Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC)’s Executive Director, Steve Young, visibly flustered after a heated exchange with Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns mere minutes after Burns reminded him of his Louisiana Senate Commerce Committee testimony that, “most people (licensees) still pay by check,” a statement he made to Sen. Stewart Cathey (R-Monroe) during his May 21, 2025 testimony.
Okay, folks! This is going to be a feature for the books, and that’s especially the case for anyone having even the remotest interest in the cosmetology field in Louisiana.
By now, everyone will recall our May 14, 2025 feature entailing the LSBC seeking a $1 million a year fee increase, yet not being able to answer even the most basic of financial questions posed by the Senate Commerce Committee. Once the Committee told them they were ill-prepared to make such a request, they were instructed to return at the meeting one week later. At that time, someone (we have yet to ascertain who because the LSBC emphatically denies that it was them) allegedly supplied the Committee with documentation substantiating a reported $1 million in building repair costs and some $700,000+ in computer upgrade costs.
Although Rev. Freddie Lee Phillips appeared before the House Commerce Committee on April 22, 2025 seeking documentation for the breakdown of those verbally-asserted costs (at that time, the LSBC had zilch in the way of any such documentation), as of the date of this publication, July 8, 2025, seventy-seven (77) days after he requested the documentation, he remains without the first sheet of paper to substantiate any written evidence of the need for such a massive amount of money.
The fact that no such documentation is available is not for Phillips’ failure to try and obtain it. In fact, at the Senate Commerce Committee meeting of May 21, 2025, Chairman Beth Mizell advised Phillips to merely make a public records request for it. Rev. Phillips (through Sound Off’s Burns) did so to the LSBC, which responded indicating that it had “no role” in providing the Commerce Committee with any of that documentation.
Accordingly, Phillips (again through Burns) made this public records request of the Louisiana Senate on June 4, 2025. The request is self-evident regarding its content, and, late yesterday, July 7, 2025, after we sought an update on the status of the request, as evidenced by the email string between Louisiana Senate Secretary Yolanda Dixon and Burns just linked, we received the following update:
From: Dixon, Yolanda <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 4:56 PM
To: ‘Robert Burns’ <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Public Records RequestMr. Burns:
Your request is in process. We are reviewing the produced records for privilege. When the review process is finished, we will send an invoice to you.
Sincerely,
Yolanda Dixon
Secretary of the Senate
225-342-6184
It’s our hope to obtain the documentation in short order without any claim of “privilege,” especially given that Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Beth Mizell specifically guided Phillips to make the public records request, and she did so during a live portion of the Committee’s deliberations. Furthermore, according to Phillips, Sen. Ed Price (D-Gonzales) assured Phillips that he would be provided with the documentation.
Now, let’s dissect the LSBC meeting of July 7, 2025 with a fine-tooth comb:
First, the meeting lasted an hour and 19 minutes (1:19:00). Of that timeframe, 41 minutes were devoted to relative chaos that has erupted over the fact that the LSBC needs to communicate to some 41,000 + licensees that the $10 fee increase (along with other changes in fees that accompanied the bill’s passage) takes effect on August 1, 2025, which is only 24 days from the date of this feature. At the conclusion of this feature, we are going to present a link for a video of the meeting in its entirety and specify exactly the beginning and ending points so that any licensee of whatever nature may see the discussion and know what the situation is. Those licensees, however, should receive a postcard in the mail specifying the particulars of the matter but, because of the volume of material to be covered, that post card is likely to be bullet points with a statement to go to the Board’s website for further details.
Having summarized the matter in the preceding paragraph, let us state that the 41-minute discussion was extensive due to public comment made by both Burns and Phillips, with one aspect of Burns’ commentary really striking a nerve with LSBC Executive Director Steve Young. Let us present a 23-minute highlight video of that 41-minute segment of the meeting:
7/7/25: Highlights of the segment of the meeting dealing with the communication of the fee increase and the means of disseminating out the particulars of the matter to all of the licensees of this state.
We want to strongly emphasize the following fact: the video begins with Ms. Erica Williams-Parks, co-owner of Headliners NOLA (Anisa Parks is the other co-owner, and we’ve previously featured her on December 8, 2024) posing a relatively simple question about the capability of the LSBC’s website regarding online payments.
After the meeting, both Erica and Anisa informed us that yesterday, at the meeting, they learned of the ability to renew cosmetology licenses and pay for those renewals online for the first time!
