Board Meetings
2009 Board Meeting Dates
Monday, January 12 th (minutes)
Monday, March 9 th (minutes)
Monday, May 11 th (minutes)
Monday, July 13 th (cancelled)
Monday, September 14 th (minutes)
Monday, November 9 th (minutes)
2010 Board Meeting Dates
Monday, January 11 th (minutes)
Monday, March 8 th
Monday, May 10 th
Monday, July 12 th
Monday, September 13 th
Monday, November 8 th
KANSAS BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY
BOARD MEETING
MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 2010 REGULAR BOARD MEETING
The January meeting of the Kansas Board of Cosmetology was held at the Board office, 714 SW Jackson, Suite 100, Topeka, Kansas. The meeting was called to order by Ms. Marie Plinsky, Board Chair. Also in attendance were Mr. Ron McKenzie, Vice-Chair; Ms. Allene Owen, Member; Mr. Douglas R. Rushing, Member; Mr. Darrell D. Ringler, Member; and Mr. James A. George, Member. Also in attendance were Ms. Mary Feighny, Deputy Attorney General; Ms. Mary Lou Davis, Executive Director for the Board; and Mr. Jerry E. Waltrip, Member, appeared by phone. Minutes were recorded by Ms. Lisa S. Florez, Senior Administrative Specialist.
ITEM I. PUBLIC COMMENT.
Kim McIntosh, Xenon’s International School of Hair Design. Topic: Continuing Education.
Bart Kooiman, founder, Kansas Beauty Coalition for Continuing Education. Topic: Continuing Education.
Ms. McIntosh and Mr. Kooiman want to implement a continuing education program for practitioners in the cosmetology professions. Mr. Kooiman presented a written statement to the Board outlining the Kansas Beauty Coalition for Continuing Education’s position regarding the implementation of a continuing education requirement for practitioners. Mr. Kooiman reported that continuing education would improve the overall health and safety for the Kansas public and would generate additional revenue for the State of Kansas.
The Board questioned Mr. Kooiman about whom the Kansas Beauty Coalition represents and whether there was statewide representation of cosmetology professionals in the Coalition. The Board advised Mr. Kooiman to inform as many practitioners in the state as possible regarding the Coalition’s efforts. The Board also inquired about this effort being a benefit for Peel’s Salon Services, employer of Mr. Kooiman and the Xenon school which employs Ms. McIntosh. The Board inquired if there were any other distributors or schools involved. Mr. Kooiman responded that other schools and distributors have been invited to participate.
The Board questioned Mr. Kooiman regarding how a continuing education program would generate additional revenue for the State. Mr. Kooiman responded that the Board could provide the continuing education class for a fee or charge a fee for processing a continuing education requirement for practitioners. The Board commented on the lack of financial feasibility for implementing and operating such a program. There is no statutory allowance at this time for generating new fees.
The Board suggested Mr. Kooiman research the prior continuing education legislation from the 1997-1998 session and contact practitioners statewide to assess any potential support before proceeding with a proposal to require continuing education for practitioners in the cosmetology professions.
Charles (Chuck) Householder, practitioner and member of the Board of Directors, Alliance of Professional Tattooists (APT). Topic: Body art school proposal.
Mr. Householder presented a written statement, a letter from APT opposing body art training in schools, and a market study for the body art professions to the Board. Mr. Householder also spoke to the Board regarding the proposal to implement a body art school in Kansas.
Mr. Householder indicated he was representing two groups of people at this meeting, The Alliance of Professional Tattooists and the Kansas Body Modification Coalition. Both groups oppose body art training in a school setting.
Mr. Householder stated the current apprenticeship system of training body art practitioners in Kansas effectively trains individuals in a skilled trade. The market study presented by Mr. Householder shows the body art industry is not growing at a rate that warrants placing a larger volume of individuals into the profession. He also reported that legislative changes were made in 2008 to remove the provision for teaching the body art profession in a school.
The Board inquired of Mr. Householder the procedure used by body art trainers in choosing a candidate for apprenticeship. Mr. Householder indicated character of the individual and fit with the trainer’s facility were the two main considerations.
The Board asked Mr. Householder to define the “market” of the market study. Mr. Householder stated the market consists of body art practitioners and facility owners, as they would be the individuals hiring those who have graduated from a body art school.
The Board informed Mr. Householder it would take his comments into consideration.
Simon Karnes, practitioner and facility owner, King City Tattoo. Topics: Body art school proposal, KSA 65-1940(g), guest artists, communication regarding proposed body art modification laws and/or regulations.
Mr. Karnes, a licensed body piercing trainer, made further comment regarding selection of a body art apprentice. Mr. Karnes stated that artistic ability is also a consideration when choosing an apprentice.
