Minutes - May 21, 2026 - Professional Engineers

DATE: Mary 21, 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
Tracey Clark, Consumer

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT: Zevi Thomas, Executive Director
Raquel Meyers, Assistant Executive Director
Robert Pambianco, AAG, Board Counsel
Andrew Friel, Director of Government Affairs
Dara Moore, Administrative Specialist

Hannah Belcher, Office Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT: Melissa Cannata from Amber Books
Taurean Blake
Thomas Majure
Sonia Oton

Meeting Called to Order

Chair Sallye Perrin called the meeting to order at 9:51 am.

Approval of April 9, 2026, Meeting Minutes

April 9, 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 Mr. Hubner, seconded by Ms. Gunkel, and unanimously approved.

Application Approved Administratively for PE Licensure by Reciprocity:

There were 138 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:

Berkavich, John (67077)
Bernhart, William (67078)
Bowness, Christopher (67079)
Chikobava, Dimitry (67080)
Hamilton, Jonathan (67081)
Haque, Aminul (67082)
Noh, Hyundon (67083)
Panethiere, Michael (67084)
Paudel, Basu (67085)
Powers, James L. (67086)
Riggi, Dawn M. (67087)
Saboktakin, Sina (67088)
Sheppard, Jon (67089)
Villemarette, Sara L. (67090)
Yates, Ronald (67091)

Applications for PE Licensure by MRA are as follows:

Brooks, Gary

There was one reciprocal applicant denied. One applicant was denied due to a lack of experience under a professional engineer, and the applicant did not meet the four-year requirement under option 305(b).

There were three applications for PE Licensure by Reciprocity not reviewed at the meeting and will be deferred to the June meeting.

Transfer of Grades

Blas- Rodriguez, Gilberto
Blake, Taurean
Praharaj, Shraddha

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

Aslan, Melih
Campbell, Jamey
Dowdy, Robert C.
Doyle, Patrick R.
Gast, Katherine
Hamm, Shane
Kaplan, Noah
Ketner, Virgil
Luxton, Brian
Miller, Joshua
Offerman, Robert
Pasquarelli, Michael
Peterson, Johnny
Planzos, Matthew
Restrepo, Andres
Sandhu, Aiden
Si, Yuanming
Tran, Quoc T.
Yu, Huanlin

There were six applications for PE Licensure by Examination placed in the “Needs More Information” folder. One applicant is pending resubmission of the Record of Professional Experience (RPE) Form 2. The second and third applicants were not supervised by a licensed professional engineer and will be required to submit samples of work. The fourth applicant has only four years and six months of experience under Option 305(d). The fifth applicant must submit a completed RPE form and provide the endorser's name. The sixth applicant was missing five hours of general education requirements.

There were also three applications for PE Licensure by Examination that were not reviewed during the meeting and will be deferred to the June meeting.

Old Business

a)Backlog of applications that have not passed the FE

Ms. Perrin had noted that regarding the backlog of applicants who have not passed the FE examination, she had one applicant approved. She asked if there were any other applicants remaining in that category or if we still have additional applications pending review.

Ms. Gunkel stated that she had two applicants from the Record of Professional Experience (RPE) with the same issue encountered previously: they had not worked under the supervision of a licensed professional engineer and did not provide sufficiently detailed examples of their engineering work. She explained that she used the same wording Mr. Hubner had previously provided to her.

Ms. Gunkel noted that the only modification she made was related to confidentiality. Accordingly, she included language stating that, if confidentiality was an issue, the applicants should follow the previously provided guidance regarding submission of three project examples.

She further explained that the third applicant was not missing the RPE; however, the application was missing Form 2, the endorser’s paperwork, and the project description. Although the application included substantial supporting material, Form 2 was not provided.

Ms. Perrin inquired of Ms. Belcher whether there were any additional applicants still under review who had not passed the Fundamentals of Engineering examination and were still in the pending. Ms. Belcher informed the Board that 16 applications had not been reviewed prior to September.

Ms. Belcher further explained that the Board is still awaiting documents previously requested to complete the applications. The Board agreed to grant the applicants additional time to submit the required materials; however, if they do not respond, their applications will be considered void.

Mr. Hubner asked whether there is a time limit for an applicant to register for the examination once the application has been approved. He also inquired whether the Board’s approval itself has an expiration period.

