Board hearing: enforcement staff says Hierarch submitted stamped or inconsistent apprentice completion forms; sponsor disputes allegations

Enforcement staff for the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology testified at an administrative hearing June 2 that they found repeated inconsistencies in completion forms submitted by Hierarch Barbering and Cosmetology Apprentice Academy, including apparent stamped or photocopied sponsor signatures, conflicting dates and total hours, and missing on-the-job-training (OJT) logs.

Why it matters: The board issues or accepts completion forms that qualify apprentices to take licensing exams. Repeated or systemic errors, use of stamped signatures, or falsified hour totals can undermine the integrity of the licensing process and the board's ability to protect consumers and ensure apprentices are properly trained.

What enforcement said: Addison Beach, Enforcement Chief for the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, testified that the board's licensing unit regularly issues deficiency notices when completion forms contain errors. Beach described a set of completion forms from the same sponsor that showed the signature of the program sponsor in a form that appeared stamped or photocopied, and in several instances the sponsor's signature date preceded the apprentice's completion date.

"No stamped signatures are accepted," Beach testified, citing the completion form's instructions and pointing to multiple examples in the board's packet where the sponsor's signature was identical across forms and where dates and totals did not match. Beach said licensing staff asked for OJT logs to substantiate hours; those logs were not provided promptly and, in at least one case, were provided "about 9 months later," he said.

Board counsel Jeff Stone summarized the allegations in an opening statement: "Respondent has committed acts of unprofessional conduct through multiple and ongoing violations ... providing pre-signed certificates of completion to apprentices ... and affixing his signature to certificates of completion with stamped or photocopy signatures as opposed to required original signatures."

What the sponsor said: Jason Lee, owner/operator of Hierarch, testified and acknowledged mistakes in paperwork and dates on some forms but disputed that the problems represent fraud or a basis to withdraw program approval. Lee said some errors reflected human error or confusion, referred to language barriers among some apprentices, and described steps he has already taken to improve oversight. "I'm working 1 on 1 with the apprentices more myself," Lee told the panel; he said pass rates have improved and pledged to micromanage paperwork and site visits going forward.

Evidence and procedure: The committee admitted multiple items into evidence. The notice to show cause (exhibit 1) was admitted for jurisdictional purposes; a set of completion forms, related emails and text messages the board relied on were admitted as exhibit 2 for all purposes. A number of other respondent and third-party documents (exhibits 3, 4 and 5) were admitted in whole or as administrative hearsay for the record. The judge excluded one publicly posted bulletin as not properly authenticated in this proceeding. Transcripts and deficiency correspondence cited by enforcement were discussed extensively on the record.

Examples cited by enforcement: Beach walked the committee through specific attachments marked in the board packet. Key points he flagged: - Apprenticeship requirement: 3,200 OJT hours and about 220 hours of related supplemental instruction (RSI) within a two-year timeframe. - Instances where the total OJT hours shown on forms differed between filings (for one apprentice a total of 4,362 hours appeared on one submission where the requirement is 3,200). - Repeated appearance of the same sponsor signature or stamp across multiple completion forms and different apprentices; in some cases the sponsor-signed date preceded the apprentice's completion dates. - A text exchange the sponsor provided in which the sponsor reportedly told an apprentice to fill out paperwork to show numbers "above the minimum requirements," which enforcement said suggested coaching of entries.

Board practice: Beach explained the board's process: when an application with a deficient completion form is received, licensing staff issues a deficiency notice with instructions; if problems persist the matter escalates to enforcement. Deficiency notices were included in the board's packet and enforcement said staff followed that path for the forms at issue.

Procedure/outcome: No final sanction was entered at the hearing. After argument, Judge Corin Wong took the matter under submission and the committee will decide the case in closed session. The hearing record will include the exhibits and testimony for the committee's deliberations.

What to watch next: The committee's written decision will state whether the board withdraws program approval, imposes other sanctions, or directs remedial steps such as mandated training or closer oversight of the sponsor's completion procedures. If the committee sustains the jurisdictional objection raised by respondent, the board's ability to adopt enforcement measures could be limited.

Speakers: Addison Beach (Enforcement Chief, Board of Barbering and Cosmetology); Jeff Stone (Deputy Attorney General, counsel for the board); Marcus Larson (counsel for respondent); Jason Lee (owner/operator, Hierarch); committee members who questioned witnesses included Tanya Fairley (industry member), Megan Ellis (public member), Kelly Funk (member), Tamika Miller (industry member), and Colette Kavanaugh (member).