Nelda Dural, former owner of the New Iberia Cosmetology Institute, shares her concerns about the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC) with former Speaker of the Louisiana House of Representatives (now Gov. Landry’s Commissioner of Administration), Taylor Barras. Dural was specifically concerned about the LSBC’s arbitrary and selective enforcement of a 2010 statute calling for a cosmetology school to have a minimum of two (2) instructors regardless of class size. The LSBC relied extensively upon that two-instructor requirement to close Dural’s school in 2016.
In our ongoing series of matters discussed at the May 4, 2026 LSBC meeting, a week after the meeting, on May 11, 2026, we published this feature in which Board Member Jean Pitre conveyed a sense of emergency and near panic that the addition of an “earnings accountability” provision of President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA, enacted 2025), if not removed, may cause “up to 92 percent” of for-profit cosmetology schools across the nation to close.
That was not the only matter Pitre voiced frustration over, to wit:
He also voiced concern over a “threatening” letter sent out by the Board to the schools it regulates and called for the letter to be rescinded; furthermore, his action, in the form of a Motion, created discord among some other Board Members, most especially with Member C. Nicole Gaudin:
5/4/26: Pitre voices his sentiments that the letter sent out, which he formally read into the record, was “threatening,” and he sought for the Board to rescind the letter.
Pitre repeatedly stated that the rule calls for “one teacher per twenty (20) students.” We are about to demonstrate in a very authoritative manner that Pitre’s statement is NOT (repeat NOT) historically how the “two-instructor rule” has been viewed by LSBC Legal Counsel Sheri Morris, nor is that how the rule has been enforced. One of the benefits of following the LSBC as long as we have is that it enables us to know more than many Board Members, and this is one such instance of us having superior knowledge on the two-instructor rule and its parameters and (sometimes selective) enforcement
The LSBC has enforced a statutory two-instructor requirement for cosmetology schools which was enacted in 2010. This rule, unlike what Pitre states in the above video, mandates a minimum of two instructors regardless of how small a school’s enrollment may be! That 2010 statute replaced a prior threshold which indeed did function as Pitre indicated in the above video.
We have extensively reported upon this two-instructor requirement as a key factor in actions against smaller or public-school programs, which appear to us to be nothing short of direct efforts to limit competition for larger, established cosmetology schools operated by some board members and/or their associates.
Key Cases:
- Nelda Dural Case (circa 2015–2016): Dural, a former cosmetology instructor and school operator in New Iberia, faced enforcement leading to a Cease and Desist order and revocation of her school license. The LSBC cited noncompliance with the two-instructor rule. Critics, and that included Dural, noted that the Board had granted an exception to the very same rule the LSBC was utilizing to shut her school down for another school (L.B. Landry/Walker High School) just mere weeks earlier, in its April 2015 minutes. Dural incurred substantial costs (which were assessed against her as expenses the Board incurred in its relentless efforts to shut her school down), including nearly $43,000–$56,000 in administrative expenses, fines, and legal fees, ultimately leading her to have little choice but to file for personal bankruptcy. The case involved multi-day hearings which we attended, filmed, and bluntly described as a “kangaroo court;” furthermore, it was apparent to us from that episode that the LSBC is fraught with instances of selective enforcement, blackballing by LSBC staff, and outright cronyism.
- Raynetta Frazier Case (2016): A public-school cosmetology instructor faced similar pressure to comply with the two-instructor mandate, which threatened closure of her lower-cost program. Frazier pleaded with the Board to avoid shutdown. Unlike Dural’s case, her program did manage to continue operating notwithstanding the LSBC’s full-court press to shut her public school down over failing to have two instructors in her classroom.
Our Broader Context:
Our coverage of the two-instructor rule and its (often selective) enforcement has, in our firm opinion, contributed to higher barriers for affordable training options (e.g., Dural’s $8,000 tuition versus $20,000+ at larger schools reliant on federal grants). We have been very blunt in our assessment and ongoing critiques of the LSBC entailing its selective application and/or enforcement of statutes, protection of larger operators, and impacts on small businesses and aspiring cosmetologists. While Board attorney Sheri Morris has emphasized the statutory nature of the two-instructor requirement, she has failed miserably to explain why, as the attorney, she permitted one or more exceptions to be granted during Board meeting(s) for which she served as legal counsel for the Board. Morris is smart enough to know that a statute is a statute (and it was Morris herself, which we have captured on video, who emphasized that the minimum two-instructor requirement is a statute)! During the ongoing Dural matter, Sound Off Louisiana’s Burns admonished Morris and the then-Members of the Board that a statute is a statute and that the Board had no authority whatsoever to grant “exceptions” as it had done, even documenting the granting of at least one “exception” in its own minutes (which we’ll publish shortly).
Okay. That is the quick overview of the two-instructor matter but, as everyone knows, this is a video blog, and the beauty of videos is that their content is irrefutable and they are forever. So, with that, here are links to features, links to documents, and video clips to substantiate what we have indicated above:
- Short video clip of a portion of an administrative hearing on October 3, 2016 (the hearing actually lasted several days, and we filmed it all) showing just how emphatic the LSBC and its attorney, Sheri Morris, were about enforcing the two-instructor rule as a means to shut Dural’s School down:
As Morris and the LSBC Members are emphatic that they are going to enforce the two-instructor mandate against Dural, Dural challenges Morris and the Board on why they permitted an exception in April of 2015 to that same two-instructor requirement.
