1/26/09 Minutes
KANSAS BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY
BOARD MEETING
MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2009 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. Rogene Handlon, Member; Ms. Allene Owen, Member; Mr. Douglas R. Rushing, Member; Mr. Jerry E. Waltrip, Member; Ms. Mary Feighny, Deputy Attorney General; and Ms. Mary Lou Davis, Executive Director for the Board. Ms. Marian Brown, Member, and Mr. Darrell D. Ringler, Member, were unable to attend. Minutes were recorded by Ms. Lisa S. Florez, Administrative Officer.
ITEM I. PUBLIC COMMENT.
None scheduled.
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 10, 2008
Motion was made to approve the November 10, 2008, Board minutes. (Owen/Rushing)
Motion passed unanimously.
ITEM IV. FINANCIAL REPORT
Report from John Kirk, Budget Analyst, Division of the Budget, Department of Administration
Review of budget and Governor’s recommendations regarding the FY 2009, FY 2010 and FY 2011 budgets. These recommendations may change at any time. Beginning with FY 2009, the Governor has recommended a 2-3% reduction in budget for all fee funded agencies. The goal is to contribute the 2-3% cut to the state general fund toward the State’s approximate $185M shortfall.
The Kansas Savings Incentive Program (KSIP) is being eliminated. Money currently in KSIP from all agencies will be swept into the state general fund.
Ms. Davis inquires of Mr. Kirk if she is able to appeal the funds being taken out of KSIP. Mr. Kirk states the legislature may be able to help with an appeal but the Governor’s position is firm.
Ms. Owen asks if the State “borrows” money from other agencies, i.e. Cosmetology. Ms. Davis states as a fee funded agency, 20% of the Board’s revenue goes straight to the general fund; 80% is retained by the Board. The 20% which goes to the general fund is supposed to pay administrative costs such as budgeting, IT support, purchasing and personnel.
Ms. Owen asks if that is what is meant by the State “borrowing” funds from agencies. Ms. Davis remarks on the “carryover” from year to year which may be taken by the State. Ms. Davis also comments on the fines collected by the Board which go into the general fund.
Mr. Kirk continues with the budget for FY 2010. The Department of Budget (DOB) made no changes to KBOC’s budget for FY ’10; however, the Governor made additional reductions in the amount of $34,728. There is a 1% pay increase included in the FY 2010 budget. Procuring this money from within the budget will be the responsibility of the agency.
No changes were made to the FY 2011 budget by the DOB or the Governor. The budget remains the same as projected by the Board, $790,229.
There will be opportunity to go before the House and Senate subcommittees for FY ‘10 and FY ‘11 to seek adjustments to the budgets and present information regarding why an agency may need to add something back in to its budget.
Ms. Davis states the Board was recently asked by Legislative Research what plans this agency had to furlough employees. Ms. Davis responded by stating the Board currently has a vacant position which will remain vacant during this time of budget reduction.
Much of the outcome of the budget situation is up to the legislature and won’t be determined until late April or early May for the ’10 and ’11 budgets.
FY 2009 year-to-date report.
Ms. Davis reports on receipts and expenditures to date for FY 2009 which began July 1, 2008.
Mr. McKenzie inquires about the number of non-sufficient funds checks received by the Board. Ms. Davis reports that once a fee is received by the Board office, there is a two week period before a check presented for payment can be determined to be NSF. During this time lapse, the Board may have already issued a license for the fee paid by check. The individual must then present payment via money order, cashier’s check or credit card along with a $30 NSF fee.
Mr. McKenzie asks whether the Board should discontinue taking checks. Mr. Rushing suggest we receipt only debit, credit card or money order payments. No further discussion at this time.
The Director references Senate Bill No. 23, p. 5, for the Board’s review which proposes the decrease in the FY ’09 budget.
