Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC) Chairman Jennifer Cobb Reed prepares to open the Special Meeting of the Board on Monday, August 31, 2026.
Late yesterday (Sunday, August 30, 2026), we received word that the LSBC was planning a meeting for today (Monday, August 31, 2026) with the only item on the agenda being the hiring of an “HR Consultant.”
We attended the meeting (for the record, Burns was the only public member in attendance), which commenced at noon, at which time the LSBC approved this HR Consulting Contract. Since the meeting was incredibly short, we are going to provide the meeting in its entirety, which also included Burns making an apology to LSBC Executive Director Erin Marceaux which was referenced as an addendum to our last feature:
8/31/26: LSBC Member Rene Bosworth reads the resolution authorizing the hiring of an HR Consultant (Mary Gloston).
Here is a summation of the contract’s crucial terms and parameters (but not an exhaustive list of risks and allocations, etc):
Parties
Agency (“State”): Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC)
Contractor: Mary V. Gloston, 7111 Village Maison Ct, Unit 52, Baton Rouge, LA 70809; 225-931-9854
Federal employer ID is listed as N/A (individual contractor).
Term
Start: August 24, 2026
End: August 23, 2027
One optional 12-month renewal at the same price, terms, and conditions, at the State’s option and with Contractor acceptance.
Maximum duration: 36 months.
Work may not begin until the contract is fully executed and all required approvals are obtained.
Scope
Contractor will provide HR subject-matter expertise for LSBC: review, analysis, and consultation on policies, practices, and procedures that affect HR governance, plus review of daily operational functions including payroll and benefits.
Personal-performance clause: services must be performed solely by Mary V. Gloston. Employees, agents, or subcontractors require prior written State consent. Unauthorized delegation is a material breach and can trigger immediate termination.
Money
Item
Term
Hourly rate
$50.00
Expected effort
Part-time, at least 18 hours per week
Contract ceiling
$49,999.00
Invoicing
Monthly to the address designated by the State
Payment
About 30 days after a proper invoice; Executive Director approval required
Advances
Prohibited
At $50/hour and a $49,999 cap, billable hours cannot exceed 999.98 hours for the year (~19.2 hours/week over 52 weeks). The “at least 18 hours per week” floor, if followed for a full year (~936 hours), would use most of the cap.
Late-payment interest follows La. R.S. 39:1695 / 13:4202. Applicable taxes are treated as included in the fee.
How it can end
Immediate State termination for listed grounds (misrepresentation, fraud, statutory conflict, abusive conduct, Procurement Code violations, debarment grounds).
For cause: 30-day written cure (or good-faith start of cure if 30 days is not enough).
For convenience: 30 days’ notice, or a negotiated date; State pays for satisfactory work through termination.
Non-appropriation: ends if the Legislature does not fund continuation; no penalty to the State.
Contractor for-cause termination runs through the Chief Procurement Officer claims process (La. R.S. 39:1672.2–1672.4).
Amendments must be written, signed, and approved as required by law (compensation, dates, scope, or assignment).
So, in a nutshell, that’s it folks. We have been asked, “What was the rush? The regular meeting was only 14 days away (Monday, September 13, 2026).” Our answer: “We don’t know.” Common sense, however, would dictate that there was clearly a desire to put Gloston to work ASAP.
As a final note, at the end of the prior feature, Burns noted that, as an occasional “belt and suspenders guy” he was making a public records request just in case Gov. Landry did issue a written directive indicating that the use of body cameras must cease. He indicated that he fully expected a, “there are no records responsive to your request” response.
Sure enough, on Friday, August 28, 2026 at 11:04 a.m., we received an email with this statement to us regarding our request:
“Unfortunately, there are no responsive records pertaining to your last public records request.”
Facebook post made on Wednesday, August 19, 2026 wherein Jennifer Tureau states body cameras are gone because, “Jeff Landry told her (Paulette Garrett) and the (Louisiana State) Board (of Cosmetology) (LSBC) to ‘take that shit off immediately!'” Thereafter, Jaci Baker states that Garrett informed her “last week” that, “the next time she (Garrett) comes in, she will be wearing a body cam!!” The posts are among a barrage of posts expressing extreme anger at the LSBC and Garrett individually over what they assert are repeated acts of harassment during inspections of their salons.