Mr. Thomas noted that the Board cannot retroactively impose such a requirement at this time. Ms. Perrin suggested that this may be an issue the Board could address through future amendments to the regulations and stated that it could further examine the matter.

Mr. Rickert commented that this has not historically been an issue and that the Board should not be overly concerned, as applicants generally take the examination once approved. Ms. Perrin clarified that applicants do not actually take the examination once they register with NCEES. She further noted that NCEES collects substantial fees from individuals who ultimately do not sit for the examination.

Ms. Perrin asked Mr. Pambianco to review the Board’s regulations to determine the applicable timeframe between approval and the period during which that approval remains valid for taking the examination. Mr. Pambianco agreed to investigate the matter but noted that the Board’s regular counsel, Matthew Venuti, would be returning the following week and that he would follow up with him regarding the issue.

Ms. Perrin also asked Mr. Hubner to follow up with NCEES regarding how long an applicant must take the examination once they have registered. Mr. Hubner agreed to follow up on the matter.

b) Review of time frames for applicants to receive approval

Ms. Perrin noted that the next item on the agenda was a review of the timeframes for applicants to receive approval. She explained that this was a follow-up to a discussion held several months earlier regarding the length of time required for applicants to obtain approval.

Mr. Thomas stated that he would present a sample cover sheet on the screen in response to a question raised by Ms. Miller at a previous meeting. He explained that application cover sheets include the date the application is received and the date it is scheduled to go before the Board.

He reviewed a cross-section of 25 applications from the previous summer, including some transferof- grade applications. Of these, 11 were completed and brought before the Board within 30 days of receipt. Three took approximately two months, three took about four months, and one took about six months, which was the longest timeframe identified during that period (May – June of the prior year). He noted that transfer-of-grade applications, which are more complex, took approximately two to three and a half months to process. Mr. Thomas clarified that while there have been perceptions that applications may take years to process, this does not reflect the Board’s actual workflow. He emphasized that the Board does not retain applications for extended periods and, in fact, does not have the capacity to hold applications for a year. He also noted that if applications were delayed for any length of time, the Comptroller’s requirements would necessitate returning applicant fees well in advance of the one-year mark.

Mr. Thomas concluded by stating that this overview was intended to provide a snapshot of typical application processing timelines.

Mr. Hubner noted discrepancies on the application cover sheets and requested that staff ensure information on the cover sheets is accurate. Mr. Thomas responded that occasional errors could occur during scrolling or data entry. Mr. Hubner requested that the matter be addressed in Executive Session, noting that it relates to one of his denied applications.

Ms. Perrin added that it is helpful when the “missing information” sections are completed during the review process, as this creates a clear record explaining application delays.

Ms. Perrin then raised a question regarding reinstatements and renewal timing, asking whether a license submitted one day after the expiration deadline is automatically placed into audit status.

Mr. Thomas confirmed that this is correct. He explained that once a license expires at midnight (12:00 a.m.), any renewal submitted after that time triggers an automatic audit notification. The licensee is then given 30 days to submit the required continuing education documentation, including PDHs.

He further explained that if the required documentation is not submitted within 30 days, staff initiate follow-up efforts, including email, mailed correspondence, and phone calls when possible. If there is still no response, the matter continues to escalate, and at approximately 90 days, certified mail is sent as proof of attempted contact. Continued non-response may result in referral to the Complaint Committee for potential disciplinary action.

Ms. Perrin confirmed her understanding of the 30-day submission requirement and the audit process. Mr. Thomas added that the audit review is typically completed within about 10 business days once all documentation is received and found to be in order. If approved, the license is reinstated, and the licensee is responsible for paying any applicable late fees, with the option to submit a manual application if needed.

Ms. Perrin then asked how long it takes for the system to reflect reinstatement after an applicant passes the audit. Mr. Thomas responded that system updates typically occur within approximately 48 hours and are processed in batches, usually on a weekly cycle rather than individually in real time. Ms. Moore clarified that applicants are generally able to renew or reinstate their license online unless the license has been expired for an extended period (approximately 15–20 years), in which case they must contact the Board to receive a paper renewal application. She explained that individuals whose licenses have recently expired are not locked out of the system; instead, they may still log in, pay the reinstatement fee, and submit a reinstatement application.

