Does ACA 17-23-201 allow more than two members of the cosmetology board to be school owner representatives? Would the statute allow a school owner representative, who is also an electrologist, to fullfil that requirement as well? Answer: No. and No. The statute says two members of the

STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL JUSTICE BUILDING, LITTLE ROCK 72201 STEVE CLARK (501) 371-2007 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 85-165 July 24, 1985 Debra Norton, Director State Board of Cosmetology 1515 West 7th Street, Rm. 400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ms. Norton: This letter is in response to your recent request for an opinion regarding Ark. Stat. Ann. Sec. 71-816. You posed the following question: We are requesting this opinion to determine whether the aforementioned statute allows more than two school owner representatives to serve on the Board. Further, whether the said statute will allow a school owner member to also satisfy the electrologist membership requirement. The pertinent portion of §71-816 is as follows: Two (2) members of the Board shall be licensed instruc— tors who own a school of cosmetology. No less than two (2) shall be licensed electrologists. In addition, each member except the consumer and senior citizen representatives must be actively engaged in conduct- ing either a cosmetological establishment or school or actively practicing cosmetology. The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Hice v. State, 268 Ark. 57 593 2d 169 (1980). The apparent intent of the legislature in specifying that specific members of the Board of Cosmetology shall be from certain segments of the regulated industry, is to assure that the interests of those segments are represented on the Board. From the language used in the Act, "two members shall he licensed instructors" and "no less than two members shall be Y Debra Norton July 24, 1985 Page 2 licensed electrologists," it appears the legislature intended that only two members of the Board be licensed instructors who own a school of cosmetology. If the legislature had intended that more than two members could be licensed instructors it would have used the same language as it did regarding electrologists. However, the Act simply states that two members shall be licensed instructors who own a school of cosmetology, and therefore, it appears that no more than two members of the Board shall be such licensed instructors. Because of the apparent intent to require representation of various segments of the industry, it would appear that the legislature intended the electrologist representatives to serve and represent the interests of that segment without conflict of interest with other segments of the industry. Therefore, it would appear that the representatives repre- senting the electrologists should not also own schools of cosmetology and therefore be subject to a conflict of interest between these two areas. The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant Attorney General Thomas S. Gay. Sincerely, / Wipe, Ubu Vv ARK Attorney General JSC:TSG:jk