———————————
ADDENDUM 8/26/26 @ 3:20 p.m.
Earlier today, we emailed this “substance over form” apology to LSBC Executive Director Erin Marceaux. The apology email speaks for itself and, while our statement about a Saturday transmission from Marceaux to Emily Andrews was in fact withheld from us, an identical email sent by Marceaux to Andrews on Friday, April 20, 2026 at 8:49 p.m. was in fact included in the original set of emails supplied by the LSBC. We mistakenly took that email strictly as a forward from LSBC Chairman Reed to Marcuaux (which it was, but there was then the actual copy and paste email from Marceaux to Andrews right beneath that forward). We caught this inadvertent mistake on our part ourselves and, upon doing so, we transmitted the just-linked apology email only about an hour later.
We first made our public records request entailing the body cameras on Friday, April 24, 2026. We received the emails on the body cameras 46 days later, on Tuesday, June 9, 2026. Because the emails made it very clear that the blame for the body camera suspension was being placed squarely on Gov. Jeff Landry, we felt it only appropriate to inquire of his office seeking public records regarding the cameras which would also afford his office the opportunity to add any comment his office may wish to make.
Accordingly, we made a public records request of Gov. Landry’s Administration on Monday, June 15, 2026. Gov. Landry’s Administration could not have been more accommodating in providing the records in digital format at no charge on Friday, July 10, 2026. Anyone is welcome to see all of the emails by clicking here.
Anyone who knows Burns knows that he does not like records being withheld from him as was done by the LSBC on this occasion [However, please see addendum above regarding our apology to LSPC Executive Director Erin Marceaux regarding “substance over form.”] Accordingly, at the conclusion of the LSBC meeting of Monday, July 13, 2026, Burns approached Marceaux and asked, “Are you absolutely certain that you gave me every email on those body cameras,” to which Marceaux responded, “Yes, unless it was privileged.”
Burns then asked, “Are you stating that you were informed that an email was privileged?” Marceaux’s response was to ask which email Burns was referencing, to which Burns replied, “I’ll publish it.”
Recently, you were provided with documents including emails responsive to your public records request to the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology regarding body cameras. Some emails determined to be responsive to your request were not provided to you with the initial response to determine whether any privilege applied to the communications with the Governor’s Office.
I was informed that the emails with the Governor’s Office not provided to you by the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology have already been provided to you by the Governor’s Office on Friday. Please consider the copies of the emails between employees of the Governor’s Office and employees of the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology sent to you by the Governor’s Office on Friday as supplemental to the Board’s response to your public records request for communications regarding body cameras.
Okay, really? So, the LSBC seriously spent 75 days from the date of our request to try and ascertain whether Marceaux’s email with the Governor’s Office was “privileged?” [We’re leaving this commentary “as is;” however, please see addendum above regarding our apology to LSPC Executive Director Erin Marceaux]. We’re not sure exactly what about Burns’ appearance or actions must cause some folk to believe he just fell off the turnip truck the day before, but clearly this is an instance of the LSBC, and its attorney, Sheri Morris, operating under that presumption. No, the reality is that the email was intentionally withheld (but not by Gov. Landry’s Office), and the LSBC had no intention whatsoever of ever providing that email to Burns! It’s that simple! [Again, we’re leaving this commentary “as is;” however, please see addendum above regarding our apology to LSPC Executive Director Erin Marceaux regarding “substance over form.”]
Now, Marceaux tends to be quite verbose in written correspondence and especially at presenting the “Director’s Report” at meetings, so let us do our best to sum up what Marceaux had to say:
Erin Marceaux, Executive Director of the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC), explains and justifies the agency’s recent implementation of body cameras for inspectors. The initiative was first discussed in a board meeting over six months earlier and received unanimous board approval after extended deliberations. Notice was posted on the agency website 60 days before field deployment.
Primary rationales include:
Accountability and anti-corruption: Cameras create an objective record to counter allegations of bribes or misconduct during inspections, protecting both inspectors and license holders.
Transparency and fairness: Recordings reduce misunderstandings in stressful inspections, eliminate perceptions of bias (including prior public claims of discrimination against certain minority groups or unlicensed workers that raised lawsuit risks), and promote professional treatment.
