KANSAS BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY
MINUTES OF MAY 10, 2010 REGULAR BOARD MEETING
The May 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. James A. George, Member; Mr. Jerry E. Waltrip, Member; and Mr. Darrell D. Ringler, Member; Ms. Mary Feighny, Deputy Attorney General; and Ms. Mary Lou Davis, Executive Director for the Board. Ms. Derenda Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General, participated by phone. Minutes were recorded by Ms. Lisa S. Florez, Senior Administrative Specialist.
ITEM I. PUBLIC COMMENT.
ITEM II. CALL TO ORDER.
The meeting was called to order by Ms. Marie Plinsky, Board Chair.
ITEM III. APPROVAL OF BOARD MINUTES FOR JANUARY 11, 2010
Motion was made to approve the March 8, 2010, Board minutes. (Owen/Waltrip).
Motion passed unanimously.
ITEM IV. FINANCIAL REPORT
Ms. Davis reviewed with the Board a report regarding the number of on-line practitioner renewals since the process became available.
Mr. Ringler inquired regarding this fiscal year’s revenue. Ms. Davis reported the revenue is comparable to last year. Tanning facility applications have decreased.
Mr. Ringler commented that tanning facility applications may continue to decrease as a result of the federal tax of 10% on tanning services which begins July 1, 2010.
Ms. Davis stated that individuals who inquire of the Board regarding the federal tax are directed to contact their United States Senator or Representative. Additionally, a small notation regarding the tax will be included in the annual salon newsletter.
Mr. Rushing commented on the increase in on-line renewals. Ms. Davis reported the on-line renewals streamline the work process.
Ms. Davis inquired of the Board anything specific they may wish to include in the budgets for FY 2012 and FY 2013. Preparation of the budget begins mid-August. The Board responded that they would like to have information comparing this fiscal year to the year prior.
Year-to-date FY 2010 receipts and expenditures
Ms. Davis reported on receipts and expenditures year-to-date for FY 2010.
Legislative status for the FY 2010 and FY 2011 budgets
The Legislature remains in session to finalize the budgets for FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Lease bid for KBOC office space. Lease expires September 30, 2010.
A lease contract for the current office space has been prepared, effective October 1, 2010. The lease includes a reduction in square footage and a reduction in cost per square foot. The monthly savings will be $822.97 with an annual savings of nearly $10,000.00. The lease is for five years. The lease will have to be approved by the Joint Committee on State Building.
ITEM V. NEW BUSINESS.
Field Study Request, Eric Fisher Academy, Premiere Orlando International Beauty Event/Premiere Day spa Conference, Orlando, Florida. June 6-7.
This request was received by the Board on February 8, 2010. The submission is complete. Motion to approve the request for 12 hours of business practices. (McKenzie/Owen).
Motion passed unanimously.
Sixth Annual Statewide Student Competition, Sidney’s Hairdressing School, Hutchinson, May 3
Sidney’s submitted all appropriate documents for approval. The competition was approved by the Director. Sixty-seven students and nineteen instructors participated.
Mitsu Sato Hair Show, Mitsu Sato School. June 6. Request for credit hours.
A request was made that Mitsu Sato provide the Board with a list of participating students and instructors.
Motion to approve the hair show for 7 credit hours. (Owen/George).
Motion passed unanimously.
Tattoo removal creams and compounds.
Mr. George presented a report on tattoo removal creams and compounds. Mr. George was informed that a tattoo removal cream was injected into a tattoo with tattoo equipment and the result may have caused harm to the individual. The procedure purportedly took place in Topeka.
Mr. George reviewed a list of creams and compounds which contain harmful ingredients. Mr. George inquired of the Board whether this should be of concern to the Board of Cosmetology as a potential threat to the consuming public.
Ms. Feighny questioned whether the Board has authority to regulate tattoo removal creams and compounds.
Ms. Davis stated that if the creams were considered to be cosmetic, they would be regulated by the FDA.
Mr. George stated the creams are not regulated by the FDA.
Mr. McKenzie inquired whether the Board had received complaints regarding tattoo removal creams and compounds. Ms. Davis stated the only complaint received is the one Mr. George has brought before the Board.
Ms. Davis commented on the procedure of getting such regulation introduced in the legislature and that the legislature would most likely view the issue as something that should be regulated by the FDA.
The Board took no action on the matter at this time.
Seward County Community College Instructor Vacation Days
Sheila Scheib and Denice Paden, instructors at Seward County Community College, have requested permission to allow a faculty member who is a non-cosmetology instructor to assist in supervising cosmetology students on days when Ms. Scheib or Ms. Paden are unable to be at the school.
The students would have accrued approximately 400 hours and be in the classroom. The licensed instructor would instruct on the clinic floor. The classroom students would be given an assignment; the non-cosmetology instructor would supervise the classroom students.
The Board wishes to work with schools that may face this type of situation. However, due to the number of days involved and lack of instruction to students for such a period of time, the Board is hesitant to allow supervision by a non-licensed instructor. The Board also must uphold the instructor to student required ratio.
Motion to deny Sheila Scheib’s and Denice Paden’s request to allow supervision of the classroom by a non-cosmetology instructor while one instructor is absent. (Waltrip/Owen).
Motion passed. James George opposed.
Review of K.S.A. 65-1912. Apprentice licensure; temporary and permanent regulation.