There have been newspaper articles regarding budget cuts, particularly one in the Kansas City Star from Sunday, January 18, 2009, which talks about fee funded agencies such as the Board. The article references Senator Vratil’s comment on making structural changes in agencies rather than sweeping fees. Ms. Davis comments that structural changes are likely the merging of agencies.
Another comment in the media is from “Halltalk” by Martin Hawver. His article talks about fee sweeps, the Barber Board and the Board of Cosmetology.
ITEM V. NEW BUSINESS.
Legislative Division of Post Audit
Correspondence from Post Audit in November outlined upcoming performance audits for State inspection functions. The audits were to involve inspection programs from the Department of Health and Environment, the Department of Agriculture, the Board of Cosmetology, the Department on Aging and the Fire Marshal’s Office. Ms. Davis contacted Leo Hafner from Post Audit. Mr. Hafner stated the Board was included because it has the largest inspection program of fee funded agencies.
Ms. Davis commented on the October 9th, 2008, Kansas Environmental Health Association (KEHA) annual conference held in Manhattan where national inspector certification was discussed. Eight to ten percent of the questions on the test for national certification are in regard to cosmetology and tanning facilities. Some of the national certification inspector programs require an undergraduate degree. This would have considerable impact on salary and wages were it to be implemented for the State of Kansas. Ms. Davis inquired of Mr. Hafner with Post Audit if this may be the direction of the performance audits. Mr. Hafner stated he believed it was not.
In correspondence received from Post Audit in December, the Board inspection program was excluded from the first round of performance audits.
Mr. Rushing comments about the November letter which cites a $90,000 savings in inspection programs by changing to a risk-based approach to inspections. This indicates inspectors would not be sent into the field unless a complaint had been received.
Ms. Davis states she would rather be proactive in the inspection process to protect the health and welfare of the consuming public. It poses a danger to the public to wait until complaints of the possibility of Hepatitis C or MRSA in facilities are made to the Board, rather than pursuing proactive inspections. However, in light of budget restrictions, there may be cause to rework the inspection program.
Mr. Rushing comments that having a plan to rework the inspection program could be of benefit to the Board. It appears that the national certification approach would not save a great deal of money. However, the Board may consider other approaches which may have more financial impact.
Ms. Davis comments on the current inspection process of requiring a compliance inspection prior to a facility opening. A risk-based approach may not allow for opening compliance inspections. It may work more like the Barber Board where a facility opens, sends the application to the Barber Board and the Barber Board inspects when they are to be in the area.
Mr. McKenzie states that the Board’s current proactive inspection process is much better than the alternative approach of risk-based inspections. Merging inspection programs may have a negative impact, as our current inspection process supports higher standards.
Ms. Davis inquires of the Board its position with regard to proactive versus risk-based inspections.
It is the consensus of the Board that a proactive inspection program is more beneficial than risk-based inspections.
Ms. Davis confirms with the Board the need to continue with a proactive inspection program. The Board concurs and wishes to look into other alternatives should there be a need to rework the inspection program.
Request for Proposal (RFP), Licensure Exams. RFP Issued December 23, 2008
A three member team consisting of Galen Greenwood, Procurement Officer, Marie Plinsky, and Mary Lou Davis will be negotiating the contract for the licensure exams. Mr. McKenzie will also participate. The deadline for the closing date to receive the RFP is scheduled for February 27, 2009. The deadline for review and evaluation is set for March 9th and negotiations, if necessary, will occur after March 16th. The contract year is to begin July 1, 2009.
Sidney’s Hairdressing College, Hutchinson. Licensure Application for Change of Location
This change of location does not require an appearance before the Board, as the curriculum remains the same. Sidney’s new location was inspected for compliance on January 2, 2009. School began at the new location January 5th.
Field study request, Eric Fisher Academy, Salon Observations, March 3, 2009
This request was received by the Board on January 22nd. The regularly scheduled Board meeting was to be held January 12th, but was rescheduled to the 26th due to the Director’s illness.