2. Here is the excerpt from the April 13, 2015 LSBC Minutes memorializing the exception Dural references. From those minutes:
L.B. LandrylWalker High School
Addition of an InstructorLora Moreau made the motion to accept LB Landry to use only one instructor as long as a substitute is available on standby provided that there are no more than 20 students in one class and they must send a letter from the substitute teacher to the Board. Michelle Hays seconded, motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
Dural openly asks Morris near the end of the video, regarding the Board using a very different standard for her vis-a-vis the school referenced above, “What’s really going on in here?”
Well, let us explain it in very simple terms. Dural was charging a mere $8,000 in tuition for her school, and the larger schools simply were not going to tolerate any undercutting of their pricing in such an authoritative manner.
The LSBC has an extensive (and we do mean extensive) past history of targeting schools for closure simply because they impede market share for larger schools which often have direct representation on the LSBC. Want another prime example? How about this October 1, 2018 Sound Off Louisiana feature in which the owners of the now-defunct D’Jay’s Cosmetology School in Baton Rouge flatly stated on camera that former long-time LSBC Chairman Francis Hand sought to drive their school right out of business (which, as we state above is “now defunct”). From that feature:
Regarding the issue of the timing of when the alleged harassment began, as the above video depicts, Ed and Paul contend there was a direct correlation to the timing of them moving their school, which used to be located on Government Street in Baton Rouge, to its present location which, according to Mapquest, is a mere 8.8 miles and estimated 16-minute drive from former long-time LSBC Chairman Francis Hand’s school. Hand remains as an LSBC member today (the only one other than Jill Hebert to survive the transition from Jindal to Edwards). Are the sudden “problems” Paul references above about trivial issues such as too wide of grout separation between tiles coincidental to that move? We’ll let our subscribers be the judge.
3. Here is the assessment of costs and fees totaling $43,000 (not including the $5,000 fine) against Dural which forced her to file for personal bankruptcy. We would point out that the $39,000 in legal fees does not even include subsequent legal fees incurred as Dural asked for Judicial Review of the Board’s ruling in the 19th JDC. When tallied up, the costs which the LSBC spent merely shutting down Dural would have paid for the new roof recently installed by the Board (after it made grossly exaggerated Legislative testimony of the costs of such a new roof as it pled for a fee increase).
4. During the same exact timeframe that the LSBC was pushing so hard to close Dural’s school, it also put on the full-court press to close another school offering students instruction at no cost, and that was Raynetta Frazier’s public school in New Orleans. Here is video of those efforts:
6/13/16 LSBC Meeting (four months before Dural’s administrative hearing to shut her school down), Raynetta Frazier addresses the Board about its efforts to shut her school down over the two-instructor rule.
So, we have very little doubt that smaller schools contacted Pitre and voiced their concerns over the letter that was sent out. Furthermore, given the past illustrations outlined above, we can very easily see how they viewed such a letter as a threat.
Additionally, being formerly associated with a very large school, Paul Mitchell, we have little doubt that concerns exist regarding the present leadership of the LSBC siding with big schools at small schools’ expense as has so extensively been done in the past.
Further, we openly question the appropriateness of a secretive, behind-the-scenes efforts of one person, LSBC Chairman Jennifer Reed, simply hand picking former Executive Director Steve Young’s replacement and then just saying, “I’m asking the Board Members to go along with my recommendation.” We are becoming increasingly uneasy about the way this selection transpired (with it even having to be added to an agenda rather than properly disclosed beforehand for public input), so we can only imagine that much more so being the case with small school owners!
Here’s the bottom line: From everything we have been told, the cosmetology school business is dog-eat-dog and, even when everything may appear rosy and glowing on the outside, as evidenced by our October 5, 2021 feature wherein then-LSBC Chairman Edwin Neill III had to literally sue his financial savior and accused him of launching a “hostile takeover” of his operations at a time of extreme financial distress, looks can very often be deceiving. Who knows exactly why Erin Marceaux may have even been tempted to depart Paul Mitchell School to become the LSBC’s Executive Director?
We know that Pitre expressed near panic at the thought of Federal funds being eliminated and many schools (perhaps his?) being forced to possibly close. Maybe Pitre and others now have a better appreciation for how Dural and others who faced such closure felt as they saw their passions and livelihoods being vigorously pursued for closure on what we bluntly assess as selective enforcement entailing a “kangaroo court administrative hearing!” Further, knowing of such practices may very well explain why existing smaller school owners would indeed view the letter Pitre references as a “threat.” We would if we were in their shoes!
Lastly, we committed to periodically publishing a table showing the LSBC’s financial condition. Here is the latest iteration of the table:
| Date of LSBC Statements | Summation: UNRESTRICTED Cash & Income (Loss) Since FYE |
|---|---|
| August 25, 2025 (Income Statement); September 30, 2025 (Balance Sheet). | $61,000 net income; $1.275 million cash on hand. |
| December 30, 2025 (both balance sheet and income statement) | ($87,000) net loss; $1.291 million cash on hand. |
| 4/12/26 (P & L) and 4/14/26 (balance sheet) | $86,000 net profit; $1.427 million cash on hand. |
We look forward to the next meeting on June 8, 2026!
