Minutes - April 9, 2026 - Professional Engineers

DATE: April 9, 2026

TIME: 09:45 AM

LOCATION: 100 S. Charles St.
Tower 1
Baltimore, MD 21201 (Teleconference via Google Meet) Access Using Video Conferencing meet.google.com/vez-tjmx-mbr Phone: +1 401-552-4499
PIN: 392138700

MEMBERS PRESENT: Sallye Perrin, PE, Chair
Edward (Ed) Hubner, PE, Vice-Chair
Karl Rickert, PE Kathryn Gunkel, PE Lily Kuitcha, PE
Dhrubajyoti (DJ) Biswas, PE Judi Miller, RA, Consumer

MEMBERS ABSENT: Tracey Clark, Consumer

STAFF PRESENT: Zevi Thomas, Executive Director
Raquel Meyers, Assistant Executive Director Robert Pambianco, AAG, Board Counsel Andrew Friel, Director of Government Affairs Javon Williams, Fiscal Services Administrator Hannah Belcher, Office Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT: Melissa Cannata from Amber Books
Greg Morgan, MDSPE

Taurean Blake Hj Johnson
Arian Lessani John B
Elham Shayanfar

Meeting Called to Order

Chair Sallye Perrin called the meeting to order at 9:43 am.

Approval of February 12, 2026, Meeting Minutes

March 12, 2026, meeting minutes approved with corrections.

Review of Reciprocity and Exam Applications

Ms. Perrin noted that several reciprocity and exam applications were approved, as were several administratively approved model law applications. Motion (I) was called to approve all reciprocity, including MLE’s, and examination applications. The motion was moved by Ms. Gunkel, seconded by Mr. Hubner, and unanimously approved.

Ms. Miller asked whether there is data on the time from application submission to Board approval.

Ms. Perrin explained that the initial review itself is relatively quick, but delays often occur while waiting for all required information to be submitted to the Board. From the time an application is submitted, the process can take up to six months, particularly if materials such as transcripts, references, or Record of Professional Experience (RPEs) are pending from external sources.

Ms. Miller added that her question stems from conversations with industry professionals, where she has heard that applications involving non-U.S. degrees may take longer. She expressed interest in understanding the typical turnaround time and suggested that having this information readily available would be beneficial.

Dr. Elham Shayanfar requested an opportunity to address the Board, explaining that she is a civil engineer who applied in the transportation discipline last December, but her application was denied due to her educational background. She noted that she attended the meeting last month to share her experience and has not yet received a response from the Board. Ms. Perrin informed her that the matter would be discussed during the executive session and that staff would follow up with her after the meeting.

Application Approved Administratively for PE Licensure by Reciprocity:

There were 68 applications, supported by NCEES Model Law Engineer records, that were administratively approved for licensure by reciprocity.

Applications for PE Licensure by Reciprocity are as follows:

Beniwal, Akshay (66818)
Churches, Charles (66820)
Etemadnia, Hamideh (66821)
Hoke, Brandon (66822)

Martinez, Maria (66827)
Massoudieh, Arash (66828)
Mei, Weijun (66829)
Osei-Bonsu, Jude (66831)
Ponder, Robert (66845)
Sawant, Vilas (66830)
Senevirathna, Gama Ralalage (61843) Shammas, Nabeel (66832)
Shivale, Mohanish (66833)

Applications for PE Licensure by MRA are as follows:

Thompson, Stephen P (66815)
There was one application for PE licensure by reciprocity that was placed in the “Needs More Information” folder, a lapse of time was determined to be 14 years rather than 27 years, and the required end dates still need to be included.

There were two reciprocal applicants denied. One applicant was denied due to no experience under a professional engineer, and the applicant did not meet the four-year requirement under option
305(b). The second applicant was denied due to only three years of professional engineer work experience, one of which consists of graduate school research, which does not satisfy the experience requirement.

Transfer of Grades

There were no applications for transfer of grades submitted for review.

