Fight for YOUR Free Speech

We are asking you to take a few minutes TODAY to provide feedback to the State Cosmetology and Barber Board with regard to rules being proposed. Several of them would make major changes to the rules that we live by, and not in a positive manner.

The proposed rules can be found here: https://www.cos.ohio.gov/LAWS-RULES/PROPOSED-RULES

​

Each rule that you click on has new language in blue and crossed out language in red. We have taken the liberty of reviewing these and Board Members have discussed and are making the following suggestions for you to put in your two cents about these proposals.

​

Each one of them weakens our industry, takes away competition, or takes away your rights as a Licensed Professional in Ohio. 

The good news is that by law, the Board has to listen to us on this.  Please review this document. We are suggesting that you use language that is below each proposed rule change which is in bold and send either your words or our suggestions to the Board, see the process in bold below.

​

Please take a moment to email the Board with your thoughts. This is the beginning of a process, with more opportunities to comment, but this is the first one. We are asking for a very strong start because these rules are being proposed and must be stopped or changed so as to keep a level playing field and to allow your voice to be heard with State Board.

If you have questions, you may call our lobbyist Jim Trakas at 216-534-6347 or email him at JimTrakas@Yahoo.com.  HURRY, these responses musts be filed now, and no later than Monday.

 

The Ohio State Cosmetology and Barber Board is required to draft rules in collaboration with stakeholders, assess and justify any adverse impact on the business community (as defined by SB2), and provide opportunity for the affected public to provide input on the rules.  To consider stakeholder input, the Board must reach out to stakeholders early in the rule promulgation process to capture as much feedback as possible regarding how the rule language may affect stakeholders and whether there are undue or unanticipated costs imposed by the proposed language.  The Ohio State Cosmetology and Barber Board is proposing to file the following rules.  If you have any comments on any of these rules, please forward them to: OSBCRuleReview@cos.state.oh.us. The deadline for submitting a comment is June 24, 2019.

 

Rule Package 4713 18 JUN 19

 

4713-1-05 Public meetings.

CURRENT RULE IS FUNCTIONING WELL, MORE EXPLICIT, AND DOES NOT NEED TO CHANGE.  THE PROPOSED RULE TAKES AWAY ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE LAW UNDER OAC 149.03. THE PROPOSED RULE WEAKENS THE EXPLICIT RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE LICENSED COMMUNITY TO HAVE A RIGHTFUL SAY ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE THE BOARD.

THE PROPOSAL ERODES THE ABILITY OF THE PUBLIC AND LICENSED PROFESSIONALS TO BE INFORMED AND HAVE AN OPINION ON AGENDA ITEMS AT BOARD MEETINGS THAT PERTAIN TO THEIR PROFESSION.

CURRENT LAW PROVIDES RIGHTS TO THE PUBLIC AND LICENSED PUBLIC THAT ARE TAKEN AWAY BY THIS PROPOSAL, AND EVEN WORSE, LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD.  THE PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMON SENSE INITIATIVE EXPLICITLY STATE THAT TRANSPARENCY IS ESSENTIAL IN STATE RULE MAKING. THIS PROPOSAL REMOVES TRANSPARENCY RIGHTS UNDER THE RULE.

THE CURRENT RULE ALLOWS FOR THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE THEY ARE CONSIDERED. THE PROPOSAL REMOVES THAT RIGHT. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE GOVERNED TO HAVE A SAY IN HOW THEY ARE GOVERNED, GOING BACK TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PRINCIPLES SET OUT IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

THE CURRENT RULE IS FUNCTIONING WELL, BUT AT THE JUNE MEETING OF THE BOARD, THE APPROVED AGENDA VIOLATED RULE 4713-1-05 IN BOTH SPIRIT AND THE MEASURE OF THE  LAW BY NOT ALLOWING THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON MATTERS PENDING AS IS SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT IN (D) 1.

THE CURRENT BOARD ALSO VIOLATES EXISTING RULE BY NOT PROVIDING WRITTEN MATERIALS, INCLUDING AGENDA ITEM ENTITLED EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT TO THE PUBLIC, UNLESS EXPRESSLY ASKED FOR BY PEOPLE IN THE KNOW.  THIS HAS THE AFFECT OF CREATING AN IGNORANT PUBLIC WHO ONLY SEES SIMPLE AGENDA ITEMS, BUT NOT THE REAL BOARD MATERIALS WHICH SERVE AS THE BULKWORK OF THE BOARD’S MONTHLY AGENDA. BY NOT SHARING THIS INFORMATION WITH THE PUBLIC, THE BOARD DOES A DISSERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AND VIOLATES THE SPIRIT OF THE OPEN RECORDS ACT.

