... if you take yoga classes, or do karate, or see a hypnotist, or do Crossfit, or hunt elk. What could these things possibly have in common? NY State Senate bill S1155:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S1155/amendment/A
I was introduced to this particularly bad piece of legislation by someone who runs a metaphysical store, and who was - justifiably - concerned that his services could be impacted by it. Since then I've done my own research and concluded that it's even worse than he thought. Here's the letter I just sent to my representatives in Albany; if you share my concerns, I suggest contacting your own assembly member and state senator, so they're aware of it for the next session.
-----
I'm a resident of Cicero, NY where I have lived for the past 29 years. I'm in the 50th Senate and 127th Assembly districts. I'm writing you today to express my deep concern about a piece of legislation in the just-completed legislative term, S1155/A4166, sponsored by Senator Skoufis and Assemblywoman Levenberg. Although I am relieved that the bill did not become law this term, I note that it has been introduced each term since 2017, and I'm concerned it will be re-introduced in 2025.
The stated purpose of the bill is to require "self-help practitioners" to disclose information to their clients, and produce a plan to manage the risks of their services. This may seem a reasonable goal; however, the bill suffers from a number of problems, starting with the observation that it is clearly a reaction to a specific crime, a kind of delayed revenge against the perpetrator. This is not to understate the magnitude of the event, which led to the tragic deaths of three people and serious injuries to many more. And yet, not only did the event in question take place fifteen years ago in another state, the bill would be unlikely to have any impact on the possibility of it recurring.
Now known as the Sedona Sweat Lodge Deaths, what took place on October 8, 2009 in Sedona, AZ at a retreat led by a man named James Arthur Raywas clearly a crime. The details of the tragedy are widely documented online. Ray was arrested and tried for his role, and sentenced to two years in prison. It's certainly arguable that he deserved a much more serious punishment.
In response to the deaths, to Ray's light sentence and his attempts to return to his previous career, a group called SEEK Safely was created <https://www.seeksafely.org/> It proposed the legislation introduced by Senator Skoufis, which sadly is both far too specific and unnecessarily broad to accomplish its original goal.
A simple reading of the bill reveals a number of details that seem strangely disconnected:
- It specifically defines "Sweat lodge ceremonies" and makes clear that they are considered a serious threat, first in the list of high risk activities. The Native Americans who created the sweat lodge would actually agree with this; they have warned against non-native appropriation of the ceremony, and in fact the Lakota Nation sued James Earl Ray for his actions. They might applaud this law if it recognized that Native ceremonies are sacred and must be protected; instead, the law would put obstacles in the way of their own use of it (though to be clear it is not a tradition of the Haudenosaunee).
- "Trust exercise" and "Strength exercise" are also defined and listed; they are, of course, common events in various types of teambuilding and martial arts programs, respectively.
- It defines "Coercive control techniques" in a very odd way, as "activities that seek to change behaviors". Some might call that "therapy" or "training", and although some of the defined techniques may be abusive, the inclusion of "sharing of personal trauma in a public setting or large group" sounds very much like group therapy, a respected and commonly used modality.
The connection between these choices and the specific definitions becomes clear when reading histories of the Sedona deaths and Ray's practices, since they are a catalog of the techniques he used. While his actions are indefensible, the individual activities are not inherently wrong. Instead, their inclusion seems more like an attempt to retroactively condemn Ray.
The much larger problem with this bill, however, is that it is much too broad. The first problem comes with the definition of "Self-help practitioner", who is anyone "offering financial, spiritual or educational guidance for the purpose of improving personal awareness, identifying and developing personal talent and potential, enhancing the quality of life of a person and/or contributing to the realization of personal aspirations in exchange for payment." This definition would certainly include so-called "gurus" like Ray. It would also include, for example:
- yoga instructors
- martial arts instructors
- boxing coaches
- summer camp counselors
- gym trainers
- hunting guides
- corporate trainers
- adult education teachers
As well as many others. I list those particular employments since they would also run afoul of the other over-broad provisions of the bill, as I explain below.
The new requirements to be placed on self-help practitioners are in four parts, with the last two related. The first, providing a disclosure and disclaimer, is perhaps reasonable and also largely meaningless; such disclosures are common everywhere from trampoline parks to cat cafes and are seldom read or understood by the customer. The second, providing a copy of credentials, is likely something a practitioner would do anyway as part of their self-marketing.
The third becomes a serious and expensive proposition, and this is where the above-listed professions would be directly impacted. It requires a "comprehensive risk management plan" for any activity that has a "reasonable expectation of risk of physical harm *or* a qualifying emergency". Although yoga is generally considered a gentle and relaxing practice, there is in fact a risk of physical harm; injuries are not common but do occur. Martial arts and boxing certainly carry a risk of injury, and advanced martial arts students engage in "strength exercises" like breaking boards and training with martial arts weapons, two things called out specifically in the bill. Summer camp counselors routinely lead their charges on "rope and other obstacle courses" and hikes. Gym trainers push their students to "tests of endurance".
The other professions run into the "qualifying emergency" clause, which includes "severe weather or any other similar circumstance". Certainly no hunting guide wants to lead their party into a severe thunderstorm or a sudden blizzard, but this does happen. How could a corporate trainer or an adult education teacher be implicated? Because the bill also includes severe weather that "may result in a building structure and/or its fixtures being at risk of significant damage". This seems rather silly, and yet it is certainly possible; New York has tornados, hail and winds that break windows, snow that collapses roofs. And corporate trainers may engage in the specifically condemned "trust exercises" to boot.
The preparation of a plan would add complexity and cost to all of these activities, though it is still not something which would present an insurmountable issue for most practitioners. However, the fourth requirement would make many events impossibly expensive; it requires any "session or service" which requires a risk management plan to have "licensed medical professionals made available to clients". An EMT standing by at the yoga studio? Tagging along with the deer hunters in their blind? Sitting by while the night school class hears about IRAs? Clearly this is ridiculous.
And yet, this is the bill as proposed. After a careful reading it seems clear that although the founders of SEEK Safely are trying to prevent a recurrence of the tragedy that impacted their family, the end result is a poorly constructed mess which would cause untold amounts of unintentional damage.
It's also concerning to me that this bill appears to have been written with no feedback from the community of practitioners or their students, shows prejudice against Native Americans, and seems designed to single out alternative health practices. I believe that it would be possible to craft a more careful and thoughtful bill which would prevent the recurrence of the Sedona deaths. However, I also believe that the legislature has more important work to do than trying to address an issue that took place fifteen years ago in another state, and which, as tragic as it was, caused the same number of deaths as occur on average every week in the NYC Subway, every four days on New York roads, and every two days from drug overdoses.
I urge you to reject this bill if it is reintroduced in the next legislative session, and in the event that some action is still desired, to pursue it in a thoughtful, careful manner that involves the community and pays careful attention to avoiding unintended consequences.
-----