Evidence for hearings: Video supports accurate documentation in administrative proceedings that function like trials, with restricted access and redaction processes for records requests.
Inspector safety: Cameras deter inappropriate behavior and document incidents (e.g., inspectors being locked in establishments).
Marceaux reports no direct complaints received by the agency after launch; licensee feedback has been limited to questions that, once answered, generally led to understanding and satisfaction with the progressive changes. Inspectors (themselves licensed cosmetologists) support the tools for professional growth and best practices.
In response to concerns (apparently raised with Andrews’ office), Marceaux states that all body camera operations were ordered ceased effective that afternoon pending further notice, with a staff meeting scheduled for the following Monday. She invites ongoing communication of any complaints, emphasizes open channels (email, phone, social media, and a forthcoming improved website), and seeks support to resume the program to uphold agency integrity, protect all parties, and maintain public confidence.
We commend Gov. Landry’s Office in providing the email, and we openly vent our frustration at both the withholding of it from us by the LSBC and the absolutely insulting explanation for why it was withheld from us as noted above! [Again, we reference the addendum above regarding our apology to LSPC Executive Director Erin Marceaux regarding “substance over form.”]
We are of the firm opinion that both the top brass on staff at the LSBC and the Board Members are well aware of the type of harassment that is being alleged by salon owners, but all of their focus is (and always has been) on schools, maximizing school income, with little or no regard whatsoever for what those “behind the chair” endure when inspectors show up.
We have repeatedly been asked how soon we would have this feature out, and we have explained that we deploy the same meticulous, detailed process that we conduct for any feature of this nature. That process is likely a holdover from Burns’ fraud investigation background with the Federal Government, but we believe the techniques have served this blog well, particularly with regard to credibility.
I encourage all of yall to get dual licensed and file your suite or salon under the barber board! She is awful! I had to literally tell her to get out of my salon when she was rude to a client. That was my last straw. I’ve owned my salon for 10 years and I’ve maybe be fined once, since she took over I had a stack of fines! Went to the board, pretty much they did nothing. So I kicked her out of my salon and was supposed to have a hearing In October of last year, which I was looking forward to. Well they gave me fiftyleven reasons why we didn’t have it and by now I have closed my big salon and went to a suite and I have filed it under a barber shop because if I have to deal with her again…wellll you know if you know me.
Fight back, call the board and do not let this tyrant ruin your business.
Must be the same one that stopped at my grandmas shop the other day. Maw maws shop is next to her house. Down a dead end road. Said she needed a lid on her garbage can! She been doing hair for 50 years in her shop. I told her to quit paying her license. You think people ain’t going to come get their hair done just because you ain’t got a license! Bunch a bullchit
She already hit us up!! I have been doing hair for 30 years and have ran a successful business, and have never had someone not picky. I mean she grips about how many towels are on the shelf.  my hamper that has holes on the side for ventilation has to have a lid on it.. make it make sense!!! I had to order two new ones.
She told me last week, the next time she comes in, she will be wearing a body cam!!
Apparently, Garrett must be pretty optimistic that Gov. Landry will change his mind to (as alleged) tell these folk that, “the next time I come in, I’ll be wearing a body cam.”
Now, we want to make sure everyone understands one thing: Garrett is far (and we do mean far) from alone about claims of harassment, bribes, etc., and there’s no way the LSBC can deny the accusations are longstanding and widespread. For example, consider this Facebook post to which we were referred which was made to the LSBC’s own Facebook page and for which nobody publicly addressed the accusations for the inspector “taking cash:”
The “bill” referred to was that of Senator Stewart Cathey to permit estheticians to blow dry hair. The LSBC made the post so folk could be “aware” of the bill’s pending hearings. The bill sailed through the House and Senate and became law, but what is so disturbing about the above Facebook post is that the LSBC addresses only the fact that it should not be criticized for the bill and that they did not ask for it to be sponsored! Nothing about the bribe allegations.