Applications for the Principles and Practices of Engineering Exam as follows:

Catalano, Matthew Courtney, Brown Dwarkin, Robert Famili, Brien Finnerty, Mary Guirguis, Mary Habit, Justin Habtemarian, Hiwot
Hallums-Ponton, Sonia

There was one application for PE Licensure by Exam was placed in the “Needs More Information” folder pending resubmission of the Record of Professional Experience form and List of Endorsers form by the applicant.
There were 10 applications for PE Licensure by Exam not reviewed at the meeting and will be deferred to the May meeting.

Old Business

a) NCEES MRA Procedures

Mr. Thomas explained that the issue had been raised previously regarding applicants’ inability to begin the process with Maryland without first obtaining licensure in another state. He noted that this was largely a technical issue. After speaking with NCEES, adjustments were made to allow candidates who are part of the MRA to apply directly, with transmittals provided to the Board in the same manner as other reciprocity applications. These transmittals include all necessary information for the Board to review. Mr. Thomas emphasizes that the issue has now been resolved.

Ms. Perrin confirmed that applicants will no longer need to obtain licensure in another state before applying, and Mr. Thomas affirmed that Maryland can now serve as their initial U.S. jurisdiction. Ms. Perrin also requested that an approval folder be added to the file system, consistent with existing practices, and Mr. Thomas agreed this could be implemented.

Ms. Perrin then referred to Ms. Miller’s question regarding the application process and timelines, particularly for applicants with foreign or non-traditional degrees. Mr. Thomas clarified that while he was not addressing the full process, data on timeframes could be compiled. He noted that processing time often depends on how quickly applicants respond to requests for additional information, and that while timelines can vary, it would be unusual for an application to take a year. He added that staff could provide average and best-case processing times based on available data.

In response to questions about internal processing time, Mr. Hubner explained that applicants are generally given 60 to 90 days to complete their applications. He noted that delays often result from incomplete submissions, particularly with work samples or foreign degree evaluations, requiring multiple rounds of revisions. He emphasized that these delays are largely due to applicants not providing the required information, rather than staff processing time.

Ms. Belcher added that applicants receive a detailed acceptance email outlining all required materials, including guidance for work samples when applicable. However, delays still occur when applicants submit incorrect or excessive documentation, necessitating follow-up and resubmission. Applicants are given 90 days to respond, and if they fail to do so, their application may be administratively closed.

Ms. Perrin explained that once an application is complete, it enters the Board’s review cycle, which may add up to six weeks before review at the next meeting. If additional information is required, further delays may occur, extending the timeline.

Mr. Biswas noted that once a complete application is submitted, it is typically reviewed within the same monthly cycle and approved if all requirements are met. Mr. Hubner provided an example of a complex application that took several months due to incomplete submissions and technical issues but reiterated that complete applications are generally processed more quickly.

Ms. Perrin requested that Mr. Thomas and staff provide the Board with data on application processing numbers, noting that 68 Model Law Engineer applications had been approved and are typically processed administratively within 30 days. She also asked Ms. Belcher to include application dates in the tracking spreadsheet and add the item to next month’s agenda for further review.

b) Backlog of applications who have not passed the FE

Ms. Perrin inquired about the backlog of applicants who have not passed the FE exam. She asked how many applicants are still in the system who have not yet passed the FE.

Mr. Thomas responded that the number remains in the 20s. He added that once those applications expire, the individuals will need to restart the process and comply with the current law requirements at this time.

c) MDSPE Taskforce

Ms. Perrin asked when the MDSPE taskforce will meet. Mr. Morgan stated that the task force is scheduled to meet on April 24, 2026. Schedule to take part in that meeting is Mr. Thomas, Ms. Gunkel, and Ms. Miller have confirmed their participation, while responses are still pending from Mr. Hubner and Mr. Rickert. From the society, Mr. Andrew Brown and Mr. Brian Tansky have responded, and Mr. Morgan indicated that Mr. Will Zid and Mr. Tory Pierce are also expected to attend. Mr. Hubner noted that he is not a member of the task force.

Mr. Morgan explained that the meeting will serve as a kickoff. He added that he had asked Mr. Thomas and noted that Mr. Venuti, Board Counsel is currently unavailable, along with a new member; it would be helpful to have Board Counsel present to provide guidance. This would be particularly important if the group moves toward a rule change, including determining whether such a change would need to go legislative or could be handled through regulations.

