Board of Cosmetologists



Board of Cosmetologists Minutes _April 4, 2011

A meeting of the State Board of Cosmetologists was held on Monday, April 4, 2011 in the 2nd floor conference room, 500 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202.

The following members were in attendance:

Mr. Phillip Mazza, Chairman, Industry Member

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

Ms. Maxine Sisserman, School Owner Member

Ms. Carmel Owens, Industry Member

Ms. Ellen Trujillo, Industry Member

Ms. Christina Roberts, Consumer Member

Also in attendance:

Mr. Brian Logan, Assistant Executive Director

Mr. Bruce Spizler, Senior Assistant Attorney General

Not in attendance:

Ms. Sharon Bunch, Consumer Member

Mr. Robert Wood, Executive Director

Meeting was called to order

The meeting was called to order at 9:50 a.m. by Mr. Mazza.

Approval of Agenda

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

Minutes

Following the notation of several corrections, a motion was made by Ms. Britt-Cockrum to approve the minutes of the March 7, 2011 meeting; Ms. Owens seconded the motion; and the Board voted unanimously to approve.

New Business

Mary Green - Endorsement Inquiry

The Board reviewed an inquiry from Ms. Mary Green who, by way of e-mail, noted her concerns in regard to the different licensing requirements between Maryland and Delaware. Ms. Green is attempting to obtain a cosmetologist license in Delaware via an endorsement of her cosmetologist license in Maryland. She has been advised by officials in Delaware that she cannot be licensed there based upon her licensure in Maryland; considering that Delaware’s minimum education requirement is a 10th grade education while Maryland’s minimum education requirement is the 9th grade, resulting in her having to provide additional documentation to Delaware. Ms. Green requested that the Board consider making its educational requirements similar to Delaware in order to relieve individuals such as herself from having to provide additional documentation to the Delaware Board. Following its considerable discussion of this matter, the Board advised Ms. Green that it was not inclined to sponsor legislation to amend its current educational requirement. The Board directed its staff to advise Ms. Green of the Board’s position regarding this matter.

Shirley Friend - La Paix Beauty Academy

The Board reviewed an inquiry presented by Ms. Shirley Friend, an Administrator at the La Paix Beauty Academy, located in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Ms. Friend, by way of e-mail, inquired as to what services a student, who has completed less than 350 training hours, was authorized to perform without a license. The Board noted that §5-302, Business Occupations and Professions Article, Annotated Code of Maryland provides that a student who has completed at least 350 hours of training at a cosmetology school may “practice cosmetology”, without a license, at the school while under the direct supervision of a teacher and other prescribed conditions. The Board further noted that hair braiding and shampooing did not constitute the “practice of cosmetology”. Accordingly, the Board concluded: that a student at a cosmetology school who has not completed 350 hours of training at a cosmetology school may, nevertheless, perform duties that do not constitute the practice of cosmetology; e.g., hair braiding and shampooing.

Legislative proposals

Board Chairman, Mr. Mazza, reminded the Board members that now would be the time for any legislative proposals to be submitted to the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation for its consideration regarding the introduction of such a measure in the next legislative session. Accordingly, Mr. Mazza suggested that the Board consider proposing legislation which would effectuate a recommendation of the Legislative Auditor’s Sunset Review and Evaluation Report to the effect that the Board be “specially funded”; although such a legislative measure did not receive support during the 2011 session of the General Assembly. Mr. Mazza noted that the Secretary of the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation appeared to be sympathetic to the Board’s concerns when he and Vice Chairperson, Ms. Britt-Cockrum previously met with him. The Board also suggested that, if “special funding” were to be effectuated, consideration be given to an increase in the Board’s licensing fees toward the end of providing the Board with much-needed revenues to properly fund its operational costs. The Board requested that the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing appear at the next Board meeting to discuss such legislative proposals.

Kelly Fraunhoffer - School Training

Although not listed on the Agenda for discussion, Ms. Sisserman sought clarification of a decision made by the Board at its March 7, 2011 Board meeting. An informal conference was held during that meeting for Ms. Kelly Fraunhoffer, who requested the Board to consider approval of her out-of-state training toward the end of qualifying her to take the Board’s examination. At that time, the Board, noting that the “on-line” training received by Ms. Fraunhoffer from the out-of-state cosmetology school was insufficient to qualify her to take the Board’s examination, suggested that Ms. Fraunhoffer request a Maryland-approved cosmetology school to assess how much, if any, training she received from the “on-line” out-of-state cosmetology school could be credited toward the number of school hours required in Maryland in order to become eligible to take the Board’s examination. Ms. Sisserman, who was not in attendance during the March meeting, noted that Maryland-approved schools record 1500 “clock hours” for those students whom are actually present in a classroom setting. Ms. Sisserman further noted that the Maryland Higher Education Commission does not accept on-line training and such training is not recognized by the Board. The Board agreed that its advisement to Ms. Fraunhoffer will be amended to expressly reflect that a cosmetology school in Maryland may not provide a student with any credit for that student’s “on-line” training; and that the Board’s Minutes shall reflect the same.

