Board of Cosmetologists



Board of Cosmetologists Minutes _June 6, 2011

A meeting of the State Board of Cosmetologists was held on Monday, June 6, 2011, in the 2nd floor conference room, Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation Building, 500 N. Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202.

The following members were in attendance:

Mr. Phillip Mazza, Chairman, Industry Member

Ms. Clairee Britt-Cockrum, Vice Chairman, Industry Member

Ms. Maxine Sisserman, School Owner Member

Ms. Sharon Bunch, Consumer Member

Ms. Ellen Trujillo, Industry Member

Ms. Carmel Owens, Industry Member

Ms. Christina Roberts, Consumer Member

Also in attendance:

Mr. Robert Wood, Executive Director

Mr. Brian Logan, Assistant Executive Director

Mr. Bruce Spizler, Senior Assistant Attorney General

Meeting called to order

The meeting was called to order at 9:55 AM by Mr. Mazza.

Approval of Agenda

A motion was made by Ms. Sisserman to approve the agenda; Ms. Bunch seconded the motion; and the Board voted unanimously to approve.

Minutes

A motion was made by Ms. Bunch to approve the minutes of the May 2, 2011 meeting; Ms. Sisserman seconded the motion; and the Board voted unanimously to approve.

Introduction of Mr. Gary Holland

The Board was introduced to Mr. Gary Holland as the recently-appointed Chief Operating Officer of the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (Office of the Secretary). Mr. Holland offered his services to the Board and lent assurances of his support. The Board thanked Mr. Holland for his appearance at today’s Board meeting.

Informal Conference - Dawn Pringle-Waiver of Examination Request

Ms. Dawn Pringle, who holds a Pennsylvania cosmetologist license, is applying for a Maryland Cosmetologist via an endorsement of her Pennsylvania credentials and a waiver of Board’s examination requirement. Ms. Pringle was directed to appear at today’s meeting to explain a formal disciplinary action which had been taken by the State of Pennsylvania against Ms. Pringle’s cosmetologist license. After Ms. Pringle explained the violation and what actions she had taken to correct the violation, including the payment of a fine, the Board voted unanimously to approve Ms. Pringle’s application.

Charlene M. Brimmer - Waiver of Examination Request

The Board reviewed a request from Ms. Charlene M. Brimmer, who holds a “hairdressing” license in Missouri, for a Maryland cosmetologist license by way of an endorsement of training and a waiver of the Board’s examination requirement. Ms. Brimmer advised that she had obtained a cosmetologist license in New York in 1973; however, New York does not retain its records for more than six years. After holding considerable deliberations, the Board requested its staff to advise Ms. Brimmer that, based on the credentials she submitted, the Board is unable to grant her a Maryland cosmetologist license by endorsement and to further advise her, specifically, as to what is needed in order for her to be licensed as a cosmetologist in Maryland.

Informal Conference - Sheila Stultz - Waiver of Examination Request

An informal conference was scheduled for Ms. Sheila Stultz who is applying for a cosmetologist license through endorsement. Although Ms. Stultz did not appear at today’s meeting, by way of letter, she explained that, although she was licensed in the State of Florida in 1982, she was unable to demonstrate that she had worked in a salon for six months (as an alternative to the Board’s training requirement); however, she was unable to demonstrate the same, because the owner’s whom she had worked passed away. Ms. Stutz is requesting that the Board waive the 6 months proof of work needed to qualify to take the Board’s examination. After holding lengthy discussions, the Board directed its staff to correspond to Ms. Stultz to advise that the Board does not have the authority to waive the 6 months of work experience as an alternative to Board’s training requirement.

Inquiry from Maryland Higher Education Commission

The Board reviewed a letter from Andrea McLendon, Associate Director for Private Schools, Maryland Higher Education Commission, in regard to a complaint she received about a barbering school. Ms. McLendon is requesting the Board to provide a definitive statement distinguishing between the services that can be performed in a barber clinic versus a cosmetology clinic. Noting that the complaint was addressed to the Board of Barbers, the Board of Cosmetologists directed that its staff forward the request to the Board of Barbers at its next meeting on June 13, 2011 to address the inquiry.

Curriculum Proposal

The 2009 Sunset Evaluation Report regarding the State Board of Barbers and State Board of Cosmetologists includes Recommendation 8 which mandates that the Board adopt regulations to establish detailed curriculum standards for use by the State Department of Education and the Maryland Higher Education Commission in approving applications for cosmetology schools. After holding deliberations, a motion was made by Ms. Cockrum, and seconded by Ms. Trujillo, that a concept paper be forwarded to the Secretary’s Office in regard to such a curriculum; and that such a curriculum be developed by Ms. Sisserman in conjunction with Mr. Logan and Mr. Wood. The Board voted unanimously to approve the motion.

Regulations Update

Assistant Executive Director Brian Logan advised the Board that concept papers regarding amendments to the following regulations are continuing to await approval from the Secretary of the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation:

• 09.22.01.01 - General Requirements

• 09.22.01.10 - Supervision of Apprentice (prohibiting a sponsor from charging an apprentice a fee for training)

• 09.22.03.06 - Complaints and Violations in Beauty Schools

Mr. Logan advised that the Board that the following regulations received approval from the Secretary of the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, and that proper wording is now being drafted for publication in the Maryland Register.

• 09.22.02.02 - Owner Responsibility

• 09.22.01.10 - Supervision of an Apprentice(establishing a one time mandatory orientation for a sponsor)

• 09.22.01.11 - Apprenticeship Registration Requirements

Senior Assistant Attorney General Bruce Spizler noted that a regulation (in this instance, COMAR 09.22.01.10) cannot be amended while a previous amendment to the regulation is still pending; and that the Board will have to wait until the promulgation of the first amendment to COMAR 09.22.01.10 is finalized before submitting the second proposed amendment.

Regarding a proposed amendment to COMAR 09.22.02.01 - Salon General, as noted in the Board’s May 2, 2011 meeting minutes, further discussions will be held before submitting a revised concept paper.

Continued Discussion - Salon Suites

The Board continued its discussion regarding “salon suites” and the concept paper which, in effect, was interpreted as providing for an elimination of the practice. The Board sought clarification as to the intent of a proposed regulation; i.e., if the intent was to eliminate salon suites, or to effectively regulate salon suites.

The Board noted that, in many instances, the web site of the owner of a “salon suite” (in which a number of individually owned and operated beauty salons conduct business) has a link to each individual beauty salon that conducts business under the salon suite’s “umbrella” beauty salon permit; and that each individual beauty salon owner advertises itself as a separate beauty salon; although a beauty salon permit has not been issued to the person conducting business a separate beauty salon. The Board also noted information received from one of its inspectors who were unable to address a complaint regarding a particular beauty salon conducting business in a “salon suite”, because the inspector was denied access to the individual beauty salon. Board Counsel noted that, under the Board’s current regulations, the owner of beauty salon and an individual licensee operating in the beauty salon may be sanctioned if the operator commits a violation while performing cosmetology services in the beauty salon. In a “suite” of salons, however, where only the owner of the entire “suite” of salons has a beauty salon permit, and in the absence of any of the owners of the individual beauty salons which are housed in the “salon suite” having a beauty salon permit, no action may be taken against the owner or lessee of the individually owned beauty salons if an operator in that individual beauty salon commits a violation. The Board further noted its concerns over sanitation requirements applicable to the holder of beauty salon permit which would not be enforceable against the owner of an individual beauty salon conducting business under the auspices of the holder of a beauty salon permit for a “suite” of salons.

A motion was made by Ms. Cockrum to promulgate a regulation which requires each individual beauty salon owner operating in a “suite” of beauty salons to have a beauty salon permit which, as a result, would make each individual beauty salon owner, conducting business under the beauty salon permit issued to the owner of the suite of beauty salons responsible for violations which occur in their individual beauty salon. To effectuate such a regulation, the Board also proposed to either amend, or repeal, COMAR 09.22.02.01(C) which states:

“More than one salon permit may not be issued for any one premises unless a separate and distinct salon entity is established on a different level of the one premises.”

The motion was seconded by Ms. Bunch; and the Board voted, unanimously, to pass the motion.

Upcoming Elections

Board Chairman Phillip Mazza reminded the board members that the Board will hold its annual election during the August 1, 2011 Board meeting.

Adjournment

Noting that the remaining items listed on the Agenda under “Old Business” will be tabled for the July 11, 2011 Board meeting, a motion was made by Ms. Sisserman to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Ms. Owens; and the meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

Approved By:

_____________________________

Phillip S. Mazza

Chairman

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download