Now consider this Facebook post to which we were also referred:
We’ve got plenty of additional material, but now this second part is also becoming a tad lengthy. Let us conclude with two more quick points. One former inspector has supplied us with her final performance evaluation prior to her being terminated. In that evaluation, it states that she should be, “inspecting 10 shops a day.” Marceaux is now touting the fact that inspectors are averaging 8.5 inspections per day. If these inspectors are working eight-hour days (and presumably taking a lunch break), combined with the fact that it takes time to travel from one salon to another, common sense dictates that these are little more than drive-by inspections in which inspectors go in, find some sort of trivial horse manure to write up and collect a fine, and keep that cycle going all day.
In other words, it sure seems to us that these inspectors are being put on a quota system much like the one Legislative Auditor Mike Waguespack talks about in his early days passing through Golden Meadow. Just as an aside, Burns’ very first bank exam with the FDIC was State Bank in Golden Meadow. Prior to leaving the Baton Rouge Field Office for the assignment, no less that six (6) of Burns’ coworkers forewarned Burns about the fact that, it he even went a single mile over the posted speed limit of 15 MPH, he’d, “sure as hell get a ticket.” Let’s take a look at Waguespack explain exactly what he indicated happened to him (trust us, you want to watch this video!):
8/24/26: Louisiana Legislative Auditor Mike Waguespack gives a detailed account of his experience entailing a notorious speed trap in Golden Meadow that he encountered as a teenage worker.
The reason we have opted to put that video up with this feature is that, just like with Waguespack, many salon owners across this state feel like they are experiencing nothing short of money grabs with the inspections, and they find that particularly frustrating in that they had to pay the 40 percent increase in their licensing fees to fund this “harassment” by “tyrants.” We figure that the Golden Meadow speed trap matter is a perfect analogy to their frustration.
Also, just as Waguespack says his biggest concern was not the $300 (an ungodly amount of money when he was a teenager) but rather the fact that the infraction would be on his record. Just like with the Golden Meadow speed trap, a mere supplying of cash to inspectors ($200 is what we’ve been told — and demonstrated in one instance — is basically the going rate) for a salon with “serious” infractions (e.g. no licenses) being basically ignored. When one considers the $20,000 charged by a cosmetology school, a manicurist (strictly as an example) would have to pay 100 bribes just to cover the cost of being legit, and that’s not including the cost of testing, etc!
Now, Rev. Phillips attended the meeting of the Baton Rouge Press Club at which Waguespack spoke yesterday (Monday, August 24, 2026), so he asked him when the LSBC audit report may be released. Here is Waguespack’s response:
8/24/26: Rev. Freddie Phillips, Jr. inquires of Louisiana Legislative Auditor Mike Waguespack entailing when his office may release its performance audit of the LSBC.
Also, Burns opted to ask Waguespack about his thoughts about the initial implementation of the body cameras and the subsequent directive by Gov. Landry to suspend their use. Here’s his response:
8/24/26: Burns asks Waguespack for his thoughts on the LSBC body cam comtroversy.
Finally, Burns sent a public records request yesterday (Monday, August 24, 2026 at 10:55 a.m.) to the LSBC indicating that he likes to be a “belt and suspenders guy” and was therefore asking for any document evidencing the fact that Gov. Landry had issued a formal written directive to suspend the use of the body cameras (though Burns indicated that he fully expects to receive a reply of, “There are no records responsive to your request.”)
In an unusual development, Burns has received no reply whatsoever (not even an acknowledgment) in the 29 hours since the request was sent. We commit, however, that if anything is received by us regarding that request, we will most certainly place an addendum at the top of this feature to reflect that fact.
The next LSBC meeting is September 14, 2026. We’ll see just what all transpires.
For anyone who may wish to see Auditor Waguespack’s presentation in its entirety (well, almost, about three minutes into his presentation, Burns realized that he had not hit the “record” button!), feel free to do so by Clicking Here.
Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC) Executive Director Erin Marceaux announces on December 1, 2025 the arrival of body worn cameras to be worn by inspectors after training as the Board attempts to get a handle on highly abusive treatment being alleged by numerous salon owners having transpired by LSBC inspectors throughout Louisiana.
Almost without fail, all of the correspondence we received regarding anger at Gov. Jeff Landry was that he’d just given the LSBC a massive amount of money to hire even more inspectors to, as one source stated to us, “harass the hell out of us as if they aren’t already doing enough of that!”