The field study request form states the request should be forwarded to the Board not less than 10 business days prior to the regularly scheduled Board meeting.
Mr. McKenzie states that he must abstain from participating in any field study request approval or denial as his school has submitted one of the requests being considered.
Ms. Davis states that the request received on January 22nd could not have been approved at the regularly scheduled Board meeting on January 12th. The next Board meeting is scheduled for March 9th which is after the March 3rd field study event. Therefore this request could not be considered at the next Board meeting.
Mr. Rushing inquires about the limit on hours students are able to receive off-campus. There was a limit established at a prior Board meeting.
Ms. Davis concurs that there was a limit established. The Board minutes will need to be researched for the time limit which was set. The field study requests submitted for this Board meeting can be reviewed and approval will be contingent upon what time limit was established by the Board.
Ms. Plinsky states that the current field study request under review was not submitted timely and therefore should be denied.
Board members concur. Mr. McKenzie abstains.
Field study request, Eric Fisher Academy, The Bright Spot for Health, March 12, 2009
This request was received by the Board on January 7th.
Ms. Davis states the subject content submitted for this event refers to vitamin K, prevention of heart disease, osteoporosis and cancer. This request is for esthetics students. Ms. Davis has concerns about overlap into the medical profession. Estheticians are prohibited from making diagnoses and referring or recommending prescriptive treatments. This may give practitioners the wrong idea about what they are able to talk to the consumer about.
Ms. Plinsky states that this event appears to be beyond the scope of the cosmetology/esthetic profession.
Motion to deny field study request as the subject content is beyond the scope of the cosmetology/esthetic profession and the submission was not timely. (Owen/Handlon).
Motion passes. Mr. McKenzie abstains.
The Board discusses the timeliness of the submission. The request would be timely for consideration at the March 9th Board meeting. Therefore, the request should have been denied due to subject content only.
Motion to withdraw Ms. Owen’s prior motion. (Owen/Handlon).
Motion passes. Mr. McKenzie abstains.
Motion to deny the field study request as the subject content is beyond the scope of the cosmetology/esthetic profession. (Owen/Handlon).
Motion passes. Mr. McKenzie abstains.
Field study request, Eric Fisher Academy, Salon Observations, March 19, 2009
Ms. Davis states that the request received January 9th would be timely for consideration at the March 9th Board meeting. The submission is also otherwise complete with a list of students who would be attending and a listing of the salons to be observed.
Motion to approve the request for 5 hours of business practices, contingent upon the limit on hours students are able to receive off-campus (to be revisited at the March Board meeting). (Waltrip/Owen).
Motion passes. Mr. McKenzie abstains.
Field study request, Hays Academy of Hair Design, America’s Beauty Show, Chicago, March 28-30, 2009
This submission was received on January 15th. The Board has previously approved this event for other schools. The request is incomplete as there is no listing of students or supervising instructors.
Ms. Davis comments that the request should be denied as it is incomplete. The request may be resubmitted for consideration at the March 9th Board meeting with the required list of students and supervising instructors. If the Board receives the new, completed submission timely in advance of the March meeting, would the Board agree to approve the request?
Ms. Owen states the Board should deny the request at this point and if a timely request is received prior to the March meeting the Board can address the request then.
Board consensus to deny the request based on incomplete submission. Hays Academy may resubmit the request at least 10 business days prior to the March Board meeting for reconsideration.
Field study request, Z Hair Academy, Discover 2009, St. Louis, March 15-16, 2009
This request was received January 7th. Names of participating students and supervising instructors have been provided with the request. This request would be submitted timely for the March 9th meeting but not the January 12th meeting.
Ms. Plinsky inquires if the Board should wait until the March meeting to make a determination regarding the request.
Board members would like to decide the issue at this meeting.
Ms. Plinsky states the Board will take a 10 minute break and then resume.
Board resumes meeting.