We want to emphasize the fact that Anisia Parks never misses a meeting, and yet she knew nothing about being able to renew online and pay for that renewal online! We want that to sink in for a few seconds! They both indicated that the first thing they were going to communicate to their practitioners upon their return to New Orleans is the fact that the licenses can be renewed and paid for online!
Once we heard that revelation, we started calling a few other cosmetology contacts with whom we regularly correspond. One such licensed cosmetologist assisted us in fairly reporting upon the situation on being able to renew such licenses and pay for the renewal online: “The ability to do so is a relatively new capability; furthermore, it has historically been largely buried on the website and has not been an easy process. In terms of communicating the ability for licensees to be able to conduct such a renewal online and pay for it online, the Board has done a horrendously bad job of communicating that fact out to the licensees.”
The good news is that, and we don’t know the exact date that the LSBC’s website was changed, but now anyone who visits the LSBC’s website cannot miss the big “pay online” right in the center of the homepage! Certainly, that is a very favorable development for the LSBC!
Having said that, for whatever reason, as evidenced by the exchange from the 11:33 mark through the 13:20 mark of the above video, LSBC Executive Director Steve Young voices his extreme displeasure after Burns asked for an explanation of why the utilization rate of online payments is so low and referenced Young making the statement during his Senate Commerce Committee testimony that, “most people pay by check,” (those words on his part are found at the 11:49 – 11:57 segment of the video).
Only Young can explain why he got so testy about the mere fact that he indicated that historically most licensees have, “paid by check,” but the simple fact of the matter is that he did say it!
We still find it astounding that both Ms. Erica Williams-Parks and Ms. Anisia Parks had no idea, despite their steadfast and loyal attendance at LSBC meetings, that they could renew their cosmetology licenses and make payments for same online.
We did get asked as to what may be the possible reason for Young’s hostility behind the mere statement of his own words, and the only conjecture we could offer (and that’s all it is) is that perhaps he secretly doesn’t want licensees to renew online because of the credit card processing fee and/or any fees associated with Paystar, a local (Baton Rouge) firm offering the service.
Again, that’s pure conjecture on our part, but one thing is for sure: Young seems sensitive to any widespread dissemination of the fact that licensees can renew their licenses and pay for such renewals online.
Lastly, we reiterated that we’d produced a feature wherein we referenced that we’d contacted two IT experts, each of whom we can attest are absolute experts in the field, and we indicated that we published a link that they supplied to outside providers of licensing services. Let us repeat that part of the feature at this time:
We consulted with two (2) IT experts, both of whom informed us that the LSBC should absolutely outsource that function to one of many license-management vendor products. One of the two said, “This is not the business that the Cosmetology Board should be in. It’s hard for me to fathom why nobody has apparently even explored outsourcing the management of their license responsibilities!”
Well, we have a separate YouTube account which we maintain with no subscribers (on purpose). Prior to publishing this feature, we had them view the above video, and we’re going to refrain from publishing the full extent of an assessment of Kiwan Wade’s statements on the video above about the $700,000 in “programming costs.”
The response we got back by one IT expert was pretty blunt regarding Wade’s comments, with the expert saying, “Those companies do the conversions for them! This is what happens when you put people who know nothing about technology in charge of technology.”
Okay. On to the second video segment, which we’re happy to report we found very pleasing to us, and we want to compliment the LSBC Members for their kindness and receptivity to the suggestion that both Phillips and Burns made that, going forward, the LSBC place on every agenda the approval of its then-current financial statements (i.e. a “daily flash” sheet as they’re referenced in banking terms though it really is just an unadjusted printout of the ledger balances both of the income statement and the balance sheet) as of a particular date.
This is pretty standard practice at any Board or Commission which Burns has observed, but that has not been the case in the years he’s followed the LSBC. We do not believe the Members could have possibly been more receptive (to which we were very pleased), so let’s present that video:
7/7/25: The LSBC Members are very receptive to implementing an approval of financial statements on agendas going forward. Entailing the two “fluff pieces” Burns referenced as being published in The Advocate, here is the link for Neill Corporation and here is the feature for the expansion of a salon to offer “luxurious spa treatments.”
Next, we have the July consent agreements together with an update on the Declaratory Judgment matter:
7/7/25: Consent agreements and the “Declaratory Judgment” matter (with that “Declaratory Judgment” segment being from the 4:14 mark forward).
Thus far, we have refrained from reporting the first word on the “Declaratory Judgment” matter, but our patience has run out and, since this is sort of a “kitchen sink” feature, we are going to report on the matter now and also offer our own take on what we think the present situation is entailing it.
As a prelude, let us say that the nature of the matter reverts all the way back (over a decade ago) to this blog’s initial formation when we published this feature on former U. S. Congressman Joseph Cao’s claims of “lawlessness” on the part of the LSBC. In fact, it was an email we first obtained way back then (literally days after the blog was formed) by a young Vietnamese manicurist that first got us involved in the LSBC. Further, it was at our first meeting that we attended of the LSBC that we coincidentally got introduced to Nelda Dural, a young lady for whom we have the highest level of respect. The LSBC spent in excess of $50,000 shutting down Dural’s New Iberia Cosmetology School, and the hearing to do so lasted some 2-1/2 days.
With that very brief background out of the way, the whole current “Declaratory Judgment” matter entails this September 19, 2024 press release by the Pelican Institute. From the press release:
The right to a trial by jury is a fundamental American liberty enshrined in the Seventh Amendment. This safeguard ensures that the government cannot deprive citizens of their property or livelihood without due process. However, in Louisiana, the LSBC imposes steep fines and revokes licenses without offering fair recourse to a jury trial. This puts licensed professionals, such as manicurists and nail salon owners, at risk of financial jeopardy.
The LSBC oversees the licensing and regulation of cosmetologists, conducting frequent inspections and issuing fines for violations. These fines start at $25 per infraction and can escalate to $300 per day for ongoing violations. During the July 2023 to June 2024 period, every single LSBC enforcement action resulted in a monetary fine, none of which were tied to customer complaints or public health threats. This practice creates a conflict of interest, incentivizing the Board to impose fines aggressively to self-fund, rather than ensuring justice.
Amy Cao and her fellow cosmetologists are challenging this unjust system with legal representation from the Pelican Institute, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and the Cao Law Firm. The administrative petition seeks to guarantee the right to a trial by jury when the state imposes financial penalties, ensuring that no individual is at the mercy of a state regulatory board without the protection of a jury of their peers.
Joseph Cao, Attorney at Cao Law Firm, stated, “As a proud member of the Vietnamese American community, I stand firm in challenging the unjust practices that threaten our livelihoods. This fight is deeply personal—not just for me, but for every hardworking individual in our community striving for the American Dream. We are determined to ensure that justice prevails and that the rights of our people are protected against excessive and unfair regulations.”
So where does everything stand? Well, LSBC Board Attorney Morris opted to seek an Attorney General’s Opinion asking if the Board does in fact have jurisdiction entailing this matter. At the January, 2025 LSBC Meeting, Morris indicated (trust us, we have it on film) that she expected the Opinion to be released by the February 2025 meeting, and she even indicated that she felt like the reason it wasn’t available for the January meeting was due to a couple of days of weather-related State Office closures in January.
Well, it’s now nearing mid-July, and there is still no Opinion issued.
We want to emphasize that this is our own theory on that matter without the benefit of consulting anyone whatsoever, so it is 100 percent our own theory. What is that theory? That Attorney General Liz Murrill has no intention of issuing any Opinion and, instead, is holding out for a lawsuit to be filed, thus enabling her to declare the need for an Opinion to be “moot” given that the matter would be litigated.
Why do we believe this? It’s not so much a knock against Murrill because, being blunt, that’s probably her best available strategy because, by seeking the Opinion, Morris has, in our opinion, placed Murrill between a rock and a hard place where there is no favorable outcome for the Attorney General’s Office.
Murrill has two options under the scenario that she is inclined to issue an opinion (which we believe that she is completely disinclined at this juncture):
#1) She can issue an Opinion siding with Morris and stating that the LSBC has no such jurisdiction. The result? A lawsuit challenging the issuance of such an Opinion for which Murrill would have to defend and may very well lose. Such a courtroom loss would be more than a little embarrassing for her office, not to mention that she would make no friends at the LSBC if she couldn’t successfully defend her own position as espoused in any such Opinion.
#2) She can issue an Opinion in favor of the Pelican Institute stating that the LSBC does possess such jurisdiction under Louisiana’s Right to Earn a Living Act. The result? An immediate reiteration of a call for the Judgment from the LSBC which, if the effort fails (and why wouldn’t it because granting the Motion would effectively render the LSBC a toothless tiger in its own eyes and be of its own doing), would trigger a lawsuit against the LSBC which Murrill would then have to defend against as that’s a core function of the Attorney General’s Office.
