Board of Cosmetologists Minutes February 6, 2006

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

February 6, 2006 in the 2nd floor conference room, the Shillman building,

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

Ms. Marie Wallace, Consumer Member

Ms. Doris Bradley, Industry Member

Ms. Thuy Bui, Industry Member

Ms. Karen Collins, Industry Member

Also in attendance were:

Mr. Bruce Spizler, Senior Assistant Attorney General

Ms. Phyllis Cail, Executive Director

Not in attendance:

Ms. Maxine Sisserman, School Owner

Ms. Patricia Cougnet, Industry Member

Approval of Agenda

A motion was made to approve the agenda with three additional items of discussion added. The Board approved the motion unanimously.

Minutes

A motion was made to approve the January 9, 2006minutes. The Board approved the motion unanimously.

New Business

  1. The Board discussed waiving the late fee of an individual who went online to renew her license and was unsuccessful in completing the transaction. The individual provided the Board with documentation indicating that the transaction was attempted. After discussion, the Board voted to waive the late fee in this particular case.

2.The owner of a nail salon spoke to the Board about his concerns regarding Maryland not having a “waxing license”. The individual pointed out that Virginia has a waxing license, with the training being 100 hundred hours; however in Maryland,an individual would have to take a 600 hour esthetician’s course or a 1500 cosmetologist’s course, and pass such an examination, to in order to provide waxing services.

The Board members advised the individual that they understood his concern; howeverMaryland law must be adhered to when providing services. Accordingly, only an esthetician or cosmetologist licensed by the Boardmay provide waxing services in Maryland. AVirginia waxing license is not acceptable in Maryland.

The Board’s counsel advised that the current law does not allow for a waxing license in Maryland, and that the law would have to be amended to provide for the same.

The Board advised the owner that he has the opportunity to contact his local delegate or senator to discuss the issue and request that legislation be introduced to address his concerns.

3. The Board addressed the practice of applying artificial eyelashes, as a licensed make-up artist requested to provide the service. After some discussion, including information provided by an esthetics and make-up artistry school owner, it was determined that the service does fall under the scope of the make-up artist’s license.

Old Business

  1. The Board continued its discussion regarding limited-service and full service salon permits and the requirements when applying for a permit. The Board’s counsel advised that there is nothing in the law that prohibits an owner from applying for a full service permit even if, at the time of application, only limited services are to be provided in the salon. Counsel further advised that only individuals licensed to perform a particular service are authorized to do so. Therefore, for example, while a beauty salon named “Nails-R-Us” may be licensed by the Board as a full-service salon, only a licensed cosmetologist or a licensed esthetician may perform waxing services in the salon. As a result of counsel’s advice, the Board decided that no changes needed to be made to Code of Maryland Regulations on this issue.
  1. An esthetician came before the Board to volunteer her time as a “subject matter expert” in the area of “medispas”. She advised that although she has just become a licensed esthetician, she has spent 25 years in the medical field and feels her experience could be helpful to the Board in addressing concerns regarding “medispa” and the relationship between medical procedures and cosmetology services.

The owner of a “permanent cosmetic” school also came before the Board to offer assistance in any area where the Board may have questions related to her field of expertise (although, currently, such services are not authorized in a beauty salon or at other places where cosmetology may be practiced). She advised that she is the only approved school in Maryland to provide training in permanent cosmetics; adding that, in the school’s catalog, there is information advising that permanent cosmetic services may not be performed in a salon.

  1. The Board’s counsel provided the Board with information regarding a recent law suit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in which the Board, along with various other State agencies and three individuals, were alleged to have discriminated against a salon owner based on race, sex, and national origin. As a result of the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Board’s counsel, as well as the Motion to Dismiss filed by the other Defendants, the case was dismissed, and the case was closed.

The meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m.

______

Approved by Marie Wallace, Chairperson

______

Phyllis Cail, Executive Director