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.
In our most recent feature, which was published on Sunday, August 23, 2026, we provided part one of the uproar about body cameras and the LSBC. Today is the second part of that two-part series.
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.
What we immediately noticed is that the LSBC had intentionally withheld this critical email from Erin Marceaux to Emily Andrews dated Saturday, February 21, 2026 (the day after Gov. Landry ordered body camera use suspended).
Anyone who knows Burns knows that he does not like records being intentionally withheld from him as was done by the LSBC on this occasion. 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.”
That exchange between Burns and Marceaux apparently prompted Marceaux to consult with Board Attorney Sheri Morris, who then responded the very next day, Tuesday, July 14, 2026. From Morris’ response:
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 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!
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!
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.
Having said that, we have tried to get this feature out as quickly as possible because we are keenly aware of just how frustrated salon owners are at the alleged harassment by LSBC inspectors, and perhaps that frustration is no better illustrated than in this August 18, 2026 Facebook post by Leslie Piper, in which she and many others vent frustration at the LSBC and at Inspector Paulette Garrett in particular. There are too many entries to try and present them all, but here are some of the more intriguing comments made on that Facebook post:
Nothing like some State Board Fines right before vacay!!! Louisiana Board of Cosmetology truly can kiss my a**!!Funny how you go 26 years without a fine until this one tyrant shows up! Be on the look out peeps!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.One of our girls got fined for 1 hair in her brush! Been doing hair for 59 years and this one is crazyShe tried to make me come up to my salon to get entry into my suit 3 DAYS after giving birth….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 bullchitThis woman called me while I was in the hospital with my child .Do not get me startedShe is RUDE AF!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.Leslie Tureau Piper sounds like she is definitely on a power tripJayme Poirrier I heard they forced her to wear body cams for our protection but she didn’t have one on lol.Leslie Tureau PiperHope Bccp my coworker asked her if she had it on and she said no but who knows lolThat’s because Jeff landry told her and the board to take that shit off immediately! lolShe 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, 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.