Board approves sunset response, urges sole oversight of barbering and cosmetology schools
Loading...
Summary
The state board approved its written responses to the legislature's sunset review, adding language that it seeks sole oversight of barbering and cosmetology schools and proposing new school fees and oversight steps aimed at addressing exam costs, licensure fraud and regulatory delays.
The state board that regulates barbering and cosmetology approved its response to the legislature's sunset review and added language urging that the board be the appropriate entity to have sole oversight of barbering and cosmetology schools.
Christy, the staff lead on the sunset responses, told the board the materials respond to a set of legislative questions and explain how the board handles exam development, school oversight and enforcement. She said the board uses PSI as its national exam vendor and also pays the Department of Consumer Affairs’ Office of Professional Examination Services (OPES) for occupational analysis, describing the current arrangement as duplicative: "We do pay double. We pay our vendor. We pay OPES," she said, and staff inserted a chart of expenditures spanning 2019–2026 to show those costs. Christy recommended the board evaluate whether duplicative analysis and review requirements can be streamlined and work with legislative staff on potential statutory and contractual changes.
The board discussed regulatory delays and staffing. Christy said regulation development must pass multiple layers of review and that a vacant, reclassified regulation position had slowed work: changes often have to return to the full board and that lengthens the timeline. She told members the board has reclassified the role to hire staff with more regulatory experience to help speed future work.
On school oversight, staff reported the board currently tracks 273 schools and estimated it needs about $445,000 in annual staff resources to maintain oversight. The responses propose a statutory initial school application fee of $575 and a $175 biennial renewal fee to fund curriculum review, inspections and compliance work; staff noted that would be charged in addition to the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education's (BPPE) application fee (which was referenced around $5,000 in the discussion). Christy also noted a 2026 enforcement success in which a school was placed on probation and ordered to pay $15,000 in cost recovery.
Public commenters from the industry urged stronger action. Fred Jones of the Professional Beauty Federation told the board BPPE has not sufficiently protected students and urged the board to press for sole oversight and to seek statutory authority to require timely student‑enrollment reporting so suspicious exam applications can be flagged. Jamie Straubek of Precision Nails corrected the transcript language about the exam developer and noted the board recently moved to PSI as its vendor.
At the meeting's close, the board voted to approve the responses with the staff edits — including text emphasizing the board seeks sole oversight of schools and language noting the high risks associated with barbering and cosmetology services — and delegated authority to the executive officer to make non‑substantive changes. The motion passed on a roll‑call vote with all members voting "yes."