Mr. Morgan also asked the taskforce Board members to contact him if they have not received his email or have any concerns.

Ms. Perrin asked Mr. Pambianco whether the Architects’ bill had passed. Mr. Pambianco reported that Senate Bill (SB) 653 /House Bill (HB)1180 had passed its third readings in both the Senate and the House and has now cleared both chambers. He noted that the bill should be sent to the governor soon.

Ms. Perrin asked if this was the bill concerning code officials. Mr. Thomas confirmed that it is the same bill, explaining that while the title may emphasize limitations on actions, it also includes provisions related to code officials verifying signatures and seals.

Ms. Perrin stated that, given the bill’s passage for architects, the task force should consider whether similar provisions should be applied to surveyors and engineers, as previously discussed with Mr. Venuti. Mr. Morgan agreed, noting that such an approach could have a stronger impact if multiple Boards were involved. He added that the architects’ bill was driven by Senator Kagan, but broader coalition support such as through the design council could build greater momentum.

Ms. Perrin requested that this topic be added to the task force agenda and suggested using a more appropriate term than “discipline.” Mr. Morgan clarified that the concept is being referred to as “digital seal and signature.”

Mr. Hubner added that the Florida Board recently issued a newsletter addressing concerns about misuse and theft of professional seals, including commentary from its chair. He offered to share this information with Mr. Morgan, who agreed to distribute it to the committee.

New Business

Mr. Hubner reported that he accepted an invitation to participate in an ethics roundtable for MDSPE in October.

Ms. Gunkel asked about attending the NCEES annual meeting in August and whether expenses would be covered. Ms. Perrin explained that NCEES covers the primary costs, including flights and registration, and provides reimbursement for incidental expenses such as transportation to and from the airport after the trip. Mr. Thomas confirmed that this process is handled during registration. Ms. Kuitcha noted that she will not attend this year’s annual meeting due to scheduling conflicts and plans to attend next year instead.

Mr. Hubner also shared feedback from a recent finance committee meeting he attended in place of the last board meeting. He highlighted that one of the major decisions involved transferring approximately 50% of reserve funds of about $8 million to the NCEES Foundation to ensure funds are actively used rather than held in excess reserves.

He further explained that the committee reviewed and recommended updates to the foundation’s spending policy. The allowable annual spending is expected to increase to around $1 million for programs. Additionally, the calculation method for allowable spending was adjusted: instead of using an average over 12 quarters, it will now use a shorter timeframe (approximately four quarters), reflecting the increased funding levels and the goal of putting funds to use more efficiently in the community. There was also discussion about potentially increasing the spending rate from 4% to 6%, though that point may still be under review.

Finally, Mr. Hubner noted that reserves for cyber insurance were reduced after determining that the organization had been over-insured. The overall goal of these changes is to better balance financial security with actively reinvesting funds into programs and community initiatives rather than accumulating excess reserves.

Correspondence - None

Executive Director’s Report

Mr. Thomas noted that much of the topic has already been addressed by the taskforce regarding the legislative bills. He added that the NCEES Annual Business meeting is scheduled for August and informed Ms. Gunkel he will follow up with additional details about what to expect in preparation for this meeting. He will send email information by the end of the week confirming which board members are NCEES funded. He also noted that if others are interested in attending, the Board can attempt to secure state funding. Registration for the August meeting is expected to open in mid-May.

Mr. Thomas also shared an update on the Board Administrative Officer position. As mentioned last month, a series of interviews were conducted to fill the vacant position. There was a high volume of applicants, and Ms. Meyers and I interviewed several very qualified candidates. The process is still ongoing with human resources, and he expressed hope that an announcement could be made at next month’s meeting.

Ms. Perrin commented that Ms. Meyers has been doing an excellent job with meeting minutes and keeping the Board organized, adding that hiring someone even half as effective would be a success. Ms. Meyers agreed, noting that the candidates interviewed were strong and expressing confidence

that the selected individual will meet expectations.

Mr. Thomas also mentioned, in the context of digital seals, that he recently attended NCARB (the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards) Regional Summit. During that meeting, it was noted that NCARB is working along with NCEES, and the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB) to form a national task force to examine issues related to digital signature theft from a broader, more holistic perspective, recognizing that it is not only a national concern but an international one. He would share more updates as they become available.

