Master Esthetician in Washington – Advice for California
Last week, I posted insight from ‘Skin Chick’ on the hearing for the new Esthetic license. I had to smile reading Skin Chick’s point of view. I fully agree with her that this process was ‘colorful’ … we give our input, along with others that we may or may not agree with, and have to trust that the Cosmetology Board will make the best decision possible. I don’t envy the Program Manager; writing rules to support the statute is a difficult process because all rules have limitations. We’ll keep our fingers crossed and see where the rules fall.
After the hearing, I hopped over to SeaTac and flew out New York City for a meeting. In addition to serving as an administrator at my college, I also serve on the Board of Directors for the American Association of Cosmetology Schools. It’s an incredible association that represent nearly 1100 Cosmetology Schools across North America; three years ago, I was selected to represent the members the association. It’s been both an exciting and humbling journey. We meet a number of times throughout the year, but each summer, the entire board gets together for a face to face meeting to make strategic decisions regarding beauty education and the beauty industry.
During one of the breaks, I had a chance to talk to another board member from California. She is part of group that is trying to introduce a second tiered esthetic license in California. After a short conversation, she asked me how Washington’s process was going. I shared that the bill had passed and we are in the rules portion.
She asked me what were some things that I wished Washington would have done differently and I shared the following below:
- Have a more inclusive process in development of the bill. Include different associations in formulating the bill including Associated Skin Care Professionals, ITEC, NCEA, CIDESCO, the American Association of Cosmetology Schools, etc. By including more representatives, it increases perspective and will represent the industry as a whole.
- Keep the statutes more general to allow the state board to address grandfathering in rule. One of the challenges with how the bill was written here in Washington was that there isn’t much room for the state board to adjust rules to support the integrity of the bill. By writing statute so specific, there is no flexibility when other issues come up during public input to make adjustments.
- Ensure that that the grandfathering clauses were well reasoned and supported. During the two rules hearing that I attended, I think there were common themes and frustrations with the rationale behind the grandfathering clauses were developed here in Washington.
- Research and see if a second tiered esthetic license truly reduced liabilities and claims and increased public safety. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that education is good, but I also believe that laws should be introduced only if it can be supported. As I reached out to different insurance associations regarding the amount of claims in states where there was only one type of esthetic license versus a two tiered license, I wasn’t able to find clear indicators that one tiered states had more claims. It’s definitely my hope that with Washington having a two tiered program, we’ll be able to increase public safety.
This was expressed with the upmost respect. I shared with her that there was a great deal of hard work that was put forth for us to have this bill here in Washington, and wanted to share what are a few things that would have made our bill better.
I’d like to ask you, what are some things that you wished would have been done differently with the Washington Bill? Please write your comments below and I’ll share it with California.