STATE BOARD of COSMETOLOGISTS MINUTES April 2, 2001

STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGISTS MINUTES July 12, 2004

A meeting of the State Board of Cosmetologists was held on Monday, July 12, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. in the 2nd floor Conference Room, the Shillman Building, located at 500 N. Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202.

The following members were in attendance: Mrs. Marie Wallace, Chairman (Consumer Member); Mrs. Maxine Sisserman (School Owner); Mrs. Doris Bradley and Ms. Patricia Cougnet (Industry Members). Mr. Bruce Spizler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mrs. Phyllis Cail, Executive Director, Mrs. Marlene Brown, Assistant to the Director and Ms. Nekia Waller, Board Secretary, were also present. Mrs. Thuy Bui and Mrs. Karen Collins (Industry Members) were absent.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

A motion was made by Mrs. Sisserman, seconded by Mrs. Bradley, to approve the Agenda as amended. The Board approved the motion unanimously.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

End of Term – Mrs. Marie Wallace, Chairman. Mrs. Wallace announced that as of July 1, 2004, her term has ended, but that she would remain until the Consumer vacancy has been filled.

Mrs. Sisserman asked that, since the Board is technically without two Consumer members, it would be preferable not to fill Mrs. Wallace’s vacancy until after the Board’s other Consumer member vacancy member is appointed. Mr. Harry Loleas, Deputy Commissioner explained that Mrs. Wallace, if willing can continue to serve as a member until her position is filled and assured Mrs. Sisserman that he would relay the Board’s desire to have the other Consumer member vacancy filled first before filling Mrs. Wallace’s position.

Welcoming Ms. Phyllis Cail, the new Executive Director. The Board welcomed Mrs. Cail to the Board and thanked Mrs. Brown for her dedication and hard work in the absence of an Executive Director.

MINUTES

A motion was made by Mrs. Sisserman, seconded by Mrs. Bradley, to approve the May 3, 2004 minutes. The motion was approved unanimously.

FORMAL HEARING - DOCKET 2003-C-0014-Against Salon Owner

The Board conducted a formal hearing regarding allegations that the State Board

STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGISTS 2 July 12, 2004

inspector visited the salon on three occasions and on three occasions found waxing equipment without the presence of a licensee authorized to perform waxing services. The Respondent appeared in the absence of an attorney and expressly waived the right thereto. Assistant Attorney Peter Martin was the Presenter of Evidence. After taking testimony and evidence, and after conducting its deliberations, the Board concluded that the Respondent had violated the regulatory provisions as alleged. According, the Board ordered that the Respondent pay a total, aggregate fine in the amount of $300; and ordered also that the salon license be suspended for a period of seven consecutive days.

FORMAL HEARING – DOCKET 2003-C-0008-Against Salon Owner

The Board conducted a formal hearing regarding allegations that a State Board Inspector visited the salon on three occasions and found various violations. The Respondent did not appear, however, considering that the Respondent had been effectively notified of the hearing, the Board proceeded in the Respondent’s absence. Assistant Attorney Peter Martin was the Presenter of Evidence. After taking testimony and evidence, and after conducting deliberations, the Board concluded that the Respondent had violated the regulatory provisions as alleged. According, the Board ordered the Respondent pay a fine in the amount of $300 for the last violation and $100 each for the two subsequent violations; and ordered that the salon license be suspended for a period of three consecutive days.

NEW BUSINESS

Day Spa Association “Essence of Day Spa”. The Day Spa Association wrote to the Board requesting that a list be provided determining what types of services are being provided in the licensed Day Spas. Mr. Spizler advised that, under the law, there is no distinction between a “Day Spa” and a “beauty salon,” and that the services that are authorized to be rendered in one are the services that can be rendered in the other. The Board unanimously concurred.

Endorsement Issues. Mrs. Cail added “endorsement issues” to the Board’s agenda to address the many situations concerning out-of-state licensing. Mrs. Brown explained that some states are not providing sufficient information in order for the Board to determine the propriety of approving an applicant for a Maryland license without taking the Board’s examination. Mrs. Jeanette Hannah, the Endorsement Coordinator of State Board of Cosmetologists, met with the Board to discuss the difficulties with obtaining information from other states. The Board agreed that applicants who are unable to provide the required documentation from their licensing state to obtain a Maryland license would be required to take the examination.

STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGISTS 3 July 12, 2004

Out-of-State Schools – Testing in Maryland. The issue of the Board approving out-of-state schools was raised due to the high volume of out-of-state curriculums that were sent to the Board for approval. Mrs. Sisserman questioned whether or not the Board should be approving out-of-state curriculums. Mrs. Cail informed the Board that the Maryland Higher Education Commission would not approve out-of-state school curriculums. A motion was made by Mrs. Sisserman, and seconded by Mrs. Bradley, to review and approve out-of-state curriculums to assure that the standards are equal to or more stringent than the State of Maryland. Because of perceived conflict in what the Cosmetology law states and in what the Board agreed to implement, Mr. Spizler asked that this issue be brought before the Board at the August meeting for a discussion to propose a regulation to reflect the Board’s decision.

New Exams from Experior. Mrs. Brown informed the Board of the progress that has been made thus far in working with Experior Assessments. She also mentioned that Experior would like to invite two licensees to the National Exam Counsel to review information for the examinations.

CORRESPONDENCES

Letter of Explanation. A letter composed by Mr. Spizler to an attorney whom previously wrote to the Board regarding Endorsement concerns was presented to the Board as a point of information.

Letter of Request to hold a Cosmetologist and Esthetician license. A licensed Cosmetologist, who had received Esthetician training and passed the Esthetician examination, petitioned the Board after being informed that she could not be issued an Esthetician license. Mrs. Wallace asked that Mrs. Cail write to the licensee explaining that the Board does not issue dual licenses. Mrs. Sisserman suggested that the licensee could display her diploma supporting her additional esthetics training.

OLD BUSINESS

Maryland State Department of Education Representatives. In March 2004 the Board had met with Ms. Nina Roa, Specialist, and Lynne Gilli, Program Manager of Career and Technology Education, in regard to the review of the task lists in the practical portion of Experior Assessment’s Candidate Information Bulletin. Mrs. Sisserman made a motion to effectuate the proposal, seconded by Bradley; however the motion did not pass.

Joan Banks, T/A Aesthetics Cosmetics “NewApeel Esthetic Exfoliation.” After reviewing the named literature, the Board agreed that the concept involved a particular

STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGISTS 4 July 12, 2004

product/machinery, the specific approval of which does not fall under its jurisdiction.

REPORTS

Legislative/Regulatory Updates. Mr. Harry Loleas, Deputy Commissioner, met with the Board to give an update on legislation and regulations. Mrs. Wallace referenced a letter composed in March by Mr. Loleas on behalf of the Board, addressed to the

Secretary that the Board has not received a response to date. Mr. Loleas assured the Board that he would follow up with the Secretary’s office. Mrs. Cougnet addressed concerns about the Board being unaware of the proposal of bills by other individuals who are not members of the Board or the Department. Mr. Loleas explained that anyone could propose a bill, and it’s not required that the Board be formally notified.

Mr. Loleas, while updating the Board on the proposed “Citation” bill mentioned the Cosmetology and Barber Board’s budget. He explained the two Boards combined should have an amount of $100,000 in the budget for combined inspections, which would allow inspectors to inspect salons in 23 counties at least 2-3 times a year; however, the currently, the Boards have an amount of $49,000 in the budget. Mr. Loleas agreed to meet with the Board in August to discuss budget and expenses further.

INFORMAL CONFERENCES/VIOLATIONS/COMPLAINTS

On May 17, 2004, Mrs. Bui met with licensees informally addressing their violations, reviewed complaints with Assistant Attorney General Susan Cherry, and handled violations with Mrs. Sandra Angelini, Supervisor of Inspectors.

On June 21, 2004, Mrs. Sisserman and Mrs. Bradley met with licensees informally addressing their violations, reviewed complaints with Assistant Attorney General Susan Cherry, and handled violations with Mrs. Sandra Angelini, Supervisor of Inspectors.

The Board meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

SUBMITTED BY: ______

Phyllis Cail

Executive Director

APPROVED BY: ______

Marie Wallace, Chair