The Board had been receiving many apprentice applications beyond the fifteen day period within which to submit an application after an apprentice’s start date. The course of action determined by the Board for violation of this statute was to issue a summary order and fine the school for each “late” application.
A school that was issued a summary order requested a hearing. The Administrative Law Judge determined the Board did not have the regulatory authority to fine the school; that the responsible party for submitting an apprentice application was the individual, not the school. The Board must now re-evaluate the situation to determine a course of action in the event of an untimely apprentice application submission.
One finding at the hearing was that to practice as a cosmetologist and to practice as an apprentice are not the same thing. Therefore, the Board cannot bring disciplinary action under KSA 65-1902 or 65-1909(a)(1).
Ms. Plinsky inquired if at the hearing was there discussion that the school is the party who handles the apprentice application. Students do not typically submit the apprentice application to the Board – the school does.
Ms. Mitchell stated that testimony was given at the hearing that the school is the one who typically submits the apprentice application.
Ms. Mitchell quoted from KSA 65-1912, “Application for an apprentice license allowing a person to practice in a licensed school shall be submitted to the Board not more than 15 days after the person’s enrollment in the school.” The law does not specify who shall submit the application.
The Board discussed several options regarding the apprentice program and the matter of timely applications. Ms. Plinsky suggested a Board committee meet to further explore all options then recommend a course of action to the Board. The Board agreed. The committee is to meet Monday, May 17th and report to the full Board on Monday, May 24th.
Mobile facility application. TIGI Rockaholic/Bed Head Tour. Two Kansas locations. Compliance with KDHE regulation, KAR 28-24-13.
An application was submitted by TIGI Rockaholic/Bed Head for a mobile facility to provide services at two locations in Kansas. It was indicated by the applicant that the mobile facility did not have a restroom and therefore would not be in compliance with KAR 28-24-13. Upon review of the floor plan of the facility submitted with the application, it was noted the floor plan indicated there was a restroom.
Ms. Plinsky inquired regarding the compliance inspection of the facility. Ms. Davis stated the inspector would need to perform the inspection at the first designated location prior to the opening of the facility on the day of the event.
The Board decided that the applicant should be contacted regarding the facility restroom. If there is a restroom as indicated by the floor plan, the Board will proceed with inspection and licensure. Should the facility not have a restroom, it would not be in compliance with KAR 28-24-13 and therefore would not be eligible for licensure.
VI. Old Business
On-line curriculum program for cosmetology apprentices – Mitsu Sato Hair Academy
Ms. Davis inquired of the Board how they wished to proceed regarding the on-line curriculum program proposed by Mitsu Sato Hair Academy at the March 8, 2010, Board meeting.
Research indicates no other state has approved an on-line cosmetology education program. Additionally, Ms. Davis stated statute revision would be necessary in order to approve such a program.
The Board determined no further action would be taken regarding the proposal at this time.
Proposal for Body Art School/Independence Community College. Statute change regarding body art schools.
Ms. Davis spoke with ICC Dean Forsberg regarding the proposed school. Dean Forsberg indicated a community survey was conducted and that interest in such a school was minimal. She reported that ICC is not actively pursuing the implementation of a body art school at this time.
Mr. George reported that he met with Dean Forsberg. Due to a miscommunication with the Association of Tattoo Professionals and other body art practitioners in the state, implementing a body art school at this time would not be viable. Mr. George informed the Board he is withdrawing the proposal until a future date.
In consultation with the Board of Healing Arts and Assistant Attorney General Derenda Mitchell, it was determined that Kansas statute clearly states dermal anchoring is not permissible by body art practitioners, as it is a medical procedure. Ms. Davis inquired of the Board if it wished to change statute to allow dermal anchoring. The Board consensus was not to attempt a statute change to allow dermal anchoring by body art practitioners.
Mr. George stated he believed dermal anchoring to be the same as other body piercings which are allowed by law.
VII. Executive Director’s Report
HB 2722 – “Consolidation of certain administrative operations” of the Kansas Board of Barbering and the Kansas Board of Cosmetology.
Ms. Davis reported that House Bill 2722 has not progressed out of committee. The bill would have to be re-filed.
HB 2597 – tattoo artists licensure by endorsement.
This bill has not progressed. To take any further action, the bill would have to be re-filed during the next legislative session.
Continuing Education for practitioners in the cosmetology professions.
A proposal was made at the January 11, 2010, Board meeting to require continuing education for practitioners in the cosmetology profession. Additional information was requested by the Board of the presenters for review. To date no additional information has been provided. The Board determined to take no further action on the matter at this time.
Review of monthly disciplinary action and complaint reports.
The Board reviewed the monthly disciplinary action reports for March and April.
Board and commission Orientation, Friday, April 23, 2010.
Attending Board members commented on the presentation and its usefulness.
National Interstate Council of State Boards of Cosmetology, Annual Conference, August 26-30. Seattle, Washington.
Ms. Davis inquired of the Board whether any members wished to attend the conference. Ms. Davis indicated that at this time the budget may allow for attendance. It was noted that the Board has not attended this event for the past two years. Ms. Davis advised the Board to inform her should one or two members want to attend.
VIII. Adjournment – Next regularly scheduled Board meeting, Monday July 12, 2010
Board panel review of felony convictions upon adjournment of meeting.
Board panel review of pending disciplinary action.
Motion to adjourn. (George/Owen).
Motion passed unanimously.