Minutes - March 12, 2026 - Professional Engineers

DATE: March 12, 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
Karl Rickert, PE Kathryn Gunkel, PE Lily Kuitcha, PE
Judi Miller, RA, Consumer Tracey Clark, Consumer Dhrubajyoti (DJ) Biswas, PE

MEMBERS ABSENT: Edward (Ed) Hubner, PE, Vice-Chair

STAFF PRESENT: Zevi Thomas, Executive Director
Raquel Meyers, Assistant Executive Director
Matthew Venuti, AAG, Board Counsel
Ajah Harris, Policy Director
Javon Williams, Fiscal Services Administrator Hannah Belcher, Office Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT: Melissa Cannata from Amber Books
Doug Allwein

AbdulGafar Sulaiman Jude Osei-Bonsu
Matthew Deskevich Michael K
Roger Neznayko Sal Sailik
Tim Engbert Elham Shayanfar

Meeting Called to Order

Chair Sallye Perrin called the meeting to order at 9:48 am.

Approval of February 12, 2026, Meeting Minutes

February 12, 2026, meeting minutes approved without corrections.

Review of Reciprocity and Exam Applications

Ms. Perrin noted there were several reciprocity applications administratively approved. There is one application she would like to discuss in Executive Session. Motion (I) was called to approve all reciprocity, including MLE’s, and examination applications. The motion was moved by Ms. Perrin, seconded by Mr. Rickert, and unanimously approved.
Ms. Gunkel asked for clarification on what it means for an application to be “administratively approved” by the Department. Ms. Perrin explained that this applies to Model Law Engineers. These applications are considered administratively approved because the applicants meet NCEES education (ABET requirements), work experience verified by licensed professional engineers and passing both the FE and PE exams. Mr. Thomas agreed with Ms. Perrin, noting that if the criteria are met, the application can be administratively approved.

Ms. Perrin also requested additional items be added to the agenda. She would like to review under old business plans for the 2027 NE Zone Meeting, which will be held in Baltimore, and receive an update on the status of the MDSPE Taskforce, which was scheduled to take place in early March.

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:

Abusailik, Salah (66634) Aldrich, John A (66635) Allen, James (66636)
Allwein, Douglas (66690)
Araghi, Amirpasha (66462) Astroth, Gregory S (66637) Binggeng, Lu (66638) Broulk, Emily B (66639)

Johns, Christopher (66640) Thrasher, Darren E (66641) Jagirdar, Dhaval D (66642) Flint, Steven (66643) Miyani, Harkik S (66644) Harris, Kenneth R. (66645) Igor, Maevski (66646)
Pirie, Christopher (66708)

There was no Applications for PE Licensure by Reciprocity placed in the "Needs More Information" folder.

Four reciprocal applicants were denied. Two were denied due to not passing the FE exam. One applicant was denied for insufficient work experience, having only two years and three months, four years are required under option 305(b). Another applicant had three years and nine months of experience after earning a degree, plus one year and one month as an intern while still in school, which also did not meet the requirement.

Transfer of Grades

Applications for PE Licensure by Transfer of Grades are as follows:

Baido, Fiifi O Sulaiman, Abdulgarfar
Downs, Samuel Weibert, Scott A
Kappatos, Vasilios G

There was no transfer of grades applications denied.

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

Brakob, Dakota B Corus, Jack L Eltaf, Zubar Fuller, Sarah Garret, Jamel L Gorham, Michael Harro, Crosby
Hedgecoth, Jennifer R Jahabin, Ramin Javanmardi, Zohreh G Kamale, Daniel D Kavka, Jack
Lambert, Kaitlyn M

There was one denied exam application. Applicant evaluation of degrees shows a deficiency in five hours of engineering studies.

Old Business

a) Administrative Process Improvement Update

Mr. Thomas noted that changes were made to bypass restrictions on the shared drive, which had been preventing certain documents such as transcripts and other flagged materials from being shared with Board members. A test run was conducted earlier in the month which appeared to be successful, as fewer “invisible” applications were encountered. This approach is intended as a short-term solution to ensure all Board members receive the applications. He asked anyone still experiencing technical issues to please notify him promptly. Ms. Gunkel stated that this was her first time seeing applications appear and found the tracking list helpful, as it indicated two applications while only one was visible in the folder. After notifying staff, the second application was made available. She added that the application matrix was implemented to help identify discrepancies; if the number of visible applications does not match the list, members should notify staff so the issue can be corrected.
Ms. Perrin informed Ms. Gunkel that the current process is for Board members to use the comments feature within the PDFs to note missing items and then move the application to the “Needs More Information” folder, which alerts staff to review it. Mr. Rickert agreed with this process. Ms. Gunkel added that she identified additional issues with the application, which she discussed with Mr. Hubner, and requested that those matters also be addressed during Executive Session.

b) Number of Outstanding Applications for Review

Mr. Thomas asked Ms. Belcher regarding the number of outstanding applications for review, and she reported that 22 applications under Option D remain outstanding and are still in process.

