Minutes - February 12, 2026 - Professional Engineers

DATE February 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
Edward (Ed) Hubner, PE, Vice-Chair
Karl Rickert, PE Kathryn Gunkel, PE Lily Kuitcha, PE
Judi Miller, RA, Consumer Tracey Clark, Consumer Dhrubajyoti (DJ) Biswas, PE

MEMBERS ABSENT: Judi Miller, RA, Consumer

STAFF PRESENT: Zevi Thomas, Executive Director
Raquel Meyers, Assistant Executive Director Matthew Venuti, AAG, Board Counsel Hannah Belcher, Office Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT: Aajah Harris, Policy Director, O&P
Greg Morgan, MDSPE
Melissa Cannata from Amber Books Jonathan King
AbdulGafar Sulaiman

Matthew Deskevich
PB
Peter
Roger Neznayko

Meeting Called to Order

Chair Sallye Perrin called the meeting to order at 9:46 am.

Approval of January 8, 2026, Meeting Minutes

January 8, 2026, meeting minutes approved without corrections.

Administrative Process Improvements

Ms. Perrin stated that before the Board proceeds to the next agenda item, the review of reciprocity and examination applications. She would like to address ongoing challenges with the application review process. She shared her perspective on the difficulties the Board members encountered and asked Mr. Rickert and Mr. Hubner whether they had any additional insight. Mr. Rickert informed the Board that he has not experienced problems accessing the folders. Ms. Perrin noted concerns regarding the shared folders and asked Mr. Thomas to further investigate the issue. Ms. Perrin suggested that process improvements and a comprehensive review of the current procedures are needed. She explained that she was unable to view certain applications due to limited access to shared files.
To improve organization, she recommended providing a table listing of the applicants scheduled for Board review so members can verify the corresponding files. She expressed concern that the Board’s inability to review applications as anticipated reflects poorly on the organization. Additionally, Ms. Perrin suggested revising the applicant notification letter to indicate that applications will be reviewed at an upcoming Board meeting, rather than specifying the next meeting, noting that some applications were not reviewed at prior meetings as expected. She then opened the floor for further discussion.
Mr. Hubner agreed with Ms. Perrin, stating that he also was unable to review some applications provided by the staff. He further stated that repeatedly emailing applications is not an effective solution, as it makes tracking them difficult. Mr. Thomas requested that any discussion addressing application security should be continued during an executive session. He thanked both members for their constructive feedback.
Ms. Perrin clarified that while they would not discuss specific transmission methods, there remains a need for the Board to be aware of how many applications require review. She asked Mr. Thomas whether the process could be streamlined to provide the Board with clearer expectations. She noted the Board is not functioning well now and as a result exam applications aren’t being reviewed. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that the Board would discuss how we’re handling applications administratively in executive session.

Review of Reciprocity and Exam Applications

Ms. Perrin noted that the Board will need to know how many applications are still outstanding for review, or administratively complete. She doesn’t want individuals to think that the reciprocity and exam applications have all been approved by the Board. Motion (I) was called to approve all reciprocity, including MLE’s, and examination applications. The motion was moved by Mr. Hubner, seconded by Mr. Rickert, and unanimously approved.

Application Approved Administratively for PE Licensure by Reciprocity:

There were 96 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:

Araghi, Amirpasha (66462)
Chen, Kuan-Hung (66463)
Price, Antonio (66464)
Antony, Thomas (66465)
Bennett, Edward (66466)
Borne, Brett (66467)
Bronec, Alan (66469)
Chandrasekar, Aswin (66468)
Grantner, Michael (66461)
Hargrove, Matthew (66470)
Kim, Sam (66471)
Kumar, Divyashree (66472)

Lorenz, Wayne (66473)
Paradis, Pierre (66474)
Satyanand, Yalamanchili (66475)
Shook, Kevin (66476)
Tronci, Marcello (66477)
Vaghefi, Khatereh (66478)
Ye, Qi (66479)
Gursoy, Atiler (66480) Imbembe, July Blaise (66481) Voisard, Robert (66482)
Salunkhe, Kalpesh (66483)
Taifor, Ishraq (66557)

There were three Applications for PE Licensure by Reciprocity placed into the "Needs More Information" folder:

Aldrich, John Venigalla, Venkata
Allwein, Douglas
There were four reciprocal applicants denied: one due to applying after October 1, 2025, deadline and three for failing to meet the minimum eight-year experience requirement under Section 305(c).
Transfer of Grades

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

Wright, Lauren

There were no Transfer of Grades applications placed in the "Needs More Information" Folder. There was no transfer of grades applications denied.

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

Curtis, Todd
Dawood, Muhammad
Elkabbani, Sherif
Ikiriko, Sotonye
Kim, Woon
McCauley, Tyler D
O’Shaughnessy, Amanda
Secka, Modou
Sovero, Gaven
Turner, