice
<http://www.ramblemu <http://www.ramblemuse.com/articles/Massage_ROM.pdf>
se.com/articles/Massage_ROM.pdf>

So, I would have to agree that that you do need an organization with
relations to legislatures if you want to avoid being a casualty. At the same

time, I think the ultimate solution isn't winning the wars but in changing
the model of regulation to one more along the BC lines, including shared
scopes of practice. This essentially requires enough people to get together
and say "enough already" loudly and repetitively to state legislatures.

Critical Challenges: Revitalizing the Health Professions for the
Twenty-First Century
<http://www.futurehe
<http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/summaries/challenges.html>
alth.ucsf.edu/summaries/challenges.html>

Strengthening Consumer Protection: Priorities for Health Care Workforce
Regulation Pew Health Professions Commission Taskforce on Health Care
Workforce Regulation. October 1998.
Summary: <http://www.futurehe
<http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/pdf_files/rtfes.pdf>
alth.ucsf.edu/pdf_files/rtfes.pdf>
Full Report: <http://www.futurehe
<http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/pdf_files/RTF.PDF>
alth.ucsf.edu/pdf_files/RTF.PDF>

...Keith

--

+----------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
I Keith Eric Grant I Writers love language, and they will I
I <keg@ramblemuse. <mailto:keg%40ramblemuse.com> com> I arrange and
rearrange their words until I
I http://www.ramblemu <http://www.ramblemuse.com/> se.com/ I they come alive
on the page. The meanings I
I----------------------------I may be stretched and changed, but if a I
I Over the hills, but not I writer is successful, he or she will lure I
I too far away from the I the reader into a world where deeper I
I San Francisco East Bay I realities unfold. ... Mark Robert I
I I Waldman, "The Spirit of Writing". I
+----------------------------+-------------------------------------------+





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Garrell,

IASI doesn't have any intention of trying to make the RISI give up its
trademark on the term Rolfing.  It isn't any of our business. just as it's
none of our business to police their trademark. If you go to the RISI and
pay your dues you get to call yourself a Rolfer, if you go to another school
you get to call yourself a Structural Integrator. It's what we all are.
IASI's intention is to make the term Structural Integrator the meaningful
term in the long run, and the Rolf Institute is doing its best to make that
happen as well.

Marilyn



   _____

From: Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Garrell Herndon
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 10:56 PM
To: Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Structural_Integration] IASI



Does this mean there will be an effort to control the term
"Structural Integration",
like our big brother the rolf institute controls the use of Dr.
Rolf's name?

I like the idea of one big happy family, but it seems far from
happening in our
own family of SI practitioners. I guess it's natural for squabbles
amongst siblings.

I'd like to see IASI work with the RI to get them to call off the
lawyers, and
to ease off on the trademark thing.

--garrell

On May 26, 2007, at 5:41 PM, marilyn beech wrote:

> Shawn,
>
> Just a tad bit of history about the inception of IASI. The idea
> came up at a
> Rolfing workshop here in Montana a number of years ago, shortly
> after a
> nasty piece of legislation introduced by the PT's was shot down in
> committee
> after a LOT of work on the part of the bodywork community. They had
> tried to
> make it illegal for anyone to get bodywork of any kind except from a
> licensed PT. It would have put all of us out of business. So Lisa
> Fairman,
> Liz Gaggini and I mulled this over for awhile and finally resolved
> that we
> had to stop talking and do something - create an umbrella
> organization for
> the profession of SI that would eventually have the legal teeth to
> go after
> those pesky weekend wonder workshops that you don't like and make
> them stop
> calling themselves "just like Rofers" or say they are teaching
> Structural
> integration, and would be able to champion the profession in the
> legislatures. We intended to and actually have been working
> internationally.
> In fact, we've had our biggest success with getting one of these
> weekend
> wonder "SI" teachers out of business up in Canada - the Massage/
> Bodywork
> oversight organizations there were quite happy to work with us, and
> have
> asked how they can be of further help.
>
> So that was our initiating impetus - the near demise of our
> practice in this
> state, and watching the plethora of "SI" teaching coming along with
> no way
> at all to rein them in. It looked like Dr. Rolf's great idea was
> sinking
> quickly. It's not out of the woods yet by a long stretch, but we're
> in a bit
> better position to do something about it after 3 years of really
> hard work
> from the IASI Board and many other volunteers. I'm impressed with
> what we've
> been able to do so far, and I know that the best chance we have of
> regulating what SI is and how it's taught is going to come through the
> efforts of this organization. We cannot do it individually, and the
> schools
> are not the correct vehicles for this effort.
>
> And in answer to one question of yours - in New York most of the
> Structural
> Integrators that are currently practicing are doing so illegally. The
> licensing laws there require that SI practitioners attend one of
> the Massage
> schools in the state (which I believe are 1000 hour schools with
> about 80
> hours of SI). People coming out of that school can call themselves
> Structural Integrators (with this tiny number of training hours), but
> Rolfers who've been in practice for 30 years cannot. I believe that
> at least
> 2 SI practitioners have had their offices invaded by the police and
> they've
> been forcefully put out of business. Others have left the state.
> Others
> still practice but do so illegally. Every state has its own story,
> and it
> sounds like whatever state you are in is one of the few left where
> licensing
> is not an issue. You're lucky! Enjoy it!
>
> Marilyn
>
> _____
>
> From: Structural_Integrat
<mailto:Structural_Integration%40yahoogroups.com> ion@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Structural_Integrat
<mailto:Structural_Integration%40yahoogroups.com> ion@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Shawn
> Aarons
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:01 AM
> To: Structural_Integrat <mailto:Structural_Integration%40yahoogroups.com>
ion@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Structural_Integration] IASI
>
> Thomas,
>
> If I may go all Gestalt on you... there are many ways of
> interpreting what
> we read, see, experience.
> Speak for yourself when you say IASI is us. It's not me, IASI is a
> self
> voted in organization whereby no practitioner is obligated to be a
> part of
> in order to do their work. I did not even know about this
> organization until
> I joined this group. I don't have a problem with the IASI, it is
> possible
> their intentions are good.
>
> And I don't worry about surviving in this work without them. I
> think there's
> much fear driven paranoia about legislation and such, this has been an
> ongoing debate for decades. The policies will always depend on the
> state or
> province.
> I am interested to hear from people here about their experience of
> being
> unable to do their body work practice where they are because of
> legislation.
>
> What worries me even more regarding the work getting lost are the
> practitioners who are teaching weekend workshops to massage
> therapists,
> chiropractors, physiotherapists, etc, and then they go off and
> stick an
> elbow in someones rib cage and say they are doing Rolfing. I have
> had many
