It's clear that in the middle of an employment dispute with its former executive director, members of the N.C. State Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners went to the legislature to get the rules changed.
The board successfully lobbied lawmakers to stick a sentence into an unrelated bill. The change would mean that the protections that Doug Van Essen was using to challenge his termination would no longer apply. In other words, if he wins his job back, he could get fired again without recourse.
What isn't as clear, is who led the charge for the board.
At a hearing over Van Essen's case, Board chairman Ray Mitchell Jr. said it was board member Rita Harris, a lobbyist for the Commerce Department and a licensed cosmetologist.
"Who on behalf of the board decided to approve presenting this amendment?" Van Essen's attorney, Faith Herndon, asked Mitchell at the hearing.
"I would say Rita Harris," Mitchell said.
Harris disagreed when reached by Dome.
"I don't know that I was the person who did that," said Harris. "I think Ray [Mitchell] was really in charge of doing that and I think he was at the meetings where that happened if I recall."
Harris hung up the phone in the middle of an interview, saying Mitchell needed to answer questions about the Van Essen case.
More after the jump.
—————
"Talk to the chairman" was a common refrain among board members.
Steve Hargis, a Johnston County contractor who was appointed to the board to represent the public, also said Mitchell should be the only one to answer questions about Van Essen's case. Hargis declined to say whether he was in favor of firing Van Essen.
"How I voted is really between me and the board," Hargis said. "When you look at these kinds of jobs, you have to deal with what the laws are. If the law changes while you're in the job, you deal with that law. That's part of serving in these senior level positions in state government."


Comments
Re: From the 'Not Me' department
October 14, 2009 - 12:11am — lowdeeThis is sad. Obviously people resent having to follow the rules of the board and sounds like children squabbling. I have known almost everyone at the board for more than 20 years. If a salon follows the regulations on inspections you don't have a problem. If you do your job you probably wouldn't have a problem. Good lord they sent the papers and told us the sanitation regulations when we opened our salon. Anyone should be able to follow the rules. Sometimes people should read their own words....not trashing anyone?
Remember everything happens for a reason. If the director was the best he would still be there with no problems. Didn't the whole board vote to get rid of him? Sounds like he had no control of his own staff.
By running around talking garbage it ruins the whole industry. Mr. Mitchell and his family have outlived most salons and schools for probably more than 50 years. Any business, hair or not, won't survive that long if it wasn't doing things right. And the inspectors have to do the job or they would go where all the fired ones went over the years, they went home to grumble and sit in bitterness. Let's just get over this mess.
Re: From the 'Not Me' department
September 25, 2009 - 11:04am — QuestioningLet me begin by saying these comments are not trashing anyone, they are facts. I have been involved with this agency for years. I know Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Lippard, and Mr. Van Essen very well. It is obvious that some of the comments on the forums are from people who don’t know any of them in a working environment. This whole mess started because Mr. Mitchell and Mrs. Lippard wanted power over the agency. Why else would important info be held from the director? Mr. Van Essen brought NC State Board to the top of the list in the country. He also arranged for better benefits for the staff. The office had very little structure before Mr. Van Essen became director. Some of the changes he made people did not like but change is what the board needed. Does the cosmetologist know how their tax dollars and salon license fees are being spent? Much of the time you see Mrs. Lippard she has Mrs. Pursley (school inspector) in the car with her. Does Mrs. Pursley not have schools to inspect? Tax payers are paying for a vehicle, gas and salary for these two people. Can Mrs. Lippard not do her job alone? If not, someone else needs to do that job. If a hairdresser has had the misfortune of having a salon inspected by Mrs. Lippard and Mrs. Pursley then the hairdresser knows how rude they can be. Since they are hairdressers they should know how a salon looks during a business time. Then there’s Mr. Mitchell, I have never seen anybody talk out of both sides of their mouth like him. He has the craft down pat. He too, wastes the tax payer’s money. What purpose would Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Lippard, and Mrs. Pursley have for meeting Shelley Payne (salon inspector) in Charlotte for lunch? I can see Mrs. Lippard, she’s the supervisor, but why Mr. Mitchell and Mrs. Pursley? You guessed it the taxpayers picked up the tab, three salaried people plus three state vehicles, e-x-p-e-n-s-i-v-e. I guess Mr. Mitchell figures he makes up for it “in time spent” making board decisions on his own and not including the board members. Members why do you let this happen? It should be your decision too. Mrs. Wilder you are very capable of making difficult decisions on your own. Mr. Mitchell doesn’t need an office to help you. Are there not phones in the board office? Call Him! See what happened to Rita Harris don’t let the “not me” syndrome get you... As far as Mrs. Lippard going by the book, whose book, the state law book or “You Scratch My Back and I’ll Scratch Yours” by Joyce Lippard. Talkofthetown was right this is political greed and it has destroyed the agency’s standing in the cosmetology world. If this decision isn’t reversed, two people will have all the power over the agency. How scary!
Re: From the 'Not Me' department
September 22, 2009 - 12:48pm — j1c2kp"The board successfully lobbied lawmakers to stick a sentence into an unrelated bill."
And we wonder why things are such a mess, this kind of thing happens all the time. It should be a crime to stick something totally unrelated into a bill for such a purpose as this.