WEAKENING THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW AND PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT, AND THIS RULE SHOULD BE COMPLETELY REJECTED AND THE CURRENT RULE ENFORCED AS WRITTEN.

​

 

4713-3-12 School catalogue and handbook requirements.

THE NEW LANGUAGE IS BURDENSOME TO SCHOOLS, REDUNDANT, AND COSTLY, AND DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF RULE MAKING SET OUT UNDER THE COMMON SENSE INITIATIVE.

BY REQUIRING SCHOOLS TO SUBMIT ANNAULLY SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY, AND AT GREAT EXPENSE TO THE LICENSED SCHOOLS, NEEDED IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AND KEEP ACCREDITATION, THE PROPOSED RULE IS ADDING A COSTLY BURDEN TO SCHOOLS.

SEVERAL NATIONAL ACCREDITING AGENCIES INCLUDING NAACAS, WHICH THE PROPONDERANCE OF SCHOOLS HAVE TO USE AS AN ACCREDITING AGENCY, HAVE VERY DETAILED POLICIES AND COMPLIANCE THAT REGULATES SCHOOLS EFFECTIVELY.  ADDING THE BURDEN OF ALSO HAVING TO GO THROUGH AN ANNUAL BOARD PROCESS, ESSENTIALLY ANOTHER ACCREDITING STEP, ADDS SUBSTANTIAL COST, TIME, AND INEFFICIENCY TO A SCHOOL.

RECOMMENDED IS TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT EXEMPTS NATIONALLY ACCREDITED SCHOOLS FROM THIS BURDEN, AND ONLY REQUIRING NON-ACCREDITED INSTITUTIONS TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.  I SUGGEST LANGUAGE THAT STATES: “except for schools accredited by national accrediting agencies.” IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE PROPOSED RULE.  

 

4713-3-13 School contract requirements.

SIMILAR TO 4713-3-12 ABOVE. THE NEW LANGUAGE IS BURDENSOME TO SCHOOLS, REDUNDANT, AND COSTLY, AND DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF RULE MAKING SET OUT UNDER THE COMMON SENSE INITIATIVE.

BY REQUIRING SCHOOLS TO SUBMIT ANNAULLY SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY, AND AT GREAT EXPENSE TO THE LICENSED SCHOOLS, NEEDED IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AND KEEP ACCREDITATION, THE PROPOSED RULE IS ADDING A COSTLY BURDEN TO SCHOOLS.

SEVERAL NATIONAL ACCREDITING AGENCIES INCLUDING NAACAS, WHICH THE PROPONDERANCE OF SCHOOLS HAVE TO USE AS AN ACCREDITING AGENCY, HAVE VERY DETAILED POLICIES AND COMPLIANCE THAT REGULATES SCHOOLS EFFECTIVELY.  ADDING THE BURDEN OF ALSO HAVING TO GO THROUGH AN ANNUAL BOARD PROCESS, ESSENTIALLY ANOTHER ACCREDITING STEP, ADDS SUBSTANTIAL COST, TIME, AND INEFFICIENCY TO A SCHOOL.

RECOMMENDED IS TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT EXEMPTS NATIONALLY ACCREDITED SCHOOLS FROM THIS BURDEN, AND ONLY REQUIRING NON-ACCREDITED INSTITUTIONS TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.  I SUGGEST LANGUAGE THAT STATES: “except for schools accredited by national accrediting agencies.” IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE PROPOSED RULE.  

 

4713-8-03 Standards relating to competent practice as a cosmetologist.

I OPPOSE THIS ENTIRE NEW RULE AS CREATING A DOUBLE STANDARD BETWEEN TYPES OF CLASS II OR CLASS III MEDICAL DEVICES AS SET OUT BY THE STATE MEDICAL BOARD. THIS RULE WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT SALONS THAT OFFER THESE SERVICE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PHYSICIAN IN OHIO. 

THE BOARD HAS CURRENT LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS COSMETOLOGISTS TO OPERATE EQUIPMENT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO HANDLE. THIS PROPOSED RULE IS A SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC HARM TO LICENSED COSMETOLOGISTS AND SALONS THAT PROVIDE THESE SERVICES. IT IS SIMPLY RUNNING A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A DOCTOR, AND NO DIFFERENT THAN RUNNING A MICRODERMABRASION DEVICE OR OTHER APPROVED DEVICES UNDER LAW.