> people come to me and tell me of these experiences. Let me say
> again that
> Structural Integration as Ida Rolf taught it is a process, not a
> technique,
> that involves the ten session recipe to begin with. Based on reading
> everything she ever wrote and published and stories from my teacher
> and
> others who knew her, her vision was evolutionary. It wasn't about
> how to
> de-rotate a rib (did she not have a saying...'where you think it
> is, it
> ain't'), it is about making space in the body and allowing the
> bones to find
> their place in an optimal alignment. It is about giving the client
> space to
> breath and to feel, so they can learn to stand on their own two
> feet. I
> understand she had a saying, we are not the therapist, gravity is the
> therapist.
>
> Shawn Aarons
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Thomas Myers
> To: Structural_Integrat <mailto:Structural_Integration%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> ion@yahoogroups. <mailto:ion%40yahoogroups.com> com
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [Structural_Integration] IASI
>
> Dear Garrell
>
> Of course it's your choice, but if I may go all NLP on you...
>
> 'Show me' implies a 'them and us' mentality familiar to me from my
> days at the Institute. I am sorry to see it arising again, I thought
> maybe we'd outgrown it.
> IASI is us. Ain't no them.
>
> And no, sir: no one will get a couple of hundred dollars worth of
> value out of their membership at this point, except those few who
> might get several referrals from the website. The international
> members get even less, since this whole expensive test thingie has
> little to no impact on them.
>
> But personal benefit is not a good reason to join IASI right now.
> The benefit of joining and paying the money is for the long-term
> viability of the profession, not to your particular practice at this
> particular time. It's about fraternity among schools, and longevity
> for the next generation of practitioners, and research, and being in
> touch with interesting ideas and relevant developments. It takes a
> 10 years or more to build this value, not the mere the 3-4 years IASI
> has been going.
>
> I don't understand your last sentence, but I fear if everyone takes
> your attitude, within a couple of decades, we simply won't have any
> business ... period.
>
> Regards
> Tom Myers
>
> On May 26, 2007, at 7:02 AM, Garrell Herndon wrote:
>
> > Greetings to you all,
> >
> > We've decided to let our membership go. We'll keep an eye on what
> > IASI really does, and take it one year at a time. There's been
> little
> > benefit to supporting this organization, other than the yearbook. We
> > have extra copies, if anyone needs one. We'll let them go for a
> > bargain, say $100. In the future, if it seems necessary, we can re-
> > join. Sounds like the test will be no problem to pass. If it is, I
> > don't have any business doing this work.
> >
> > --garrell
> > born and raised in the show-me state
> >
> >
>
> Thomas Myers
> 318 Clarks Cove Rd
> Walpole ME 04573 USA
> www.AnatomyTrains.net
> kinesis@tidewater. <mailto:kinesis%40tidewater.net> net
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>Reading Michael's last post I feel compelled to respond to his
>misinformation "As settlement for the GSI vs RISI  litigation in the
>early  1980's , the RISI agreed to allow any GSI practitioner to
>complete RISI CE  requirements and take the advanced training after
>which they could join the RISI  and practice as a Rolfer. To date, I
>think only Jeff Linn has done this but he  actually went through the
>full training." I know from personal experience this is incorrect. I
>am a GSI grad and like to train with a variety of S. I. schools.
>Over the years I have tripled the prerequisite requirement for RISI
>CE credits  at their school and I am not allowed to take their
>advanced training. If it were  allowed I would receive a certificate
>of attendance and sign a document stating  I am not a "rolfer".
>Michael you need to better informed within your own  organization
>and I suggest you speak to the director of education at the  RISI.
>Yes you could do the complete training and become a rolfer but the
>ce classes do not provide an inroad to the advanced training. Can
>you imagine  a  RISI grad going to the GSI for their advanced
>training to be told they  have to start over from the beginning? And
>if they were to go through the Guilds  advanced training at the
>completion instead of being advanced rolfers they would  have to
>sign paperwork stating that they were not  "rolf method of
>structural
>integration practitioners!"

