P
The Attorney General of Texas
December 20, 1979
MARK WHITE
Attorney General
Honorable Joe II. Golman Opinion No. MW-107
Texas Cosmetology Commission
llll Rio Grande Re: Eligibility of members of the
Austin, Texas 78701 Cosmetology Commission to
continue to serve.
Dear Mr. Golmam
You have requested our opinion regarding the eligibility of certain
members of the Texas Cosmetology Commission to continue to serve.
Article 845la, V.T.CS., the Cosmetology Regulatory Act, was completely
rewritten by the 66th Legislature, Senate Bill 384, 1979, ch. 606, at 1340. It
became effective on September 1, 1979. Section Z(a) of the former statute
required the appointment, inter alia, of
one member holding a valid operator license; [andl
one member holding a valid wig specialist, wig
instructor, wig salon, or wig schod license who has no
direct or indirect affiliation with or interest,
financial or otherwise, in a private beauty culture
school or beauty shop.
As rewritten, this portion of section 2(a) directs the appointment of
two members holding valid operator licenses who
have no direct or indirect affiliation with or interest,
financial or otherwise, in a private beauty culture
school or beauty shop.
You ask whether the member representing wig specialist licensees remains
eligible to serve after September L
Senate Bill 384 contains a “hold over clause,” which provides that “a
person hdding office as a member of the Texas Cosmetdogy Commission on
the effective date of this Act continues to hold office for the term for
which the member was originally appointed” Section 2. See Bloom v. Texas
State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 492 S.W.2d 4m 461 (Tex. 1973).
In our opmion, however, it IS unnecessary to apply that provision to the
individual representing the wig specialist licensees, since you have advised
P- 338
Honorable Joe H. Golman - Page Two (NW-1071
us that that person hdds a valid operatoi’s license and has “no direct or indirect affiliation
with or interest, financial or otherwise, in a private beauty culture school or beauty shop.”
Since the individual is eligible under the new provision of section 2(a), she continues to
serve until the expiration of her term.
You also inquire about the eligibility of a ‘lay member” who is registered as a
lobbyist, even though he does not lobby for the beauty Industry. Section 6(b) of the new
statute provides, in pertinent part:
A person who is required to register as a lobbyist under Chapter
422, Acts of the 63rd Legislature, Regular Session, 1973, as
amended (Article 6252-9c, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes), may not
act as the general counsel to the commission or serve as a member
of the commission.
Pursuant to Willis v. Potts, 377 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. 1964), statutory provisions that
restrict the right to hold public office are strictly construed against ineligibility. In our
opinion, the Supreme Court’s determination in this case tcgether with the clear language
of the hold-over clause requies the conclusion that the lay member about whom you
inquire continues to be eligible to serve on the Commission for the term for which he was
originally appointed
SUMMARY
A member of the Texas Cosmetdogy Commission representing wig
specialist licensees continues to serve on the Commission after
September 1, 1979. A lay member who is required to register as a
lobbyist under article 625%9c, V.T.C.S., continues to be eligible to
serve for the remainder of his term.
MARK WHITE
Attorney General of Texas
JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.
First Assistant Attorney General
TED L. HARTLEY
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General
P. 339
Honorable Joe H. Golman - Page Three (MN-107)
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
C. Robert Heath, Chairman
David B. Brooks
Bob Gammage
Susan Garrison
Rick Gilpin
Iris Jones
P. 340