Mr. Rushing asks Mr. McKenzie how Z Hair Academy will monitor the attending students to ensure they are at the scheduled events. Mr. McKenzie responds that six instructors are attending and 22 students are attending. Each instructor has a group of students which they take to the classes.
Mr. Rushing asks if there is a schedule determined prior to the event. Mr. McKenzie states there is. Each instructor knows who is in their group and each group knows what there schedule is prior to the show. Mr. McKenzie and Judy McKenzie oversee the instructors and students. The students are required to meet with the instructors prior the each show, during lunch and at the end of the show or they do not receive credit. If the students are late, they do not receive credit.
Motion to approve the field study request for 12 instructional hours in the areas of business practices, chemical services and hair designing. (Owen/Handlon)
Motion passes. Mr. McKenzie abstains.
VI. Old Business
Paul Mitchell School, Wichita. Owners Clint and Schrene Davis/John Paul Mitchell Systems and Greg and Stephanie Kellogg. Purchase of Vernon’s School of Cosmetology, Wichita.
At the last Board meeting it was reported the transaction between Clint and Schrene Davis and Vernon’s Wichita had not taken place as expected. The sale has now taken place and the Davis’ school location for Vernon’s Kansas School of Cosmetology, 3242 N. Rock Road, Ste. 106, Wichita, was inspected for compliance on January 26, 2009, and was approved to open. The school’s curriculum was approved at the September Board meeting.
Westin Educational Inc., d/b/a Heritage College, Wichita. Esthetics School with Anticipated Opening Date of March, 2009
This school submitted an esthetics curriculum which was clearly a “medical esthetics” curriculum. There is no provision for medical esthetics in cosmetology law in the State of Kansas. Ms. Davis spoke with school personnel and informed them the curriculum would be denied as submitted.
A meeting was scheduled in December with the Board of Healing Arts, Board of Regents, Board of Nursing and the Board of Cosmetology which was not able to be held. Another meeting may be scheduled in February. Westin has not contacted the Board since the Board informed the school their curriculum was not within the scope of cosmetology/esthetics.
Independence Community College, Change of Hours for Nail Technology Curriculum and Request for Extension of Apprentice License Beyond Six Months (KSA 65-1903(c)(2))
Ms. Davis reports the school is able to extend the apprentice license to 6 months. The students would then be able to complete 500 hours within the school’s semester time frame.
Statute Revision, KSA 65-1904
The statute revision was approved at the November Board meeting so there can be statutory change with regard to renewal notices.
Ms. Davis reports that statutory authority (KSA 65-1904(d)) gives the Board the ability to set fees subject to limitations or caps. KAR 69-11-1 shows the current fees for each license type. The Board is within limitations for all license types.
Ms. Davis inquires of the Board whether they would want to increase fees for any type of apprentice license. The current fee and cap is $15. Fees were last raised in 1998 from $12 to $15.
Ms. Davis inquires of the Board whether they would want to increase the fee for temporary permits. The current fee and cap is $15.
Ms. Handlon asks what amount the fee would be raised. Ms. Davis states the options are raising the fee to $20 or $25. The temporary permit fee was set at $15 in 1998.
Ms. Davis inquires of the Board whether they would want to increase the fee for delinquent practitioner renewals. This may encourage practitioners to renew on time rather than paying a higher delinquent fee. There may not be a significant amount of revenue generated by raising this fee.
Ms. Davis reviews the cost of mailing practitioner renewal packets versus the projected cost of online renewals. The approximate cost to the Board of mailing packets is $22,680 per year. The projected cost of online renewals is $5,040. Another avenue of generating revenue may be making the option of renewing via mail costly to the practitioner so that online renewal becomes the better option.
Ms. Davis reviews a fee comparison chart by state for cosmetology schools. The chart compares new licensure fees and renewal fees. Ms. Davis notes that there are 36 cosmetology schools in Kansas but that 10 are public schools who do not have to submit an application fee or annual renewal fee. The fee for a school application was raised from $100 to $150 in 1998. The school renewal fee was increased from $50 to $75 in 1998.