I got this information from Michael Salveson, the senior instructor
for the Advanced training when I took it in 2000.  So, what I was
told wasn't from the ED, but a faculty member.  I apologize for that
inaccuracy.  Yes, I am misinformed.

At that time (2000), IASI didn't exist.  Since then, RISI has opened
their CE classes to IASI members.

>Concerning you point "according to several non-profit attorney's, they just
>can't get rid of it without massive tax implications." Here Michael you are
>naive at best if you believe this is the reason-they don't get rid of it. The
>service mark is the golden goose of great value and the RISI is not  going  to
>look to get rid of what many consider to be their cornerstone. Michael are
>you perhaps an undercover goodwill ambassador for the RISI?

There's a difference between CAN'T and WANTING to relinquish the
Servicemark.  I didn't mean to imply that the majority of the RISI
membership _wanted to_ give it up.  And if they did according to
several non-profit tax attorneys, the RISI would have to find a buy
for the fair market value of the mark before they could.  It's kind
of hard to be a 501(c)3 non-profit when you own a tangible asset.
NOTE: I am not a lawyer or any sort of "goodwill ambassador" for the
RISI.

>--- In Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com, Michael Vilain
><michael@...> wrote:
>
>As settlement for
>>  the GSI vs. RISI litigation in the early 1980's, the RISI agreed to
>>  allow any GSI practitioner to complete RISI CE requirements and take
>>  the Advanced Training after which they could join the RISI and
>>  practice as a Rolfer.  To date, I think only Jeff Linn has done this
>>  but he actually went through the full training.
>
>Michael,
>This is inaccurate. The settlement allows Rolfers to complete the GSI
>advanced training for the Advanced training requirement.  GSI
>practitioners (or anyone else for that matter) were barred from any
>RISI trainings.  Most RISI trainings are now open but I'm not sure
>about advanced trainings.  GSI advanced trainings is open to
>practitoners from other schools on an approval basis (usually
>requiring attendance at a 6 day workshop).
>
>Jeff

Michael Salveson told me that the RISI would accept GSI graduates
(with proper RISI CEs) into the Advanced training when I took it in
2000.  If it's inaccurate, it's based on what he said.

Fred,

Thank you for your response. Hearing your story and other stories of legislation
hell for SI practitioners gives me a better understanding of your desire to
support the IASI. I suppose I have been lucky to practice all these years
without hassle.
Has the IASI been helpful as of yet in that arena?
And can you tell me what KMI stands for? Is that a Structural Integration
school? I have not heard of it.

Shawn




   ----- Original Message -----
   From: kevj210
   To: Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 2:41 PM
   Subject: [Structural_Integration] Re: IASI


   Shawn:
   I appreciate your input to this group and your perspective.

   I agree wholeheartedly with your concerns of what is being taught (in
   both scope and intent) in weekend sessions. I agree with you as to
   what Ida's message seemed to be.

   I differ in your (and others) assessment of risks about the work
   surviving. I also think SI needs to grow rather than just survive.

   I have chosen to be:
   a member of IASI
   to make the personal commitment to assist in the growth of IASI
   to deal with committee membership (this point I do question often....)
   since I believe I can affect change within this organization that will
   affect the culture at large better than by me doing it one backstripe
   at a time....

   If your environment and reality is such that you do not need to
   concern yourself with legislatures, lobbyists, administrators and
   bureaucrats then congratulations- you've landed in a good spot.

   However, in Oregon where I have my practice SI falls under the scope
   of touch, touch falls under the category of massage, therefore SI is
   controlled by the Oregon Board of Massage which has repeatedly been
   petitioned by chiropractric, physical therapy, and other lobbyists
   driving their own agendas. I am a LMT in Oregon because that is what
   is required. I need to be informed in order to assess the affect of
   proposed changes and gauge my response accordingly if I choose to work
   within the system. Every legislative session (biennial presently but
   momentum is growing to have annual legislature) multiple bills come up
   to modify, limit, redefine scope of practice or legislate "safety" issues.
   Is AMTA going to assist SI effectively within Oregon?
   Is ABMP going to assist SI effectively within Oregon?
   Will the individual schools be effective within Oregon?

   The only organization that seems to have a charter that I can
   subscribe to and gain some strength in numbers (albeit small numbers)
   is IASI. Therefore I support the group and the basic competency test
   as they are working.

   Admittedly I come to this work late in life after multiple careers and
   I don't have "twenty" years of experience in SI. I have however,
   changed my life to make the full commitment to furthering my
   understanding of IPR's work and educating people about their "space"
   and their relationship within the gravitional field.

   In the spirit of full disclosure I am
   1. one of the moderators
   2. a KMI graduate in 2005
   3. Oregon LMT since 2002

