Committee recommends consolidation of Arizona Board of Massage Therapy after auditors find licensing, complaint and records failures

The Joint House and Senate Health and Human Services Committee voted 8‑6 to recommend consolidating the Arizona Board of Massage Therapy after a follow‑up performance audit and a contentious hearing in which auditors described widespread procedural gaps and the board's executive director described a failing licensing system.

The committee’s recommendation does not itself enact consolidation; it asks the Legislature to pursue statutory changes. Opponents of the motion said the proposal lacked detail about where the board would be moved and how services would be maintained during any transition.

Auditor General staff told the committee that the Board of Massage Therapy had failed to investigate and resolve complaints in a timely manner, had not posted disciplinary actions and required removals in line with statute, and had serious operational risks because its licensing database was obsolete. The auditor's follow‑up review found that the board resolved about 80% of complaints within 180 days as of the latest review but still left dozens open far longer, and that it had not consistently followed procedures for public records requests or for posting and removing disciplinary information.

Auditor Kyle Neff summarized the problem: the board’s old system — developed in 2010 and later maintained in an ad‑hoc way — was not a modern e‑licensing product. Vendor delays and a shutdown of access led the board to temporarily revert to paper renewals and manual processes. Neff told the committee that the board did not respond to several public information requests and that the board had not removed a number of disciplinary actions older than five years, as state statute requires.

Board Executive Director Tom Otterton said the board had relied on a legacy system that functioned mainly as scanned paper records until the scheduled replacement by an e‑licensing product (the contract name referenced by staff was GL Solution/Sentia). He told the committee that the board had one licensing staff member responsible for about 31,000 licensees and was operating with a small team that had been unable to keep up with records migration and customer service when the vendor removed access to the old system. “We have one licensing person for the 31,000 licensees,” Otterton said. He described a roll‑forward: the board worked with a consultant and sought additional staffing; it has hired temporary project management and will continue to implement the new database, he said.

The staffing and database problems had tangible effects, Otterton said: some employers were unable to verify whether workers were licensed, licensing delays left practitioners unable to work and there were cases where the board could not provide records to local law enforcement because of the system outage.

The hearing turned tense when members questioned whether the board’s problems were administrative or evidence of deeper failure. Some legislators suggested the difficulties were the result of long‑term “benign neglect” or inadequate leadership; board leaders said turnover, fees swept by the state during budget shortfalls, and restrictions on fee‑raising had constrained the board’s ability to modernize earlier.

Public testimony included former board chair Mara Concordia, who defended licensure and said massage therapists provide legitimate medical and therapeutic services. She urged improvements but opposed the idea that the profession should lack statewide licensure: “Massage therapists...work in hospital settings, as well as spas and other types of environments,” she told the committee and urged careful reform rather than elimination.

Committee members who voted for consolidation said the board needs substantial structural change and clearer oversight; those who opposed consolidation said they wanted greater specificity about where the board would be moved and how services would be maintained during a transition. Representative Beverly Pingarelli, who voted no, said she was concerned the motion did not identify the receiving agency and worried about creating further disruptions for licensees and consumers.

The committee’s action is a recommendation to the Legislature, not an immediate transfer. The board and its supporters urged the committee to provide time to complete the vendor migration and to consider targeted legislation (for example, to clarify residency requirements, improve enforcement tools, or allow temporary licensing authority and better recordkeeping).

Next steps: the committee’s recommendation will be available to bills and committee sponsors as they draft statutory language for consolidation or other reforms. The board has told the committee it is continuing work on the new licensing product, will continue to pursue staffing and to work with the Attorney General’s Office on records and open‑meeting questions; the Auditor General plans further follow‑up of the board’s implementation progress.

Ending: the committee recommended consolidation by an 8‑6 margin and left the choice of the receiving agency and the transition plan to subsequent legislation and committee work. Legislators on both sides said they expect follow‑up hearings as any consolidation proposal is framed and drafted.