Letters to the Editors
(June 2002)
Past Letters
ON SERVING THE MAJORITY
Dear Editors:
I am writing in response to a letter from Bette Pritchett, published in the
March 2002 issue of International Hair Route. I would appreciate the opportunity
to clarify some of these issues for your readers.
At the March 2002 Professional Hair Removal Conference, the membership of the
Society of Clinical and Medical Electrologists (SCME) voted to revise the bylaws
and change its name to Society for Clinical and Medical Hair Removal (SCMHR).
By making this name change, the Society is not abandoning the profession of
electrology. Rather it is enhancing it by allowing those practitioners involved
in alternative modes of hair removal to join us in achieving our mutual goal. It
doesn’t matter if one is a member of the Guild, or the American Electrology
Association (AEA), all hair removal specialists want the same thing — safe,
effective hair removal.
This does not mean, however, that the SCMHR believes we should all join forces
as one big happy organization. When fighting for legislation for tougher laws
governing hair removal, or when striving to get the recognition we deserve as
allied health professionals, three voices are louder than one. The SCMHR is 100%
for keeping our separate organizations and our separate ideas. But don’t lose
sight of the forest for all of the trees. In other words, don’t become so bogged
down in cutting up another organization and its ideas and forget that, in the
long run, we are all working toward a common goal.
Although not mentioned in Ms. Pritchett’s correspondence, it has come to my
attention that a letter has been circulated, which condemns a $50,000 gift that
was given to our organization by the laser companies. This gift, given to us in
1996, was used to establish our certification program. While grateful for the
gift, our Society was not then, and is not now, controlled or influenced by the
laser companies.
The SCMHR’s position on the use of laser is based on what is wanted by the
majority of its membership. While we certainly understand that some of our
members were unhappy, we also feel that the majority of the members’ wishes were
met.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to your readership. The SCMHR wishes you
the best in your future endeavors.
—
Lisia Cooley-Walch
President, SCMHR
Middleton, Wisconsin
ON
FAILING THE MINORITY
Dear Hair Route:
Further to my letter to the Editors in the March issue of Hair Route, regarding
the fate of the International Guild of Professional Electrologists — which was
to be determined at the IGPE Annual Membership Meeting and Congress in Chicago
this April — I thought your readers might be interested in the outcome. [See
Hair Route story in this issue, page 16]
As far back as last year, I heard rumblings of displeasure regarding the
longtime use of laser by IGPE President, Trudy Brown. Many electrologists
expressed an opinion that a laser practitioner had no business continuing as the
president of an organization whose charter specifically describes itself as a
probe-electrolysis organization. Furthermore, there was a consensus that Ms.
Brown and the IGPE board were embarrassing our profession by attempting to
change the IGPE’s name and function to meet their own purposes.
When Fino Gior [founder and past president of the IGPE] offered to support the
newly formed “Ethical IGPE Coalition,” I attended the Chicago meeting with the
intention of putting his name forward as a candidate for president in opposition
to Ms. Brown.
When the Convention came to order, the first line of business was to shuffle the
Convention schedule — a schedule that already was different to the one sent to
me earlier by mail. Then the rules of the election were tweaked so that only a
person present at the nomination could be nominated to be posted as a recognized
candidate for any public office (a move unforeseen by our side).
As the new rules forbid nominating anyone not present, no one was now able to
nominate the absent Fino Gior for any office. But keeping my promise that
somebody’s name would be on the ballot in opposition to Mrs. Brown, I nominated
myself to stand in the path of the bullet train.
When the voting room was opened (at a time that only those at the convention
could know about) things went as predicted. Ms. Brown retained the Guild
presidency with 39 votes. I received four votes. Five voters abstained.
Voting on the amendments to change the corporate name of the Guild went much the
same. It was arranged that the vote be placed in the business meeting, so no
secret ballot could be had, and it was to be a detractors only standing vote. As
Ms. Brown’s icy stare lased the room, only a brave third of the eligible voters
in the room got to their feet.
With that, the IGPE officially became “The International Guild of Professional
Electrologists, Inc. — doing business as the International Guild of Hair Removal
Specialists.” Ms. Brown’s victory was complete.
—
James W. Walker VII
Buffalo, New York
home
subscribe
advertise
about us