She further noted that licensees receive multiple reminder emails prior to expiration (approximately 60, 30, 15, 5, and 1 day before expiration). Once a license expires, those reminder emails stop. Mr. Hubner expressed concern about inconsistencies in the information provided, noting that earlier discussion suggested users would be locked out of the system after expiration. Ms. Moore clarified that this is not the case and reiterated that reinstatement remains available online after expiration.

Ms. Moore also explained that audit and reinstatement processing timelines vary with workload, but when all required information is received, she typically completes reviews in approximately two weeks.

Ms. Perrin emphasized the importance of clear tracking of application timelines and suggested improvements to the clarity of cover sheets to support Board review. She also noted that incomplete applications should be placed in the “Needs More Information” category, as engineers should be able to complete the required forms properly.

Ms. Perrin then asked at what point reinstatement applicants are required to submit a statement confirming whether they signed or sealed any drawings during the lapse period, in addition to PDH requirements. Ms. Moore responded that if the statement is not included in the initial submission, she will follow up via email and provide a submission deadline once the omission is identified.

c) MDSPE Taskforce

Ms. Perrin inquired whether there was a report from the MDSPE task force. Ms. Miller stated that the task force held its first meeting about a month ago and had another meeting scheduled for May 22 at noon. She noted that she and Ms. Gunkel attended the initial meeting.

Ms. Gunkel confirmed the meeting was introductory in nature, focused on member introductions and identifying the need to review a recently passed Senate bill related to architects as a basis for considering how similar issues might be addressed for engineers. Ms. Miller added that the discussion primarily involved introductions, members’ experiences with the issue, and an overview of the legislation.

Ms. Perrin then asked Mr. Pambianco about the timeline for submitting potential legislation for consideration next year. Mr. Pambianco explained that preliminary “quick list” items are typically due in early June, concept sheets in July, and draft legislation is generally prepared by August, noting he would confirm the exact dates and provide further detail.

Ms. Perrin suggested that if the Board intends to pursue legislation, it should be discussed further with the task force at the next meeting.

d) NCEES Enforcement Exchange Committee

Ms. Perrin asked Ms. Miller about her interest in serving on the NCEES Enforcement Exchange Committee. Ms. Miller explained that during the Northeast Zone meeting, there was discussion regarding barriers to committee participation and the importance of increasing involvement. She noted that, as a member of the Complaint Committee and a task force, she has a particular interest in the law enforcement component and would be interested in serving on an enforcement-related committee, if selected.

Ms. Perrin responded that this would be a positive opportunity and encouraged Ms. Miller to email Sam Wilson, the incoming NCEES President, noting that in his role he is responsible for making committee assignments. Ms. Miller added that she received information from Mr. Thomas and subsequently contacted NCEES, completed the required survey, and submitted it for consideration.

Ms. Perrin expressed her support and hope that Ms. Miller would be selected to serve on the Enforcement Exchange Committee.

e) NCEES NE Zone Meeting

Ms. Perrin noted that the meeting in Columbus was positive overall, with few controversial items expected to come before the Council to attend the annual meeting. However, she highlighted that one task force had made several recommendations that she found noteworthy, including proposals to eliminate the education awards program, on which she serves as a judging panel member, and to discontinue the NCEES convenes a board of affiliated organizations initiative. She stated that it was unclear whether these recommendations would advance, as the Board would review reports and determine which items would become formal motions.

Ms. Perrin also noted that the Education Committee advanced a motion to include EAC/ABET degrees, with additional experience, as acceptable for the structural exam, and that individuals without an EAC/ABET-accredited degree would still be required to meet the education standard. She indicated this was the primary controversial item from the Education Committee.

She then asked whether there were any additional items from the report for discussion. Mr. Rickert inquired about any discussions related to the illegal use of seals. Mr. Biswas responded that this topic was raised during the Engineering and Surveying Forum and noted that many boards are experiencing similar issues. He also added that the next NCEES Annual Meeting will be held in Henderson, Nevada. Ms. Perrin confirmed this and further noted that the next Zone Meeting will be held in Nebraska, followed by Maryland the year after.

Mr. Thomas added that during the Member Board Executive (MBE) Forum, the issue of illegal seal use was discussed extensively, particularly among regulatory peers. He noted there was consideration for elevating the issue from a working group to a formal task force. Various ideas were discussed, including developing a more secure, automated transmission system for design documents, similar to how prescriptions are electronically transmitted in the healthcare field, to reduce misuse and improve security in professional seal usage.