   fred

   --- In Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com, "Shawn Aarons"
   <shawn.aarons@...> wrote:
   >
   > Thomas,
   >
   > If I may go all Gestalt on you... there are many ways of
   interpreting what we read, see, experience.
   > Speak for yourself when you say IASI is us. It's not me, IASI is a
   self voted in organization whereby no practitioner is obligated to be
   a part of in order to do their work. I did not even know about this
   organization until I joined this group. I don't have a problem with
   the IASI, it is possible their intentions are good.
   >
   > And I don't worry about surviving in this work without them. I think
   there's much fear driven paranoia about legislation and such, this has
   been an ongoing debate for decades. The policies will always depend on
   the state or province.
   > I am interested to hear from people here about their experience of
   being unable to do their body work practice where they are because of
   legislation.
   >
   > What worries me even more regarding the work getting lost are the
   practitioners who are teaching weekend workshops to massage
   therapists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, etc, and then they go off
   and stick an elbow in someones rib cage and say they are doing
   Rolfing. I have had many people come to me and tell me of these
   experiences. Let me say again that Structural Integration as Ida Rolf
   taught it is a process, not a technique, that involves the ten session
   recipe to begin with. Based on reading everything she ever wrote and
   published and stories from my teacher and others who knew her, her
   vision was evolutionary. It wasn't about how to de-rotate a rib (did
   she not have a saying...'where you think it is, it ain't'), it is
   about making space in the body and allowing the bones to find their
   place in an optimal alignment. It is about giving the client space to
   breath and to feel, so they can learn to stand on their own two feet.
   I understand she had a saying, we are not the therapist, gravity is
   the therapist.
   >
   > Shawn Aarons
   >
   >
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: Thomas Myers
   > To: Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com
   > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:21 PM
   > Subject: Re: [Structural_Integration] IASI
   >
   >
   > Dear Garrell
   >
   > Of course it's your choice, but if I may go all NLP on you...
   >
   > 'Show me' implies a 'them and us' mentality familiar to me from my
   > days at the Institute. I am sorry to see it arising again, I thought
   > maybe we'd outgrown it.
   > IASI is us. Ain't no them.
   >
   > And no, sir: no one will get a couple of hundred dollars worth of
   > value out of their membership at this point, except those few who
   > might get several referrals from the website. The international
   > members get even less, since this whole expensive test thingie has
   > little to no impact on them.
   >
   > But personal benefit is not a good reason to join IASI right now.
   > The benefit of joining and paying the money is for the long-term
   > viability of the profession, not to your particular practice at this
   > particular time. It's about fraternity among schools, and longevity
   > for the next generation of practitioners, and research, and being in
   > touch with interesting ideas and relevant developments. It takes a
   > 10 years or more to build this value, not the mere the 3-4 years IASI
   > has been going.
   >
   > I don't understand your last sentence, but I fear if everyone takes
   > your attitude, within a couple of decades, we simply won't have any
   > business ... period.
   >
   > Regards
   > Tom Myers
   >
   > On May 26, 2007, at 7:02 AM, Garrell Herndon wrote:
   >
   > > Greetings to you all,
   > >
   > > We've decided to let our membership go. We'll keep an eye on what
   > > IASI really does, and take it one year at a time. There's been
   little
   > > benefit to supporting this organization, other than the yearbook. We
   > > have extra copies, if anyone needs one. We'll let them go for a
   > > bargain, say $100. In the future, if it seems necessary, we can re-
   > > join. Sounds like the test will be no problem to pass. If it is, I
   > > don't have any business doing this work.
   > >
   > > --garrell
   > > born and raised in the show-me state
   > >
   > >
   >
   > Thomas Myers
   > 318 Clarks Cove Rd
   > Walpole ME 04573 USA
   > www.AnatomyTrains.net
   > kinesis@...
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Keith,
I looked at the attached site reporting legislation and holistic body work
was not included in it.

Shawn

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Eric Grant" <keg@...>
To: <Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: FW: [Structural_Integration] iasi membership