The new LSBC Members, to their credit, sought to attempt to allay some of the fears of inspector harassment by promising to implement the use of body cameras for all inspectors. On December 1, 2025, newly-named LSBC Executive Director Erin Marceaux took a minute to openly tout the arrival of the body worn cameras on Wednesday, November 27, 2025:
12/1/25: Marceaux states how excited everyone is over the arrival of the body worn cameras and that full training will take place in the near future.
At the February 2, 2026 LSBC meeting, Marceaux takes 45 seconds to update the Members on how “wonderfully” the body cameras have been working for her and her staff:
2/2/26: Marceaux conveys the excitement of she and her staff over the implementation of the body cameras.
During the weekend of April 18-19, a continuing education seminar was held for cosmetology instructors (none is required for cosmetologists). Rev. Freddie Lee Phillips, Jr., the subject of our most recent feature, informed us that considerable concern had been raised about two issues by folk in attendance at the seminar. Accordingly, on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, we sent a general email to Marceaux asking about #1) the removal of finger curls from the practical portion of the exam for licensure, and #2) word that body cameras had been suspended.
One of these days we’re going to get around to a feature about upheaval about the removal of the finger curls, but today’s focus is obviously on the suspension of the use of the body cameras.
Marceaux responded mere hours after our inquiry:
I am in receipt of your concerns. Is this a public records request? Just wanted clarity since you are intending to publish.
Realizing that we’d obviously uncovered a hot button item, we responded hours after Marceaux’s inquiry of us:
No, it is not a public records request, and I am merely affording you the opportunity to comment if you are so inclined.
Becoming obvious that this was going to be a game of cat and mouse, Marceaux responded:
The use of body cameras has been suspended at this time.
That prompted Burns to make a formal public records request for all emails either received from or sent to anyone affiliated with the LSBC regarding body cameras since the start of 2026. That’s when we hit proverbial “paydirt!”
For those who would like to read all of the emails in their entireties, feel free to do so at this link. After learning that the body cameras were ordered suspended directly by the highest authority in the State of Louisiana, Gov. Jeff Landry, Marceaux inquires of Tisha Butler and Deborah Johnson whether either of them has received complaints about the body cameras, to which they both indicate that they “have not.”
Okay. So, on February 2, 2026, Marceaux states how “wonderful” the body cameras are, yet a mere 18 days later she informs all of her upper brass that their use must, “cease immediately.” That’s a pretty strong 180, huh?
Next, we’d like to supply this March 4, 2026 email from Reham Toom, owner of The Beaux Heaux, LLC voicing extreme frustration at LSBC inspector Edrin Brumfield. Interestingly enough, Toom is not happy at all that there’s no body camera footage of the encounter. Here’s a few highlights from Toom’s correspondence to Marceaux:
I am writing to provide a statement regarding my interaction with State Board Inspector Edrin during her inspection of my business, The Beaux Heaux LLC, on March 4, 2026.
Almost immediately, Inspector Edrin began speaking in an accusatory tone, questioning my explanations and repeatedly implying that I was lying. She accused me of having dirty bowls, which is not accurate, because I have not performed any color services.
Throughout the inspection, she asked multiple questions rapidly without allowing me to fully answer, repeatedly getting visibly upset and scolding me for casual language like “girl” and stating I must use “ma’am” or her first name. When I explained that her tone was stressing me out, she began using terms of endearment, which contradicted her previous corrections and added to my discomfort. At one point, she stated that, because I do not currently have a salon license, I would need to go before the Board for a hearing. This statement caused me significant stress and anxiety, as I felt my license could be at risk despite my explanations. I initially allowed the inspection to continue because I knew I had done nothing wrong. However, her continued accusatory tone, refusal to let me explain, and focus on the possibility of a board hearing became overwhelming. I asked her to leave, stating that I was unable to continue under these conditions as this is added stress on top of how home life has been recently, but she refused to leave immediately. I wish this inspection had included a body camera, as is normally used, so that my side of the interaction could be accurately documented. The way this inspection was conducted made me feel intimidated, stressed, and unable to communicate effectively, and I am concerned that without proper documentation, my statements could be misrepresented or disregarded.