c) Backlog of Applicants that have not passed the FE

Ms. Gunkel asked whether these 22 applicants had taken and failed the FE exam and were reapplying, or if their applications had not yet been processed, preventing them from taking the exam. Mr. Thomas explained that, historically, there was an Option D pathway that did not require candidates to pass the FE exam to be eligible for licensure in Maryland; however, this option was sunset on October 1, 2025. The Board established a deadline of September 30 for applicants to submit materials under this pathway. While some applicants met that deadline, their applications are still being processed administratively, as additional time was needed to obtain endorsements and complete application packages. These applicants make up the remaining cases still under review.
Ms. Kuitcha asked whether the 22 applicants had completed their submissions administratively, noting that the deadline to finalize applications was January 30, and inquired about the cause of the delay. Mr. Thomas responded that, in most cases, staff are still awaiting additional documentation, and the applications remain pending. Ms. Kuitcha also indicated that she has an application she would like to discuss during Executive Session.

d) 2027 Northeast (NE) Zone Meeting

Ms. Perrin, noting her role on the site selection committee, asked for confirmation that plans remain on track for hosting the 2027 NCEES NE Zone Meeting in Baltimore and inquired whether there has been any contact with NCEES officials. Mr. Thomas responded that he has not received any communication from NCEES. He explained that their liaison is a member of the Surveyors Board, Jeanne Nebre, who may also be involved in the site selection process, but he has not received any

updates. Mr. Thomas added that the Board previously submitted its location preferences; Annapolis and Baltimore, with Baltimore identified as the preferred option based on prior discussions and meeting minutes. This information was shared with NCEES, and he believes the next step is for them to begin evaluating potential venues.
Ms. Perrin noted that the New York Board has encountered challenges with hosting conferences within New York State due to internal constraints; however, she confirmed that no such issues exist for this Board. She reiterated that the Board remains fully supportive and prepared to host the 2027 NE Zone Meeting.

e) MDSPE Taskforce

Ms. Perrin inquired about the status of the MDSPE task force regarding the inappropriate use of seals and stamps. Mr. Thomas reported that he had reached out shortly after the last meeting and provided the names and contact information of the committee members. He noted that the matter is now in their hands and that he has not received any updates on whether a meeting with the committee has been scheduled.

Legislative Update

Mr. Venuti reported that the Board for Land Surveyors sunset extension has passed in both the House and the Senate, granting a five-year extension and allowing the Board to continue operating through 2032. He also noted that the Board of Landscape Architects’ Modernization Act has passed in both chambers.
Regarding the architects, Mr. Venuti explained that there is a proposal to amend the grounds for disciplinary action, which the Board has discussed previously. The proposal would require code officials to verify stamps and seals, and the Board had submitted comments recommending that the requirement should apply to all design boards. While the proposal has since been amended to clarify language around the verification process and to allow the Board of Architects to create an electronic portal for anonymous and confidential complaints, it does not incorporate the Board’s recommendation and remains limited to the architects. The proposal is currently awaiting a third reading in the Senate before crossing over to the House.
Ms. Perrin inquired about the timeline for submitting legislation for the next session. Mr. Venuti responded that proposals are typically due in early June. Ms. Perrin noted that if the architects’ bill passes, the Board may want to consider proposing similar legislation, and that this should be discussed in May. She emphasized the importance of monitoring the progress of the architects’ bill and needs to be added to the agenda under Old Business to ensure it is revisited, regardless of whether it ultimately passes.

Ms. Perrin also expressed some uncertainty regarding the provision allowing for anonymous complaint reporting through an electronic portal. She noted that the Board does not currently accept anonymous complaints and asked for confirmation. Mr. Venuti explained that complaints must include an affidavit attesting to their truth, which would be difficult to satisfy anonymously. Mr. Thomas clarified that the anonymous reporting provision was not proposed by the agency but was added by a state senator, and that it does not reflect the agency’s standard policy, which does not typically allow anonymous complaints. He also noted that the architect’s bill is Senate Bill 653.

Ms. Perrin requested that a proposal for a task force to review the architect’s bill activities be added to the June agenda.

New Business – None

Correspondence

NCEES Records for “Initial” PE License

Mr. Thomas reported that he received correspondence from NCEES on February 13, 2026, regarding concerns with Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) applicants, particularly those from the United Kingdom. He explained that these applicants are similar to Model Law Engineers but are internationally licensed engineers seeking reciprocity in the United States under the MRA. Maryland joined this agreement approximately one year ago and is one of about 14 participating states. However, an issue has arisen because Maryland does not accept the NCEES record as a basis for initial licensure. As a result, MRA applicants are required to first obtain licensure in another state that accepts the NCEES record and then apply for reciprocity in Maryland. This creates an unintended burden and undermines the purpose of the MRA, which is to allow qualified applicants to seek licensure directly. Mr. Thomas noted that Maryland appears to be the only state with this limitation, which is tied to the Board’s current licensure settings and requirements for initial licensure.