Regulatory Updates

Assistant Executive Director Brian Logan provided an update on pending regulations, previously approved by the Board. Proposed amendments to the following regulations which the Board proposed-are continuing to await approval from the Department:

• 09.22.01.01-General Requirements

• 09.22.01.10-Supervision of Apprentice

• 09.22.03.06-Complaints and Violations in Beauty Schools

A proposed amendment to COMAR 09.22.02.02-Owner Responsibility (providing for beauty salon signage to be permanent) has received approval from the Deputy Commissioner.

Regarding a proposed amendment to COMAR 09.22.02.01-Salon-General, the Deputy Commissioner, noting his concerns regarding its effect on businesses, declined to grant his approval. The Board suggested that the Deputy Commissioner appear at its next Board meeting to discuss his concerns regarding this proposed measure.

The following proposed regulatory changes have been submitted to the Maryland Registry for publication in its April 22, 2011 issue regarding the Board’s final approval, with such measures becoming effective ten (10) days after publication:

• COMAR 09.22.02.03-Prohibitions

• COMAR 09.22.01.13-Fees

Limited License

The Board continued its discussion in regard to establishing a limited license for hair styling and a limited license for waxing. The Board noted that there are individuals who wish to perform hair styling services only and do not want to complete 1500 hours of training which would encompass training for practicing as a nail technician or esthetician. Ms. Britt-Cockrum suggested that the Board also consider a licensing category for “stylist assistant”; i.e., for those who provide assistance to a senior cosmetologist by performing services which do not constitute “practicing cosmetology.” Board member Ms. Sisserman expressed concerns that too many categories would be difficult to effectively administer and could cause confusion to the public over which limited license is authorized to perform the limited service. The Board directed that further discussion of these matters be continued at the next Board meeting.

Cessation of Endorsement

The Board continued its discussion in regard to a possible cessation of licensure by way of endorsement; specifically, by amending §5-308, Business Occupations and Professions Article, Annotated Code of Maryland which provides for a waiver of Board’s examination requirement under certain circumstances. Ms. Trujillo suggested that a repeal of the waiver of examination provision would require anyone who is licensed in another State to take the Board’s examination as a condition of licensure. The Board noted that other states have enacted similar provisions which require each person seeking a license to pass that state’s examination. Ms. Sisserman raised her concerns over individuals who have been licensed for more than 25 years in one state having to take an examination again in another state with the possibility of not passing that exam. Further, Ms. Sisserman voiced concerns on the effect such legislation would have on individuals affected through B.R.A.C., and the difficulties it would present for such individuals to become licensed in Maryland. The Board suggested that such a proposed legislative change be submitted to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner at its next Board meeting.

Update - Ms. Wasana Digges

Assistant Executive Director Brian Logan provided an update regarding the notation of Ms. Wasana Digges, made during a previous Board meeting, that she had been provided a “reader” for the examination in light of her English language skills. Mr. Andy Parker, Client Services Manager from Prometric (the testing service that administers the Board’s examinations), previously advised that Ms. Digges was approved for a reader under ADA accommodations rules. In a subsequent e-mail, however, Mr. Parker acknowledged that Ms. Digges erroneously had been approved for a reader as she did not qualify for the same under the ADA; and that the approval was an “oversight” on the part of Prometric.

Update Senate Bill 478

Mr. Mazza provided an update on Senate Bill 478 which would have repealed the limitations on where cosmetology services can be rendered. Mr. Mazza advised that the Bill “died” in Committee.

Apprentice Orientation

Although not listed as an item for discussion, the Board discussed a recommendation in the Sunset Report which would establish a mandatory orientation program for an apprentice and the sponsor of an apprentice as a prerequisite to the apprentice obtaining an apprentice license and to the sponsor training the apprentice. Following the Board’s discussion of these matters, a motion was made by Ms. Britt-Cockrum, seconded by Ms. Trujillo, to promulgate a regulation providing that a sponsor and an apprentice attend a mandatory orientation conference, administered by the Board and its staff, as a pre-condition of the issuance of an apprentice registration. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.

Adjournment

There being no further business, a motion was made by Ms. Owens and seconded by Ms. Britt-Cockrum, that the meeting be adjourned at 12:40 pm., and the motion passed unanimously.

Approved By:

________________________________

Phillip S. Mazza,

Chairman

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download