Ms. Davis reviews a comparison chart by state of other fees.
Mr. McKenzie states that a $50 increase in school application fees seems reasonable as does a fee increase for apprentice licenses to $25. Instructor application fees would seem reasonable to raise also.
Ms. Davis inquires of the Board if they would consider putting into statute a cap of $25 for apprentice licenses. This gives the option of raising the fee to $20 or $25.
The Board discusses the amount of increase in fee caps they would support putting into statute for fee increases.
Motion to increase the apprentice fee cap to $25; increase the temporary permit fee cap to $25; increase the fee cap for delinquent practitioner renewal fees to $35; increase the fee cap for delinquent facility renewal fees to $35; increase the school application fee cap to $250; increase the school renewal fee cap to $150; and increase the fee cap for delinquent instructor renewals to $35*. (Owen/Rushing).
Motion passes unanimously.
*Note: The current delinquent fee for instructors is $75 and the cap is $75. This part of the motion will need to be corrected.
Draft Regulation, 1,000 Hour Esthetics Curriculum
Ms. Davis reports the draft regulation for the 1,000 hour esthetics curriculum will soon be submitted for review.
VII. Disciplinary Action
Conditioned Licensure, Vernon’s Kansas Cosmetology School in Emporia. Review of Monthly Documents Submitted to Date
Due to the two-year licensure conditions placed on Vernon’s Emporia, Ms. Davis inquires of Board Chair Ms. Plinsky if there could be a Board panel designated to review the monthly submissions to the Board by Vernon’s Kansas School of Cosmetology in Emporia.
Ms. Plinsky states that the monthly submissions from Vernon’s could be reviewed at times the felony review panel meets. These meetings occur monthly and are already established.
Ms. Davis agrees that the monthly review panel would be an appropriate time to review the submissions from Vernon’s. Mr. Rushing is on the felony review panel and would be able to be a school representative in the review of Vernon’s submissions.
The Board reviews the documents submitted to date. Ms. Davis comments the lesson plans submitted are lacking lesson objectives, test assessment and no text is referenced. The lesson plans submitted in December appear to be for a student who is just starting. The lesson plans submitted in January appear to be the same.
Ms. Davis reports that Vernon’s has requested reimbursement for the transcript from the two-day hearing.
Mr. Rushing comments on the lesson plan submissions. The plan may be a guideline for the day but definitely isn’t a lesson plan.
Ms. Davis references the plan’s lunch time. The half hour lunch time originally written in the plan has been crossed out and replaced with 45 minutes. The issue of crediting time to the curriculum although lunch times exceeded 30 minutes was an issue during the litigation.
The Board reviews the court order which requires the monthly documentation submissions by Vernon’s and discusses whether the documents submitted by Vernon’s comply.
Ms. Plinsky comments on the number of absences reported on the daily attendance sheets.
Ms. Davis asks Board members to review the documents submitted and e-mail their observations to her. Ms. Davis could then compile the observations to determine compliance with the order. Ms. Davis could then send correspondence to Mr. Laurino (owner of Vernon’s Kansas School of Cosmetology, Emporia) to inform him that the submissions are not in compliance with the order.
VIII. Executive Director Report
Review of Monthly Disciplinary Action and Complaint Reports
The Board reviews the monthly disciplinary action reports for November and December.
National Interstate Council of State Boards of Cosmetology (NIC) Regions III and IV Meeting
To be held in Sacramento, California. No one from the Board will attend.
US Department of Education, Final Audits
The Board reviews correspondence from the Department of Education regarding the final audits of Academy of Hair Design and Old Town Barber and Beauty College.
IX. Adjournment
Next regularly scheduled board meeting Monday, March 9, 2009.
Motion to adjourn. (Owen/Handlon).
Motion passed unanimously.