So, it’s our opinion that Murrill will just continue running the pre-shot-clock equivalent in college basketball of the “four corners offense,” made famous by the late-legendary North Carolina Coach, Dean Smith. To those unfamiliar with those days, an underdog team (or a team with a modest lead as Dean’s teams often built up) would try and simply hold the ball for an entire half (no shot clock) in the case of the underdog or kill an ungodly amount of time if a modest lead had been built up and attempt to do the same in the second half (underdog team), resulting in scores of something like 5-3 for an entire game (or tons of fouling in the case of defending a team with a large lead). The strategy often worked well (in Dean’s case, to near perfection) provided the team has outstanding ball handlers (particularly at point guard) and high-percentage free-throw shooters (in those days, there was no “double bonus” free throws and non-shooting fouls were all one-and-one, meaning if the first shot is missed, there is no second shot). Nevertheless, the whole offensive scheme drove fans nuts, thus resulting in the introduction of a shot clock (which started at 45 seconds but has been reduced to 30 seconds).
So, using the analogy above, Murrill is Dean Smith, and the Pelican Institute is stuck because there is no shot clock in this analogy. Who would have the power to force Murrill to issue an Opinion? Nobody, that’s who!
Let us just say one other thing: It’s also our opinion (again, just from reading pleadings in the hair braiding litigation initiated by the Institute for Justice) that they (the Institute) failed in the litigation because of a steadfast refusal to comply with the requirements of the Right to Earn a Living Act. Specifically, Judge Wilson Fields instructed them to present the matter to the LSBC, but they felt that would be fruitless because it was a foregone conclusion that the LSBC would reject the effort. Thus, they forged full-steam ahead with the core argument advanced at the lawsuit’s inception that the LSBC had violated their clients’ Louisiana Constitutional Rights to earn a living.
What we are going to predict is that, if there isn’t a change in the mindset of the LSBC (and perhaps the new members may be so inclined, but we’ve previously expressed our firm conviction of who is REALLY calling the shots, with that being Edwin Neill III and Aveda operating by and through lobbyist Ryan Haynie, not to fight hair braiding initiatives, that the Pelican Institute will obtain new hair braiding clients, that one or more lawsuits will be filed, and that, this time, every step of the Louisiana Right to Earn a Living Act will be strictly adhered to. The result will be yet more massive legal fees for the LSBC, so that may very well consume a significant portion of the new $10 fee increase, which is one of the key reasons we opposed the fee increase and will continue to do so unless and until we see a far less restrictive stand by the LSBC regarding infringing upon the rights of Louisiana citizens to earn a living free from overly burdensome regulation, which we view the LSBC as engaging in presently just as it has done for a very protracted period.
Is it any wonder that the Attorney General’s Office guided the LSBC Members that it would be in, “your best interest” to enroll in the AG program to shield themselves from personal liability? Also, recall Executive Director Young actively opposed the Members doing so. Perhaps his thought pattern was that it was their personal liability and not his, so the program didn’t justify the cost to him since he had no risk. Furthermore, former Board Member Michael Anderson, being astute enough to read the AG packet of material at the initial January, 2025 meeting, observed the AG’s Office warning of potential personal liability if the Members declined to enroll in the program. An impromptu meeting was scheduled a week later in January, and the Board reversed course, bucked Executive Director Steve Young’s strong opposition to joining the program, and Michael Anderson decided soon thereafter that it was time to say, “See, ‘ya, guys. I’m ‘outta here!”
Okay. The next video entails former Monroe TV Reporter Kenya Ross openly advocating for a day of paid leave (through an automated computer app, “My Excuse”) to maintain Afro Touch hair. Here’s that video:
7/7/25: Ross presents her case for a paid day off to maintain Afro Touch Hair.
Here is the final individual video, and it entails a denial of a “hybrid learning” request (on an individual basis) for “emergencies” sought by Stellar Beauty Studios and Institute:
7/7/25: Presentation and denial of Stellar Beauty Studios and Institute’s letter calling for hybrid learning in the case of individual emergencies.
CLICK HERE for the meeting in its entirety and, as promised above, the segment on disseminating out the communication to licensees on the fee increase and other fee changes goes from the 35:00 mark to the 1:16:00 mark.
In conclusion, Young approached Burns after the meeting and asked, “Is this the way it’s going to be between you and me going forward?” Burns’ response: “That’s up to you, sir.”