> Shawn Aarons wrote:
>> The regulation you are referring to in Ontario is only for psychotherapy,
>> it
>> has nothing to do with body work or touch therapies.
>>
>> Shawn
>
> No Shawn, it was not just something to do with psychotherapy. This was the
> periodic review/renewal of the entire Ontario health care regulatory
> framework, the Regulated Health Professions Act of 1991 that moved Ontario
> into a centralized framework of a single list of controlled acts and a
> viewpoint allowing overlapping scopes of practice.
>
> <http://www.hprac.org/en/reports/resources/New_Directions_April_2006_EN.pdf>
>
> As a preliminary to the greater review, HPRAC did an extensive review of
> health care regulation.
>
> REGULATING, DE-REGULATING AND CHANGING SCOPES OF PRACTICE IN
> THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS A JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW A REPORT PREPARED FOR
> THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS REGULATORY ADVISORY COUNCIL (HPRAC)
> April 2003, Prepared by: Douglas Alderson, LL.B, LL.M
> Deanne Montesano, Policy Analyst, HPRAC
> <http://www.oaccpp.ca/news/appendix1-dp.pdf>
>
> The scope of what I was referring to is anything that would fall under
> regulation as a mode of health care. This includes touch Therapies.
>
> I'll also note that British Columbia underwent a subsequent and similar
> reorganization of their health care regulation in the 1990's.
> <http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/leg/hpc/review/index.html>
>
> Both of these regulatory systems use single lists of controlled/reserved
> acts. Professions are allowed use of these acts, depending upon their
> specific educational requirements. All other aspects of their regulations
> is
> about title protection and access as providers within the health care
> system.
>
> Back to Ontario, HPRAC has the oversight responsibility for health care
> regulation. This includes criteria for regulation / deregulation. See
> reports at <http://www.hprac.org/en/reports/otherresources.asp>
>
> ...Keith
>
> --
>
> +----------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
> I Keith Eric Grant           I Writers love language, and they will      I
> I <keg@...>       I arrange and rearrange their words until   I
> I http://www.ramblemuse.com/ I they come alive on the page. The meanings I
> I----------------------------I may be stretched and changed, but if a    I
> I Over the hills, but not    I writer is successful, he or she will lure I
> I too far away from the      I the reader into a world where deeper      I
> I San Francisco East Bay     I realities unfold. ...  Mark Robert        I
> I                            I Waldman, "The Spirit of Writing".         I
> +----------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Marilyn,

Thank you for the history of the IASI, and the info about the legislation in
those places. That puts things into more perspective for me.

Shawn
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: marilyn beech
   To: Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 7:41 PM
   Subject: RE: [Structural_Integration] IASI


   Shawn,

   Just a tad bit of history about the inception of IASI. The idea came up at a
   Rolfing workshop here in Montana a number of years ago, shortly after a
   nasty piece of legislation introduced by the PT's was shot down in committee
   after a LOT of work on the part of the bodywork community. They had tried to
   make it illegal for anyone to get bodywork of any kind except from a
   licensed PT. It would have put all of us out of business. So Lisa Fairman,
   Liz Gaggini and I mulled this over for awhile and finally resolved that we
   had to stop talking and do something - create an umbrella organization for
   the profession of SI that would eventually have the legal teeth to go after
   those pesky weekend wonder workshops that you don't like and make them stop
   calling themselves "just like Rofers" or say they are teaching Structural
   integration, and would be able to champion the profession in the
   legislatures. We intended to and actually have been working internationally.
   In fact, we've had our biggest success with getting one of these weekend
   wonder "SI" teachers out of business up in Canada - the Massage/Bodywork
   oversight organizations there were quite happy to work with us, and have
   asked how they can be of further help.

   So that was our initiating impetus - the near demise of our practice in this
   state, and watching the plethora of "SI" teaching coming along with no way
   at all to rein them in. It looked like Dr. Rolf's great idea was sinking
   quickly. It's not out of the woods yet by a long stretch, but we're in a bit
   better position to do something about it after 3 years of really hard work
   from the IASI Board and many other volunteers. I'm impressed with what we've
   been able to do so far, and I know that the best chance we have of
   regulating what SI is and how it's taught is going to come through the
   efforts of this organization. We cannot do it individually, and the schools
   are not the correct vehicles for this effort.