Mr. Karnes submitted a written statement to the Board and commented regarding a letter sent by the Board to body art practitioners which discussed the legality of dermal anchoring in the body piercing profession. Mr. Karnes cited KSA 65-1942(g) which states, “’Body Piercing’ means puncturing the skin of a person by aid of needles designed or used to puncture the skin for the purpose of inserting removable jewelry through the human body…”
Mr. Karnes stated the terminology “dermal” creates the impression of implantation. He stated the dermal anchoring procedure is a single point piercing, which he believes falls within KSA 65-1942(g) and should be allowed.
Mr. Karnes presented additional information to the Board regarding the dermal anchoring procedure which included a diagram of the procedure. Mr. Karnes described the procedure as a “lifted piercing”. He states it is not a permanent piercing.
The Board questioned Mr. Karnes about the safety of the procedure. Mr. Karnes responded that all infection control regulation would be followed as with any other piercing.
Inquiry was made as to when KSA 65-1942(g) came into effect. The Director stated it became effective in 2008. The regulation was necessary to ensure body modification practices did not become reflective of recent trends which have included tongue splitting, carving, and implants.
The Board inquired of the Director what would be involved to classify the dermal anchoring as a piercing which is allowed by statute. The Director responded that since it is statutory, a legislative change would be required. In addition, the Board of Healing Arts would need to be consulted due to the nature of microdermal implants.
The Board had no further questions. The public comment portion of the Board meeting concluded.
ITEM II. CALL TO ORDER.
The meeting was called to order by Ms. Marie Plinsky, Board Chair.
ITEM III. APPROVAL OF BOARD MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2009
Motion was made to approve the November 9, 2009, Board minutes. (Owen/Ringler)
Motion passed unanimously.
ITEM IV. FINANCIAL REPORT
Year-to-date FY 2010 receipts and expenditures
Ms. Davis reported on receipts and expenditures year-to-date for FY 2010. The Board is exceeding expected receipts due to the fee increase for cosmetology professions’ initial licensure and cosmetology profession establishment renewal fees which were increased last year.
Division of Budget recommendations – November 10
No further cuts in the budget were taken by the Division of the Budget. However, the enhancement for the new vehicle for the FY 2010 budget was denied. It is necessary to purchase a new vehicle due to the amount of mileage on the current vehicle. The cost of the vehicle will have to be taken from the current FY 2010 budget.
The other enhancement which was denied was the $18,000 for database maintenance. The cost for the maintenance will also have to come from the current budget, bringing the total expenditure from the current budget for the denied enhancements to approximately $33,000.
Governor’s Budget recommendations – recommendations to be released to the agency on Tuesday, January 12
The Governor may recommend further cuts to the budget, although it is not anticipated. Ms. Davis will send an update to the Board members following the release of the Governor’s recommendations.
Lease bid for KBOC office space. Lease expires September 30, 2010. November 18, 2009, meeting with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Joint Committee on State Building Construction
Facilities management had proposed to the Board of Cosmetology, the Kansas Arts Commission, and the Animal Health Department sharing lease space for their offices. Each agency developed briefing papers and an economic impact statement regarding the proposal for presentation at a meeting with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Joint Committee on State Building Construction. The Chair and Vice-Chair were unaware of the joint shared lease space proposal. The proposal was deemed to be inefficient.
The lease bid for the current office space will be completed so that a Request for Proposal can be generated next month.
ITEM V. NEW BUSINESS.
Field Study Request, Eric Fisher Academy, February 12-15, 2010. The Women’s Fair, Wichita.
This request was received by the Board on December 17, 2009. The submission is complete. Motion to approve the request for 15 hours of client communications and business practices. (McKenzie/Owen).
Motion passed unanimously.
Field Study Request, Eric Fisher Academy, March 27-29, 2010. America’s Beauty Show, Chicago, Illinois.
This request was received by the Board on December 17, 2009. The submission is complete. Motion to approve the request for 18 hours of business practices. (McKenzie/Owen).
Motion passed unanimously
Sexual Piercings and Tattoos for Minors
Mr. George reported an incident whereby an underage female received piercing whereby the non-custodial father did not give consent for the piercing. The custodial mother did give consent for the piercing. Mr. George reported this is a felony. Kansas criminal code is not reflected in body art statute.
Ms. Plinsky inquired if criminal code would supersede body art statute in the instance of sexual piercings or tattoos for minors.
Ms. Feighny stated criminal code would be the ruling statute and in the particular instance of the piercing incident referred by Mr. George, the police needed to be alerted.
The Board decided no action is required at this time.
VI. Old Business
Proposal for Body Art School at Independence Community College.