Ms. Perrin noted she received an email from Jeanne Nebre of the Board of Surveyors regarding Maryland’s reporting on Model Law Engineer (MLE) disciplinary actions, stating that the enforcement website indicates Maryland is not reporting any violations.

Mr. Thomas responded that Maryland’s responsibility is to its own citizens and that the Board does not operate on other states’ reporting timelines or expectations. He noted that disciplinary actions are posted and maintained on the Board’s website as required, and that staff are responsible for ensuring updates are made. He added that the Board reports practice-related disciplinary actions but does not report items such as audit failures.

Mr. Thomas responded that disciplinary actions are public records and posted on the Board’s website, including the licensee’s name, registration number, and the action taken. He noted that while there is a requirement to submit information to the NCEES Enforcement Exchange, it is typically done quarterly in accordance with the Board’s reporting schedule. He added that there has been some disagreement with one state over timing expectations, as that state prefers to report on a different schedule.

Ms. Gunkel asked about reciprocal disciplinary actions. Mr. Thomas explained that under reciprocity rules, applicants seeking Model Law Engineer (MLE) status must have no disciplinary actions, as this is verified through NCEES. He noted that individuals with disciplinary actions cannot qualify as MLEs under current policy.

Mr. Hubner added that some states review and act on disciplinary actions taken in other jurisdictions, meaning a licensee disciplined in one state may face additional consequences in others. He noted that while Maryland does not typically pursue such cross-state enforcement, many other states do, resulting in multiple disciplinary actions arising from a single incident.

Mr. Hubner noted difficulty reading some handwritten applications. Mr. Thomas responded that applications were historically handwritten, but the Board has since moved toward typed submissions, including staffing changes to support that transition. He acknowledged the concern and indicated the Board will continue working to improve clarity and accessibility.

Mr. Hubner added that while handwritten drafting was common in the past, it is no longer practical and noted that illegible applications, particularly reciprocal applications, should be returned to applicants for typing if staff are unable to read them.

Mr. Thomas agreed, stating that improving accessibility and document standards is part of ongoing modernization efforts. He confirmed that the staff will work to ensure applications that are not legible are returned and resubmitted, typed or in clear handwriting.

New Business

Mr. Hubner noted that he advised the individual to bring the concern to the Maryland State Board for Professional Engineers for appropriate review. He added that the issue may or may not formally come before the Board, and it was briefly discussed in that context.

Correspondence

Mr. Thomas noted that the Board received a matter of concern regarding artificial intelligence (AI) and how the Board plans to regulate or address its use, using it as an opening discussion point.

Mr. Rickert stated that while additional language could potentially be added to statute or regulation, the core issue remains similar to the use of engineering software: licensed engineers are still responsible for reviewing and verifying all outputs, regardless of whether they come from traditional computer tools or AI. He added that, at least in the near term, professional judgment and verification will still be required.

Mr. Thomas added that the key question is whether the use of AI would absolve licenses of responsibility and suggested that this may need to be explicitly clarified in statute or regulation to ensure accountability remains with the licensed professional.

Ms. Perrin noted that AI is an emerging issue that will likely continue to emerge, citing upcoming sessions at the NCEES conference. She suggested adding the topic to the task force on signing and sealing, given its related implications for professional responsibility.

Executive Director’s Report

Mr. Thomas reported that most items had been covered, and shared positive news about the recent hire to the PE Board staff, Steven Rodriguez-Cartagena, who joined the Board last month. He noted that Mr. Rodriguez-Cartagena has a background in banking and finance and will serve as Board Administrative Officer. He will be present at the next meeting and will take over responsibilities for meeting administration and minutes.

Mr. Thomas also noted Ms. Perrin and Ms. Miller, and Ms. Meyers will attend the MDSPE Engineers Reception and Awards Night this evening. Ms. Gunkel noted she is not feeling well and will not be able to attend.

Board Counsel’s Report

Mr. Pambianco outlined the legislative timeline, noting that initial “quick list” items are due first, followed by concept sheets due on July 10 that provide greater detail on the need for the proposed legislation, justification, and stakeholder impacts. He explained that full proposal packets, including draft legislation, are due August 5, with final review by the Secretary’s Office expected around August 20, a target date of August 24; then proceed to the Governor’s Office. He emphasized that the key milestones are the initial “quick list” and the July 10 concept sheet deadline.