   And in answer to one question of yours - in New York most of the Structural
   Integrators that are currently practicing are doing so illegally. The
   licensing laws there require that SI practitioners attend one of the Massage
   schools in the state (which I believe are 1000 hour schools with about 80
   hours of SI). People coming out of that school can call themselves
   Structural Integrators (with this tiny number of training hours), but
   Rolfers who've been in practice for 30 years cannot. I believe that at least
   2 SI practitioners have had their offices invaded by the police and they've
   been forcefully put out of business. Others have left the state. Others
   still practice but do so illegally. Every state has its own story, and it
   sounds like whatever state you are in is one of the few left where licensing
   is not an issue. You're lucky! Enjoy it!

   Marilyn

   _____

   From: Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com
   [mailto:Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Shawn Aarons
   Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:01 AM
   To: Structural_Integration@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: Re: [Structural_Integration] IASI

   Thomas,

   If I may go all Gestalt on you... there are many ways of interpreting what
   we read, see, experience.
   Speak for yourself when you say IASI is us. It's not me, IASI is a self
   voted in organization whereby no practitioner is obligated to be a part of
   in order to do their work. I did not even know about this organization until
   I joined this group. I don't have a problem with the IASI, it is possible
   their intentions are good.

   And I don't worry about surviving in this work without them. I think there's
   much fear driven paranoia about legislation and such, this has been an
   ongoing debate for decades. The policies will always depend on the state or
   province.
   I am interested to hear from people here about their experience of being
   unable to do their body work practice where they are because of legislation.

   What worries me even more regarding the work getting lost are the
   practitioners who are teaching weekend workshops to massage therapists,
   chiropractors, physiotherapists, etc, and then they go off and stick an
   elbow in someones rib cage and say they are doing Rolfing. I have had many
   people come to me and tell me of these experiences. Let me say again that
   Structural Integration as Ida Rolf taught it is a process, not a technique,
   that involves the ten session recipe to begin with. Based on reading
   everything she ever wrote and published and stories from my teacher and
   others who knew her, her vision was evolutionary. It wasn't about how to
   de-rotate a rib (did she not have a saying...'where you think it is, it
   ain't'), it is about making space in the body and allowing the bones to find
   their place in an optimal alignment. It is about giving the client space to
   breath and to feel, so they can learn to stand on their own two feet. I
   understand she had a saying, we are not the therapist, gravity is the
   therapist.

   Shawn Aarons

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Thomas Myers
   To: Structural_Integrat <mailto:Structural_Integration%40yahoogroups.com>
   ion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:21 PM
   Subject: Re: [Structural_Integration] IASI

   Dear Garrell

   Of course it's your choice, but if I may go all NLP on you...

   'Show me' implies a 'them and us' mentality familiar to me from my
   days at the Institute. I am sorry to see it arising again, I thought
   maybe we'd outgrown it.
   IASI is us. Ain't no them.

   And no, sir: no one will get a couple of hundred dollars worth of
   value out of their membership at this point, except those few who
   might get several referrals from the website. The international
   members get even less, since this whole expensive test thingie has
   little to no impact on them.

   But personal benefit is not a good reason to join IASI right now.
   The benefit of joining and paying the money is for the long-term
   viability of the profession, not to your particular practice at this
   particular time. It's about fraternity among schools, and longevity
   for the next generation of practitioners, and research, and being in
   touch with interesting ideas and relevant developments. It takes a
   10 years or more to build this value, not the mere the 3-4 years IASI
   has been going.

   I don't understand your last sentence, but I fear if everyone takes
   your attitude, within a couple of decades, we simply won't have any
   business ... period.