Mr. George addressed a possible misunderstanding of his proposal regarding body art training in a school. He stated that there may be the misconception that the school is intended to replace one-on-one body art training. Mr. George stated the clinical training that would be provided by the school would be approximately 1200 hours of training. After the clinical training is completed, the body art student would then continue training, one-on-one, with a licensed body art trainer for an additional 1200 hours.
Mr. George reported Independence Community College (ICC) is proceeding with a market and probability study. ICC has requested the Board table this issue until March so the studies can be completed for additional information.
Ms. Davis stated she spoke with Dean Forsberg at ICC and that the Dean is willing to do a market study. However, the study would be limited to a three or four county area around ICC, rather than statewide or greater.
Mr. George stated the probability study would include licensing boards across the United States.
Mr. Rushing stated the study should question body art facility owners regarding whether they would hire an individual who was trained at a body art school.
Mr. Waltrip referred to the November Board meeting where it was discussed whether or not ICC’s Board of Trustees had been informed about the proposed school. He inquired if this question had been answered by Dean Forsberg. Ms. Davis responded that in her conversation with Dean Forsberg, it was indicated that the Trustees wanted the Board of Cosmetology to proceed with the proposal before getting involved with a body art school.
Ms. Owen commented on the length the process would take to get such a program implemented.
Mr. George stated that with part of the body art training taking place at a community college, individuals would be eligible for an associate’s degree. He also commented that the combination of clinical training for 1200 hours in a school and 1200 hours of one-on-one practical training, the standards of training would increase and become comparable to what the APT advises.
Mr. Rushing inquired who would be determining who could instruct or train. Would ICC have the authority to name body art trainers to teach at their school? Or would the Board continue establishing trainer certification?
Ms. Davis reported in her conversation with Dean Forsberg that qualifications for ICC’s instructors were discussed. The school looks at education of the individual, experience and other factors to determine if they are qualified to teach as an adjunct professor. How will this impact the Board’s requirements for licensing body art trainers?
Mr. McKenzie commented that should an individual complete the clinical portion of body art training at a school, the individual would still have to locate a trainer that felt the individual to be of good character and who fit into the facility. Additionally, the time required to complete an entire program start to finish would take 3-4 years.
Mr. George commented that his current apprenticeship program generally takes 3 years to complete, although the state only requires 1200 hours of training.
Ms. Plinsky commented on the need for much more information to be presented before a decision can be made regarding the school proposal.
The Board consensus at this time is to request the following from Independence Community College:
VII. Disciplinary Action
The Board reviewed the monthly disciplinary reports.
VIII. Executive Director’s Report
Board and Commission Orientation Program, Friday, April 23, 2010, 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Memorial Building, 120 SW Tenth Avenue, Topeka. Presentation by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office
An orientation program for Board and Commission members is scheduled for April 23, 2010, at 8:30 a.m. at the Memorial Building, 120 SW 10th Ave., Topeka. The program will discuss Board members’ roles and responsibilities, ethics and standards.
Update on report due to the legislative request involving Board of Cosmetology and Board of Barbering facilities which are licensed by both agencies. Report due 2010 legislative session.
The Board of Barbering has hired a new Administrator, Bob Zook. Mr. Zook is implementing an organizational system for the Barber Board. Mr. Zook is aware of the report which is due the legislature and intends to cooperate but has been unable to do so to date. Ms. Davis stated her objective is to complete the report by the first of February.
Credentialing Application, Massage Therapy, review by the Technical Review Committee, Kansas Department of Health and Environment
The Technical Review Committee opted to take no action regarding licensure of individuals in the massage therapy profession.
Website updates: on-line renewals for practitioners in the cosmetology professions
Those cosmetology profession practitioners whose license expires January 31, 2010, are the first group of practitioners to have the option of renewing their license online. All practitioners hereafter will also have the option. The Board intends to have the June facility renewal process also available online. Ms. Davis stated the online renewal process should produce more efficiencies and savings for the Agency.
Review of monthly disciplinary action and complaint reports
The Board reviewed the monthly disciplinary action reports for October and November.
Mr. George stated he owed the Board an apology. He read a written statement and provided the statement to the Board.
IX. Presentation and Recognition – Rogene Handlon and Marian Brown for their dedicated service as members of the Kansas Board of Cosmetology
Ms. Rogene Handlon and Ms. Marian Brown, former Board members, were honored for their years of service on the Board. Each individual was provided a plaque commemorating their service and a luncheon was held in their honor to show the Board’s appreciation for their time and effort over the years.
X. Adjournment – Next regularly scheduled Board meeting, Monday, March 8, 2010
Board panel review of felony convictions upon adjournment of meeting.
Board panel review of pending disciplinary action.
Motion to adjourn. (Owen/Rushing).
Motion passed unanimously.