Board Counsel’s Report

Mr. Pambianco briefly revisited SB 653, noting that it applies to architects and includes language requiring code officials to verify both the seal and the architect’s license. He then highlighted two additional bills. The first, SB 133/ HB 241, is a sunset extension bill affecting several boards, including professional land surveyors. This bill has cleared both the House and Senate and is expected to be sent to the Governor’s office.
The second bill, SB 256, is a comprehensive code revision for the State Board of Professional Landscape Architects. It has passed the Senate and is currently in the House on its third reading. SB 653 is moving forward and could pass the House by the end of the week.

Ms. Perrin asked when planning begins for next year’s legislation. Mr. Pambianco explained that the process typically starts shortly after the current legislative session ends. Concept sheets internal to the Department of Labor are usually due in the May to June timeframe, meaning work on the next session begins almost immediately. He noted that department sponsored bills require multiple levels of approval, including from the Secretary and the Governor’s office, before they can be formally introduced.
Mr. Hubner noted that, historically, it has often been more efficient for MDSPE to draft and propose legislation, with the Board then choosing whether to support it. He explained that several past initiatives, including continuing education requirements, originated this way. While collaboration with MDSPE could be beneficial, he pointed out that the organization does not face the same procedural deadlines as the Board.
Mr. Rickert added that the maximum civil fine currently imposed is $5,000, a limit that has been in place for approximately 20 years and suggested that it may be time to reevaluate that amount.

CPC Provider Committee Report

Mr. Biswas reported that he reviewed and approved one CPC provider’s application as follows: API Heat Transfer Company.
Motion (II) was called by Ms. Perrin to accept the CPC Committee Report, moved by Mr. Hubner, seconded by Ms. Miller and unanimously approved.

Complaint Committee Report

Mr. Rickert reported on the status of complaints discussed by the Complaint Committee on April 9, 2026

17-PE-26. Investigating. Send Warning Letter to Respondent 16-PE-26. Investigating. Send 30-day letter to Respondent
13-PE-26. Investigating. Awaiting Respondent’s Response

The Complaint Committee reviewed four applications for reinstatement. The first applicant will be notified that he must pay a $1,500 fine and complete an additional 16 PDHs. The second applicant must provide a detailed explanation of his engineering-related work since his professional engineer license lapsed in 2015. For the third applicant, the staff will verify his engineering-related continuing education credits prior to reinstating his license, which lapsed in 2010. The fourth applicant must submit a detailed explanation of his engineering-related work since his license lapsed in 2018 and complete 32 PDHs.
The Committee also reported that several pre-charge matters are scheduled to be presented to the Board, while others remain pending and are being handled in coordination with the litigation attorney.

Motion (III) was called by Ms. Perrin to accept the Complaint Committee Report, moved by Ms. Kuitcha, seconded by Mr. Hubner and unanimously approved.

Executive Session

Motion (IV) was called by Ms. Perrin, moved by Mr. Hubner, and seconded by Ms. Miller. The motion was unanimously approved, and the Board entered executive session at 10:58 a.m. The session was closed pursuant to §3-305(b)(7) and §3-305(b)(13) of the General Provisions Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland to consult with counsel and to comply with specific statutory requirements prohibiting public disclosure of certain proceedings and matters. The Board convened in closed session to protect confidential communications and licensing information exempt from disclosure under the Maryland Public Information Act in connection with applications and matters before the Complaint Committee. Upon completion of the executive session, the Board reconvened its public meeting at 11:11 a.m.

Other Business

1. The NCEES Central/NE Zone Joint Meeting, May 14 – 16, 2026, Columbus, OH
2. The next Board meeting is scheduled for May 21, 2026, at 9:45 am
3. MDSPE Engineers Reception and Awards Night, May 21, 2026, 5:30 p.m. Ms. Perrin, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Gunkel will be in attendance

Adjournment

Motion (V) was called by Ms. Perrin, moved by Ms. Gunkel, seconded by Mr. Rickert, and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 11:16 a.m.

With Corrections Without Corrections