   Regards
   Tom Myers

   On May 26, 2007, at 7:02 AM, Garrell Herndon wrote:

   > Greetings to you all,
   >
   > We've decided to let our membership go. We'll keep an eye on what
   > IASI really does, and take it one year at a time. There's been little
   > benefit to supporting this organization, other than the yearbook. We
   > have extra copies, if anyone needs one. We'll let them go for a
   > bargain, say $100. In the future, if it seems necessary, we can re-
   > join. Sounds like the test will be no problem to pass. If it is, I
   > don't have any business doing this work.
   >
   > --garrell
   > born and raised in the show-me state
   >
   >

   Thomas Myers
   318 Clarks Cove Rd
   Walpole ME 04573 USA
   www.AnatomyTrains.net
   kinesis@tidewater. <mailto:kinesis%40tidewater.net> net

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Michael Vilain wrote:

>
> There will be more of these people surfacing and very little that can
> be done about it unless there's licensing for manual therapy in
> place.  With so few SI practitioners in the U.S. compared to MT's
> (~3000-5000 tops vs. 20,000-50,000) the numbers aren't there to make
> politicians take notice.  Tom's article in the 2007 IASI Yearbook has
> a more detailed discussion.

With startup costs for a regulatory board running over $100k, this points
out one of the reasons SI is unlikely to have an independent board. Here's
an example with estimated startup and continuing costs for an interior
design organization.
<http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_1051-1100/ab_1096_cfa_20001101_105\
906_asm_floor.html>

Licensing in some ways restricts entry, but it also opens up entry, in that
it sets public, explicit entry requirements. Anyone may create a school and
teach to those. Meeting the explicit standards becomes the yardstick.

The state can set educational requirements and require an exam, but there is
every reason to believe that having states require a private certification
is challengable. The prime issue is one of authority, and it is a
non-delegable authority of the state to determine prerequisites. So
licensing constrains the minimums of entry but also places the determination
into the public arena.

Because some laws have existed for a few years doesn't mean they won't get
challenged. The Institute for Justice, for example, is currently challenging
an interior design certification act in Texas. They have won a number of
prior cases, for example with cosmetology licensing and  hair-braiding.
<http://www.ij.org/first_amendment/tx_interior_design/index.html>

...Keith

--

+----------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
I Keith Eric Grant           I Writers love language, and they will      I
I <keg@...>       I arrange and rearrange their words until   I
I http://www.ramblemuse.com/ I they come alive on the page. The meanings I
I----------------------------I may be stretched and changed, but if a    I
I Over the hills, but not    I writer is successful, he or she will lure I
I too far away from the      I the reader into a world where deeper      I
I San Francisco East Bay     I realities unfold. ...  Mark Robert        I
I                            I Waldman, "The Spirit of Writing".         I
+----------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

Reading Michael's last post I feel compelled to respond to his
misinformation "As settlement for the GSI vs RISI  litigation in the early 
1980's , the
RISI agreed to allow any GSI practitioner to complete RISI CE  requirements and
take the advanced training after which they could join the RISI  and practice
as a Rolfer. To date, I think only Jeff Linn has done this but he  actually
went through the full training." I know from personal experience this  is
incorrect. I am a GSI grad and like to train with a variety of S. I. schools. 
Over
the years I have tripled the prerequisite requirement for RISI CE credits  at
their school and I am not allowed to take their advanced training. If it were
allowed I would receive a certificate of attendance and sign a document
stating  I am not a "rolfer". Michael you need to better informed within your
own
organization and I suggest you speak to the director of education at the
RISI.  Yes you could do the complete training and become a rolfer but the  ce
classes do not provide an inroad to the advanced training. Can you imagine  a
RISI grad going to the GSI for their advanced training to be told they  have to
start over from the beginning? And if they were to go through the Guilds
advanced training at the completion instead of being advanced rolfers they would
have to sign paperwork stating that they were not  "rolf method of  structural
integration practitioners!"
Concerning you point "according to several non-profit attorney's, they just
can't get rid of it without massive tax implications." Here Michael you are
naive at best if you believe this is the reason-they don't get rid of it. The
service mark is the golden goose of great value and the RISI is not  going  to
look to get rid of what many consider to be their cornerstone. Michael are
you perhaps an undercover goodwill ambassador for the RISI?
My experiences from taking CE classes from the RISI have been uniformly
favorable and I have not been hassled in any way from any workshop I have taken
although on several I was the only person from a different S. I. school. As
always it appears that the bureaucracy of the RISI is quite separate from the
individuals that make it up.

frank epstein



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]