Mr. Pambianco also provided an update on recent legislation, stating that several bills previously discussed have been signed into law by the Governor. These include Senate Bill 653, relating to architects and seal verification requirements; a sunset extension bill affecting several licensing boards, including the Board for Professional Land Surveyors; and a comprehensive bill updating the State Board of Professional Landscape Architects, including a name change for the board.

Ms. Perrin suggested placing a placeholder on the “quick list” for potential legislation that would mirror the architects’ recent bill requiring seal and license verification.

Mr. Rickert expressed reservations, noting concerns about practicality and enforcement. He stated that there is currently no clear or consistent method for verifying licenses on submitted drawings and questioned how code officials would realistically carry out such verification, particularly if contact information provided is fraudulent. He emphasized that any proposal should include a workable procedure before moving forward with a statutory requirement.

Ms. Miller responded that discussions with building officials revealed mixed understanding and approaches to the issue, with many seeking clearer direction. She noted that traditional language requiring “original seal and signature” is no longer effective in a digital environment. She added that some form of verification requirement would be an improvement over the current lack of consistency and could be refined over time, with ideas such as secure electronic validation systems being considered.

Ms. Miller suggested a digital verification approach, such as the MLB app system, in which access cannot be copied or printed and relies on an active, verifiable QR code. She noted that while no perfect solution exists yet, waiting for an ideal system could delay action, and interim measures are needed to address issues with fraudulent seals and signatures. She added that various jurisdictions and task force discussions are exploring possible solutions, including emerging technologies such as blockchain.

Ms. Perrin suggested exploring a two-step verification process, such as phone or text-based authentication.

Motion (II) was called by Ms. Perrin, moved by Mr. Hubner, seconded by Ms. Gunkel, and unanimously approved to direct Mr. Pambianco to draft a “quick list” legislative item mirroring the architects’ bill regarding seal and document verification. Ms. Perrin noted the topic will be revisited at the June meeting.

CPC Provider Committee Report

Mr. Biswas reported that he reviewed and denied one CPC provider application from Vector Infrastructure, noting that it did not meet all requirements and was placed in the “Needs More Information” folder.

Motion (III) 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 May 21, 2026

20-PE-26

Closed. Consent Order

19-PE-26

Investigating. Send a 30-day letter to the Respondent

18-PE-26

Investigating. Follow up with Baltimore City Permits. Refer to MHIC

17-PE-26

Closed. Sending Letter to Respondent

15-PE-26

Closed. Consent Order

16-PE-26

Closed. Sending Letters to Third-Party Company and Respondent

13-PE-26

Closed. Not in the Board’s jurisdiction. Refer to the Board of Land Surveyors

06-PE-26

Closed. Consent Order

The Complaint Committee reviewed three reinstatement applications. The first applicant was denied because the Board could not determine whether the individual had engaged in engineeringrelated work. The second and third applicants were approved for reinstatement, contingent upon submission of 32 PDHs prior to reinstatement.

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 (IV) was called by Ms. Perrin to accept the Complaint Committee Report, moved by Mr. Rickert, seconded by Mr. Biswas, and unanimously approved.

Mr. Hubner reported that one reciprocal application was denied for failing to meet the engineering work experience requirements under 305(d).

Motion (V) was called by Ms. Perrin to deny the reciprocal application due to lack of engineering work experience, moved by Mr. Biswas, seconded by Ms. Gunkel, and unanimously approved.

Executive Session - None

Other Business

1. Action items for the next meeting include implementing an expiration period for approvals of exam applications, the MDSPE task force, the Legislative Quick List, the election of Officers, and Committee Assignments.
2. The next Board meeting is scheduled for June 11, 2026, at 9:45 a.m.
3. Vote to hold a meeting on July 9, 2026, and no meeting in August 2026.

Motion (VI) called by Ms. Perrin to switch the July Meeting to the August Meeting, seconded by Ms. Gunkel, seconded by Mr. Ricket, and unanimously approved.

Adjournment

Motion (VII) was called by Ms. Perrin, moved by Ms. Gunkel, seconded by Mr. Biswas, and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 11:28 a.m.

With Corrections
x Without Corrections

These minutes are approved without corrections.

Chair’s Signature:
Signature On File

Date: 07/19/2026