From: jennifer reed <[email protected]>
Date: March 8, 2026 at 10:31:10 PM CDT
To: Phillip Devillier <Pdevillier@leg~ggy>
Subject: Inspector body cameras
I hope this email finds you well, Phillip.
There has been a bit of frustration and a need for understanding and clarity regarding a situation that developed about two weeks ago. It began with a phone call to Jean Pitre, one of our board members, from Ryan Roberts, who was in Washington, D.C. with the Governor. Ryan stated that the Governor said to immediately cease operations of the body cameras that we had implemented for our inspectors during inspections of our licensees. The cameras had only been implemented approximately one month prior. The only explanation given was that the Governor had received several complaints and was tired of hearing about it.
As Chairman, neither I nor Erin Marceaux, the Executive Director of the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology, have received a formal cease and desist regarding the use of body cameras for our inspections from the Governor’s Office, nor were we provided with any report outlining complaints related to the body cameras.
Out of respect for the Governor’s Office, we temporarily ceased the use of the cameras. Our Executive Director, Erin Marceaux, also reached out to Emily Andrews for a possible explanation and clarification of what transpired, seeing that our office has not received any complaints regarding the implementation of the body cameras. Emily then asked Erin to send her a timeline and the reasons for their implementation. Erin and I composed an email, per Emily’s request, that I will share with you. We have still not received a formal response.
It is our hope that once a better line of communication is established and our efforts toward transparency and accountability are acknowledged for what they are truly intended to be, this matter can be resolved. Our goal is to move forward, with the Governor’s approval, in implementing body cameras for our inspectors during inspections of our license holders.
Your support and guidance on this matter would be greatly appreciated. I will also forward Erin’s email to Emily so you can better understand the reasoning behind the implementation of the body cameras.
Thank you in advance,
Jennifer Reed, Chairman
Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology
Notice the reference to Ryan Roberts above. Both he and John Kay are former high-ranking officials of the Landry administration; however, they have now both departed Landry’s administration and launched their own lobbying firm, Neutral Ground Solutions, LLC.
We believe we know Landry well enough that Landry will: #1) most definitely hold firm, and #2) ignore both Reed and Marceaux’s requests for a formal written Cease and Desist of the use of the body cameras. Landry is much like Trump in that regard (i.e. “You’ll do it because I said to!”).
That is the power of being Governor of the State of Louisiana, and it’s our firm opinion that Gov. Landry will remain Governor of Louisiana through early 2032 and be reelected by a landslide!
Why? Because we firmly believe that the 2027 “race” for Governor will be a repeat of the 2011 “race” entailing Gov. Jindal’s reelection.
The only difference is that Jindal’s $12 million war chest scared off any viable contender. Landry has something much more powerful than Jindal’s war chest (though Landry is going to have plenty of money available as well): he has the major overhang of the certainty of a Trump endorsement!
We firmly believe that (other potential candidates’ knowledge of the certainty of a Trump endorsement) explains why no prospective candidate is even talking about taking on Landry, and therefore the 2027 “race” for Governor will be a repeat of the 2011 “race” entailing Jindal.
Thus, though Landry may have strong negatives and low popularity (just as Jindal had), he will breeze to reelection since no other viable contender will even enter the race!
At any rate, Halos responded that, “we would need to review the official notice from the state to better understand the directive and its implications.” Both the LSBC and Halos can expect that “full official notice” about the time hell freezes over, so, in our firm opinion, they can just continue writing those $750/month checks for the full three years of that contract. Our guess is that Landry would indicate that, with a 40 percent fee increase, that Board has plenty of money (which it does) and likely admonish them to check with him the next time a “major” decision like this is undertaken. We feel certain as well that Landry does not appreciate the email to DeVillier (or, excuse us, “Phillip”) seeking to have Landry reverse course.
Because this feature is becoming a tad long, we’re going to make this a two-parter. Trust us, you’re going to want to stay tuned to the second part!
You’ll start to see material that will be mind blowing about reactions far beyond Toom’s reaction depicted above!
In fact Toom was extremely polite compared to the massive feedback regarding another LSBC inspector!
Furthermore, there is a reason our headline is so short. In the second feature, we’ll expand the headline to demonstrate just how angry many salon owners are!