THE BOARD SHOULD NOT SUBMIT THIS RULE, INSTEAD IT SHOULD MATCH THE STANDARD FOR THE DEVICES LISTED THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER EQUIPMENT THAT COSMETOLOGISTS CAN BE TRAINED TO USE AND THAT CAN ADD TO THE VALUE OF THE INDUSTRY AND BE FINANCIALLY REWARDING TO THE COSMETOLOGIST AND SALON. IT IS ACCEPTED PRACTICE TO ALLOW FOR EQUIPMENT TO BE TRAINED BY THE MANUFACTURER FOR USE IN A SALON, AND THESE SERVICES SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT. THEY ARE NOT INTRUSIVE, AND COVER THE OUTSIDE SKIN OF THE CUSTOMER, WELL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PRACTICE.

 

4713-8-04 Standards relating to competent practice as an esthetician.

SIMILAR TO 4713-8-03 ABOVE, I OPPOSE THIS ENTIRE NEW RULE AS CREATING A DOUBLE STANDARD BETWEEN TYPES OF CLASS II OR CLASS III MEDICAL DEVICES AS SET OUT BY THE STATE MEDICAL BOARD. THIS RULE WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT SALONS THAT OFFER THESE SERVICE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PHYSICIAN IN OHIO. 

THE BOARD HAS CURRENT LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS ESTHETICIANS TO OPERATE EQUIPMENT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO HANDLE. THIS PROPOSED RULE IS A SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC HARM TO LICENSED ESTHETICIANS AND SALONS THAT PROVIDE THESE SERVICES. IT IS SIMPLY RUNNING A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A DOCTOR, AND NO DIFFERENT THAN RUNNING A MICRODERMABRASION DEVICE OR OTHER APPROVED DEVICES UNDER LAW.

THE BOARD SHOULD NOT SUBMIT THIS RULE, INSTEAD IT SHOULD MATCH THE STANDARD FOR THE DEVICES LISTED THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER EQUIPMENT THAT COSMETOLOGISTS CAN BE TRAINED TO USE AND THAT CAN ADD TO THE VALUE OF THE INDUSTRY AND BE FINANCIALLY REWARDING TO THE ESTHETICIAN AND SALON. IT IS ACCEPTED PRACTICE TO ALLOW FOR EQUIPMENT TO BE TRAINED BY THE MANUFACTURER FOR USE IN A SALON, AND THESE SERVICES SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT. THEY ARE NOT INTRUSIVE, AND COVER THE OUTSIDE SKIN OF THE CUSTOMER, WELL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PRACTICE.

 

4713-15-03 Disinfection of implements and spills; blood and body fluids.

I OPPOSE THIS RULE BECAUSE COMBINED WITH PROPOSED RULE 4713-15-18, IT HAS THE AFFECT OF BRINGING BACK NECK DUSTERS WHICH ARE CURRENTLY NOT USED, AND RIGHTLY SO FOR SANITARY REASONS. NECK DUSTERS ARE UNSANITARY, CAN SPREAD DISEASES SUCH AS RINGWORM, BLOOD BORNE PATHOGENS, AND OTHER BACTERIAL BASED ILLNESS.  NECK DUSTERS ARE DIFFICULT TO PROPERLY SANITIZE. IN THE CASE OF PARTRONS WITH EVEN SMALL ABRASIONS, NECK DUSTERS CAN SPREAD BLOOD, AND ARE NOT DISPOSABLE, SO BLOOOD WOULD STAY ON THE NECK DUSTER.  BECAUSE NECK DUSTERS ARE POUROUS MATERIAL FOR THE USE OF CLEANING HAIR FROM THE SKIN, THE POUROUS MATERIAL CANNOT BE DISINFECTED AND SANTIZED AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES. THERE IS VERY LIMITED SUPPLY IN THE FIELD OF A DISPOSABLE NECK DUSTER. THE COST PROHIBITS THAT, AND SO NECK DUSTERS WOULD BE USED AGAINA AND AGAIN. CURRENT BARBER AND SALON PRACTICE NOW USES PAPER TOWEL WITH TALCUM POWDER WHICH IS THEN DISCARDED. THERE IS NO TEMPTATION TO RE-USE A PAPER TOWEL.  THIS PROPOSED RULE REOPENS SAFETY AND INFECTION CONTROL ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN SOLVED FOR YEARS. THERE IS NO REASON TO BRING NECK DUSTERS BACK.

 

 

4713-15-18 Infection control standards for licensees under Chapter 4709. of the Revised Code.

