NEW YORK STATE APPEARANCE ENHANCEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
September 24, 2012
The meeting was held at the Department of State, 99 Washington Avenue, 5th Floor Conference Room, Albany; 65 Court Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room, Buffalo; and 123 William Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room, NYC.
CALL TO ORDER
D. McKinley-Soressi called the meeting to order at 10:35 a.m.
INTRODUCTION, ROLL CALL AND QUORUM ANNOUNCEMENT
D. McKinley-Soressi took roll call and announced that the committee had a quorum. Official attendance was as follows:
Dorothy McKinley-Soressi, Chair
Rae Ann Amacher
Richard A. Caputo
Michael Limb – did not show
Cheryl Winstel, NYS Education Dept.
Diana Georgia, Marsh Wasserman McHugh
Anthony Fragomeni, Empire Education
DEPARTMENT OF STATE STAFF
Marcos Vigil, Deputy Secretary for Business and Licensing
Kathleen McCoy, Director, Division of Licensing Services
Michael Elmendorf, Chief Investigator
Whitney Clark, Counsel
Aqil Qureshi, License Investigator IV
Keith Simon, Supervisor, Exam Unit
Mary Jo Moore, Assoc. Exam Tech., Processing
Amy Penzabene, Systems Liaison
John Goldman, Lic. Invest. 3 & District Manager
Ernita Gantt, Lics. Invest. 3 & District Manager
Marc Mastrobuono, Education Bureau
Denise Tidings, Exam Development
Carol Brimmer, License Investigator
Kathy Vasko, Information Technology Services
Carol Fansler, Board Coordination
SUBCOMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS
R. Amacher made a motion to approve the December 21, 2011 meeting summary; A. Hanson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
A. Hanson made a motion to approve the May 14, 2012 meeting summary; R. Caputo seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
D. McKinley-Soressi stated that the last esthetics subcommittee meeting to review and make proposed changes to the esthetics curriculum was delayed due to technical difficulties and another meeting is scheduled for October 19. She added that members anticipate possibly meeting in Albany to try and complete the review.
M. Elmendorf presented an enforcement update and talked about trends. He stated that the inspections completed over the last four years resulted in 11-1/2% being cited for unlicensed businesses, 13-1/4% were cited for unlicensed practitioners, 19% were cited for sanitary violations, 53% were cited for technical violations (i.e. posting, uncovered trashcan, etc.), 20% were cited for no proof of insurance on premises. As a result of these cases, 56% were referred for discipline. E. Gantt then talked about cases over the past 3 years. One case involved a person who got a staph infection from a nail salon. The results of the investigation showed the nail salon had 2 unlicensed nail technicians, in addition to disinfected instruments. Therefore, the license was revoked, and restitution as well as a monetary penalty was required to be paid. Two other cases involved falsifying qualifications on applications by indicating they had completed the required education hours, but the investigation showed they had not. M. Elmendorf shared that the investigators also discuss violations with licensee and refer them to the section of law that covers the violation, as a way to educate the licensee. M. Vigil shared that the department is partnering with other city and state agencies, and Chambers of Commerce, as a way to share helpful information with new licensees, as well as informing current licensees about any changes to laws or regulations.
A. Penzabene and K. Vasko delivered a power-point presentation of a new electronic system currently under development that will require appearance enhancement applicants and licensees to conduct all of their licensing business with the Department of State on-line. This system will expedite the time frame to acquire a license by allowing applicants to complete the application process on-line, including reserving an appointment to take their written and/or practical exams, and following the status of their application through until they are licensed. The Department will also be collecting email addresses from current licensees, as a way to better share important licensing information. The new system is scheduled to be up and running in the second half of 2013. A. Hanson asked if the exam results can be given in sections, as a way to identify problem areas for the student. A. Penzabene stated that this may be possible in the future, once the new program is up and running.
D. McKinley-Soressi shared a draft regulation regarding waxing. This new regulation would amend section 160.20 of 19 NYCRR to add requirements to: wear disposable gloves; use a new applicator each time it is inserted into the wax; and, that all scissors and tweezers must be new or sterilized before use on each customer.
D. McKinley-Soressi made a motion that the proposal to amend 160.20 of 19NYCRR move forward for publication in the NY State Register. The motion was seconded by A. Hanson and passed unanimously.
A. Hanson began a discussion about the possibility of requiring continuing education credits prior to renewal of a license, as a way to keep licensees informed on new current information or industry trends. W. Clark explained that would require a change to the statute, and suggested an education subcommittee be formed to discuss specific requirements for New York, such as how many hours are required, what subjects can be covered, etc. Subcommittee members are W. Clark, D. McKinley-Soressi, A. Hanson, and R. Amacher.
A. Hanson started a discussion about a limitation for a school certifying that a student took their course and is ready to be tested and licensed. She feels it is unfair to allow a student to test many years after being certified, due to changes in statute and/or regulations. She asked if any other disciplines currently limit certifications. A. Penzabene shared that without the limitation specifically stated in the statute, the State cannot limit the amount of time required to take and pass the State exams. After discussion, it was decided that this issue should be discussed between the schools and the Education Department (who oversees the appearance enhancement schools). D. McKinley-Soressi said she would contact the Education Department. C. Winstel shared that for public schools the Education Department recommends, in cases where applicants do not choose to take the State exam right away, that a school require an assessment exam be taken with the school before the school will sign off on their education. D. McKinley-Soressi stated that the majority of private schools sign off on the education at the end of their course, and find it difficult to track when the State exam is taken.
W. Clark talked about the possibility of allowing appearance enhancement applicants to sit for their written exam after completing 80% of the required education. She stated that this requirement could be allowed with a regulation change, and if the committee wants to move forward the education subcommittee formed earlier should discuss specifics of the new regulation, i.e. at what point can a student take the exam, are certain aspects of the education required before taking the exam, if they pass are they required to complete the education, etc. The above-formed education subcommittee is charged with drafting specifics for this proposed requirement.
D. McKinley-Soressi submitted a proposed update to 160.25 of 19 NYCRR to allow the use of electronic equipment to store and make accessible Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) information. W. Clark stated that she will prepare draft proposed language for members to review at the next committee meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
A public member asked how licensees would be notified when new rules are passed, and said that she has heard complaints from businesses who were violated for a rule they were not aware had been implemented. M. Vigil shared that the Department has been taking part in joint sessions to inform and educate the public on licensing requirements, and new regulations. Once the new on-line system is implemented, licensees will be notified via email as needed.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.