State board backs remote meeting rule, emergency-waiver bill and opens apprenticeship overhaul in sunset review

The California State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology met May 19, 2025 in Los Angeles (hybrid). Board president Tanya Fairley opened the meeting and the panel heard updates from Department of Consumer Affairs staff, administrative and enforcement reports, and lengthy discussion and public comment on the board’s apprenticeship program and school oversight. The board took two formal positions on state legislation and directed staff to include a package of apprenticeship reforms in the 2026 sunset report and to assemble a task force to develop recommendations.

Minutes and motions

The board approved the minutes from its Feb. 10, 2025 meeting by roll call (the motion passed; one abstention). The roll call recorded the following: Tanya Fairley — yes; Kelly Funk — yes; Anthony Bertram — yes; Megan Ellis — yes; Dr. Yolanda Jimenez — yes; Colette Kavanaugh — yes; Tamika Miller — yes; Danielle Munoz — abstain; Callie May Pham — yes; Steve Weeks — yes. The board then received routine administrative reports on staffing, licensing pass rates, enforcement caseloads and inspections.

Legislation: SB 470 and SB 641

The board voted to support Senate Bill 470, legislation to preserve hybrid/remote meeting flexibility (the board reported a modest fiscal estimate tied to continued hybrid operations) and to support Senate Bill 641, which would authorize boards to waive certain licensure requirements for licensees and applicants affected by declared emergencies and would also expand collection of email addresses from licensees to facilitate emergency outreach. Both motions passed on roll-call votes with all members present voting in favor when polled after the public comment period.

Administration, enforcement and inspections updates

Executive staff and the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) reported the board’s operations are performing well on multiple internal metrics: increased application throughput, improved licensing exam pass rates year over year for several license types, a growing inspections platform and an operating surplus with 14 months of reserves. DCA also briefed the board on a proposed gubernatorial reorganization that would create a Business and Consumer Services Agency and a California Housing and Homelessness Agency; the plan remained under the Little Hoover Commission review at the time of the meeting.

Enforcement staff reported 33% of complaints in the quarter were health-and-safety matters and that 53% of those complaints concerned alleged unlicensed activity. The board’s discipline pipeline showed active work referring cases to the Attorney General for formal action; staff said the increase in enforcement referrals reflects expanded investigator capacity. The board also described rollout of a new mobile inspection platform (MIP) in which inspectors enter results via iPad and transmit reports directly to the licensing and enforcement systems; 6 inspectors were fully using the platform and 11 were in training.

Apprenticeship program: deep dive and next steps

The meeting included extended discussion of apprenticeship programs for barbering and cosmetology. Staff reported a targeted outreach in March 2025 that contacted roughly 115 apprentices; the board summarized evidence that many apprentices were charged tuition or other substantial fees (examples reported to staff ranged from $2,500 up to $15,000 and several apprentices said they paid $7,000–$10,000), that some apprentices were effectively paying booth-rental fees rather than earning wages, and that apprenticeship completion and exam-application rates were low (the transcript cites that 47% of barber apprentices and 42% of cosmetology apprentices in a multi-year sample never applied to take the licensing exam). Staff also reported examples of program sponsors invoicing Local Education Agencies or federal programs for related-training reimbursements and, in one instance, a sponsor had received roughly $484,000 in a year from an Apprenticeship Innovation Fund grant while simultaneously charging apprentices tuition.

Board members and staff discussed multiple problems: lack of ongoing oversight and renewal for program sponsors (approval is currently a one‑time action), program sponsors franchising out approval to related training facilities, apprentices performing unpaid work or renting booths rather than earning wages, inconsistent monitoring by Division of Apprenticeship Standards and some Local Education Agencies, and low pass rates for Spanish-speaking apprentices. The board heard public comments from multiple program sponsors, school owners, barbers and cosmetologists who both defended effective apprenticeship sponsors and asked for stronger oversight to remove bad actors.

Direction from the board

Board members expressed broad agreement that the apprenticeship pathway has value when well run and that the board should not eliminate apprenticeship wholesale. The board directed staff to include apprenticeship reforms in the 2026 sunset report and indicated support for developing legislative recommendations that would: require apprentices to earn hourly wages (not operate as booth renters), prohibit program sponsors from charging tuition in ways that replicate private-school tuition agreements, require program-sponsor renewal and fees to support oversight, bar franchising of program approvals, require a written apprenticeship agreement be attached to the apprentice’s license record, and strengthen the board’s disciplinary authority over program sponsors. Members asked staff to form a stakeholder task force to draft model language and implementation steps to present at a future meeting.

School oversight

Board staff summarized prior sunset efforts seeking sole oversight of private postsecondary schools; members debated options and agreed to study the matter further before making a formal legislative push. Public commenters, including long-standing school owners and community-college representatives, urged either sole board oversight or clearer, better‑resourced coordination between the board and the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE).

Public comment and next steps

Multiple public commenters addressed apprenticeship practices and school oversight during a lengthy public-comment period. The board closed the meeting after setting the apprenticeship package for the sunset report and scheduling follow-up task-force work; staff said a draft of the board’s sunset submission will be provided at the next meeting for further board direction.