I OPPOSE THIS RULE BECAUSE COMBINED WITH PROPOSED RULE 4713-15-03, IT HAS THE AFFECT OF BRINGING BACK NECK DUSTERS WHICH ARE CURRENTLY NOT USED, AND RIGHTLY SO FOR SANITARY REASONS. NECK DUSTERS ARE UNSANITARY, CAN SPREAD DISEASES SUCH AS RINGWORM, BLOOD BORNE PATHOGENS, AND OTHER BACTERIAL BASED ILLNESS.  NECK DUSTERS ARE DIFFICULT TO PROPERLY SANITIZE. IN THE CASE OF PARTRONS WITH EVEN SMALL ABRASIONS, NECK DUSTERS CAN SPREAD BLOOD, AND ARE NOT DISPOSABLE, SO BLOOOD WOULD STAY ON THE NECK DUSTER.  BECAUSE NECK DUSTERS ARE POUROUS MATERIAL FOR THE USE OF CLEANING HAIR FROM THE SKIN, THE POUROUS MATERIAL CANNOT BE DISINFECTED AND SANTIZED AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES. THERE IS VERY LIMITED SUPPLY IN THE FIELD OF A DISPOSABLE NECK DUSTER. THE COST PROHIBITS THAT, AND SO NECK DUSTERS WOULD BE USED AGAINA AND AGAIN. CURRENT BARBER AND SALON PRACTICE NOW USES PAPER TOWEL WITH TALCUM POWDER WHICH IS THEN DISCARDED. THERE IS NO TEMPTATION TO RE-USE A PAPER TOWEL.  THIS PROPOSED RULE REOPENS SAFETY AND INFECTION CONTROL ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN SOLVED FOR YEARS. THERE IS NO REASON TO BRING NECK DUSTERS BACK.

 

Rescission of Existing 4713-1-05

I OPPOSE THIS PROPOSED RULE RECISSION FOR REASONS STATED IN 4713-1-05 ABOVE, AND RE-ENUMERATED HERE.

CURRENT RULE IS FUNCTIONING WELL, MORE EXPLICIT, AND DOES NOT NEED TO CHANGE.  THE PROPOSED RULE TAKES AWAY ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE LAW UNDER OAC 149.03. THE PROPOSED RULE LESSENS THE EXPLICIT RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE LICENSED COMMUNITY TO HAVE A RIGHTFUL SAY ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE THE BOARD.

THE PROPOSAL ERODES THE ABILITY OF THE PUBLIC AND LICENSED PROFESSIONALS TO BE INFORMED AND HAVE AN OPINION ON AGENDA ITEMS AT BOARD MEETINGS THAT PERTAIN TO THEIR PROFESSION.

CURRENT LAW PROVIDES RIGHTS TO THE PUBLIC AND LICENSED PUBLIC THAT ARE TAKEN AWAY BY THIS PROPOSAL, AND EVEN WORSE, LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD.  THE PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMON SENSE INITIATIVE EXPLICITLY STATE THAT TRANSPARENCY IS ESSENTIAL IN STATE RULE MAKING. THIS PROPOSAL REMOVES TRANPARENCY RIGHTS UNDER THE RULE.

THE CURRENT RULE ALLOWS FOR THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE THEY ARE CONSIDERED. THE PROPOSAL REMOVES THAT RIGHT. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE GOVERNED TO HAVE A SAY IN HOW THEY ARE GOVERNED, GOING BACK TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PRINCIPLES SET OUT IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

THE CURRENT RULE IS FUNCTIONING WELL, BUT AT THE JUNE MEETING OF THE BOARD, THE APPROVED AGENDA VIOLATED RULE 4713-1-05 IN BOTH SPIRIT AND THE MEASURE OF THE  LAW BY NOT ALLOWING THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON MATTERS PENDING AS IS SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT IN (D) 1.

THE CURRENT BOARD ALSO VIOLATES EXISTING RULE BY NOT PROVIDING WRITTEN MATERIALS, INCLUDING AGENDA ITEM ENTITLED EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT TO THE PUBLIC, UNLESS EXPRESSLY ASKED FOR BY PEOPLE IN THE KNOW.  THIS HAS THE AFFECT OF CREATING AN IGNORANT PUBLIC WHO ONLY SEES SIMPLE AGENDA ITEMS, BUT NOT THE REAL BOARD MATERIALS WHICH SERVE AS THE BULKWORK OF THE BOARD’S MONTHLY AGENDA. BY NOT SHARING THIS INFORMATION WITH THE PUBLIC, THE BOARD DOES A DISSERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AND VIOLATES THE SPIRIT OF THE OPEN RECORDS ACT.

WEAKING THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW AND PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT, AND THIS RULE SHOULD BE COMPLETELY REJECTED AND THE CURRENT RULE ENFORCED AS WRITTEN.