Board of Cosmetologists Minutes March 5, 2007

A meeting of the State Board of Cosmetologists was held on Monday,

March 5, 2007 in the2nd floor conference room, the Shillman building,

500 N. Calvert Street, BaltimoreMaryland, 21202. The following members were in attendance:

Ms. Marie Wallace, Consumer Member

Ms. Maxine Sisserman, School Owner

Ms. Patricia Cougnet, Industry Member

Ms. Doris Bradley, Industry Member

Not in attendance:

Ms. Karen Collins, Industry Member

Also in attendance were:

Mr. Bruce Spizler, Senior Assistant Attorney General

Ms. Phyllis Cail,Executive Director

Mr. Brian Logan, Assistant Executive Director

Ms. Kecha Dunn, Board Secretary

Approval of Agenda

A motion was made to approve the agenda with three revisions. The Board approved the motion unanimously.

Minutes

A motion was made to approve the February 5, 2007 minutes. The Board approved the motion unanimously.

New Business

  1. Ms. Robin Pagesent a letter to the Board to request a waiver of the practical part of the examination as part of her reinstatement process for regaining her license. Ms. Page’s license expired in 2000. The law requires that a former licensee must retake the examination required by the Board (which encompasses both a theory and a practical portion).

In May, 2006, Ms. Page sought to retake the Board’s examination in order to reinstate her cosmetology license. In error, a Board secretary responded with a letter advising the licensee needed to take the theoryportion of the examination. Ms. Page lost the letter and requested another letter in January, 2007. In January, the Board sent the correct letter to the individual. Sometime after the January letter was sent, the individual found the first letter (containing the erroneous information).

Ms. Page took and passed the theory examination.

Ms. Page feels that, since the Board sent out an incorrect letter in June, 2006, an exemption for taking the practical portion of the examination is warranted.

After discussion, the Board voted unanimously that Ms. Page must comply with the law which requires that a person not licensed for 5 years or more take the theory and practical examination.

  1. Exception to signage requirement – Ms. Catherine Cusackappeared before the Board to request that she be allowed to open a salon in her home with an exemption to the regulation which requires that the holder of a salon, or limited practice salon, permit display a sign containing the name and nature of the establishment, in at least 3-inch bold display-type lettering, on the outside of the premises in full view of the street or public walkway. As expressly provided in the regulation, there must be compliance with the signage requirements unless otherwise directed by the Board.

The reason for the request is based on the fact that the community has a prohibition against signs identifying home-based businesses in full view of the street or public walkway. Ms. Cusack advised that, as her house is not in view of the street, she would be placing a small sign next to the walkway at the house to direct customers to the salon entrance which is at the rear of the home; and that a larger sign would be posted at the rear of the house at the entrance to the salon. Ms. Cusack provided photographs of the outside of her house and surrounding areas, as well as a prototype of the signage that would be used.

The Board reviewed the regulation with its legal counsel, and then advised Ms.Cusack that an exception would be granted to allow for a sign to be placed next to the entrance to the salon located on the back of the house.

Old Business

  1. Ms. Carole Walderman appeared before the Board, at the Board’s request, to discuss a letter she had written to the Board regarding a newly proposed regulation which would allow certain medical equipment in a salon. Ms. Walderman feels that, by allowing medical equipment in a salon, the Board will be plagued with cases of unauthorized and untrained individuals using the equipment.Her fear is that the public is being put at risk of receiving services from untrained and unauthorized individuals, and, as a result, as serious injuries could result.

The Board’s legal counsel advised that the regulatory change (authorizing the possession of certain medical equipment in a salon) is being proposed to address the issue of Medi-spas. Some Medi-spas are licensed salons under current regulations and, currently, the mere possession of medical equipment is prohibited in a licensed salon. Other Medi-spas are not licensed salons and, as a result, medical equipment is allowed to be present at such locations. The Board was faced with the quandary of allowingmedical professionals to perform services in salons and allowing licensees to perform certain services in locations other than licensed salons.For this reason, along with a proposed change to the regulation, the Board recommended that legislation be introduced to address the issue. As a result HB 1321 (Licensed Cosmetologists-Practice Allowed in Specified Places) was introduced in the General Assembly on February 28, 2007. This legislation, if passed, will allow licensees (cosmetologists, estheticians and nail technicians) under certain circumstances, to provide services in a facility other than a beauty salon in which beautification-oriented medical services, authorized by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, are provided.

Ms. Waldermanfeels it is important that individuals know how to operate equipment, and such training needsto be included in the curriculum. As theMaryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) oversees education in private schools, Ms. Walderman was directed to contact MHECconcerning a change in the curriculum of private beauty schools.

Ms. Sisserman commented that legislation may have to be passed to have a new license category created to provide for a “medical esthetician” if said training and testing becomes available. Legal counsel commented that the Board would need to work with the Board of Physicians, the Maryland Higher Education Commission, and the Maryland Department of Education, should this become an issue.

  1. The Executive Director advised that, as requested by the Board, she had contacted the Maryland Higher Education Commission and the Maryland Department of Education to make both agencies aware of possible changes to the Board’s practical examination regarding a separate section of the test for a blood spill procedure and a separate section of the test for a draping procedure.

The Maryland Higher Education Commission has contacted the schools to ask that any comments be directed to the Board regarding these changes. The Maryland Department of Education has not contacted teachers as of yet, as they are still working on their letter. The Board Chairman asked the Executive Director to contact the Maryland Department of Education to ask when they would be sending out their notification.

Ms. Sisserman asked if the Board of Barbers was considering a change to include a blood spill section on their test. The Executive Director advised that it had not been discussed by the Board of Barbers. As a result, the Board directed the Executive Director to invite a Barber Board member to the next Board of Cosmetologists meeting to discuss the issue.

The Board meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.

______

Approved by Marie Wallace, Chairperson