Ms. Perrin questioned why MRA applications are not being brought before the Board for review, as she understood they were intended to be reviewed rather than administratively approved. Mr. Thomas responded that his understanding was that, because these applications are vetted by NCEES at a level comparable to Model Law Engineers, they would follow a similar process. Ms. Perrin and Mr. Venuti both indicated that they believed the Board had intended to review these applications. Ms. Perrin suggested that the applications could be treated similarly to comity (reciprocity) applications and submitted to the Board for review. She further noted that the current definition of Model Law Engineer in Maryland regulations requires passage of both the FE and PE exams, which MRA applicants may not meet, creating a barrier to classification under that category.
Ms. Perrin explained that the situation is somewhat compared to a transfer-of-grades application, where an individual has passed both the FE and PE exams in another jurisdiction and is seeking their initial PE license in Maryland. In such cases, applications are sometimes submitted as transfer-of-grades, even though the applicant is pursuing their first U.S. license. She noted that the challenge with MRA applicants is that, while they do not yet hold a U.S. PE license, NCEES evaluates their U.K. credentials and determines that they are equivalent to a U.S. professional engineer. As a result, these applications could be viewed similarly to a transfer-of-grades scenario, where the Board may rely on NCEES’s evaluation to grant initial licensure in Maryland. However, she indicated that there may be a limitation within the current system that prevents these applications from being presented to the Board in this manner.

Ms. Kuitcha asked whether a similar process exists for applicants from Canada, in which licensed engineers are granted reciprocity without having to take the FE and PE exams. Ms. Perrin clarified that this situation is different, noting that the MRA represents the Board’s first mutual recognition agreement of this kind.

Ms. Perrin suggested that potential solutions could include reviewing MRA applications like transfer-grade applications, amending the definition of Model Law Engineer in the regulations, or revising internal processes to accommodate these applicants. Following discussion, Mr. Thomas thanked the Board for its input and stated that he would follow up with the NCEES representative to explore the issue further and determine what adjustments may be needed on either side.

Executive Director’s Report

Mr. Thomas reported that he received correspondence from Maryland Society of Professional Engineers (MDSPE) regarding their annual award ceremony, scheduled for May 21, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. A Board meeting is scheduled for the same day, but MDSPE is inviting Board members to participate in the event, during which certificates will be presented to newly licensed professional engineers. Ms. Perrin and Ms. Miller have volunteered to attend, and anyone else interested in participating is encouraged to contact Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Thomas also informed the Board that the interview process for the Administrative Officer position of the Professional Engineers Board has begun. The process will continue later this month, and the department hopes to finalize the selection and make an announcement at the next meeting. The process is moving forward as planned.

Board Counsel’s Report

Mr. Venuti informed the Board that he has not yet been able to locate a definition for “Model Law Engineer” in the Maryland regulations or statute and will keep the Board updated on any progress. He also noted that he provided his report earlier during the legislative update. Mr. Venuti will not attend the next two meetings scheduled in April and May as he will be on parental leave; in his absence, Mr. Robert Pambiano will serve in his place as counsel until he returns in June.

CPC Provider Committee Report – None

Complaint Committee Report
Mr. Rickert reported on the status of complaints discussed by the Complaint Committee March 12, 2026

13-PE-26. Investigating. Send 30-day letter to respondent for a response

The Complaint Committee reviewed three applications for reinstatement, one renewal application, and one reciprocal application for conduct review. The renewal application involved signing and sealing projects in another state outside the applicant’s discipline, while the reciprocal application involved a second-degree felony, including conduct disclosures and completed probation. The Committee acknowledged reported conduct in each case and voted to approve all applications. Of the reinstatement applicants, one failed a CPC audit and has had an expired license since 2012; the Committee discussed whether to impose a fine and will report back to the Board by next month. Another applicant’s license has expired since 2003, and we are requesting a description of their work experience during this period to determine appropriateness; if the work is deemed inappropriate, a letter outlining three options will be issued. The third applicant’s PDHs are satisfactory, but they

signed and sealed two projects while their license was expired, and this case will be forwarded for pre-charge review.

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 (II) was called to accept the Complaint Committee Report, moved by Ms. Kuitcha, seconded by Ms. Miller and unanimously approved.

Executive Session

Motion (III) was called by Ms. Perrin, moved by Ms. Kuitcha, seconded by Mr. Biswas and unanimously to enter Executive Session at 10:58 a.m. This session was permitted to be closed pursuant to General Provisions Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, §3-305(b) (7) to seek counsel advice regarding licensing applications for board review. Upon completion of this closed session, the Board reconvened its public meeting at 11:21 a.m.

Dr. Elham Shayanfar, exam applicant, inquired whether she would receive an email following the meeting regarding the status of her application. Ms. Perrin confirmed that she would receive an email from Board staff. The reciprocal applicant, Jude Osei-Bonsu, will also receive an email.

Other Business

1. The next Board meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2026, at 9:45 a.m.

Adjournment

Motion (IV) was called by Ms. Perrin, moved by Ms. Gunkel, seconded by Mr. Biswas and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 11:24 a.m.

x With Corrections Without Corrections

Chair’s Signature:

Signature On File

Date: 04/10/2026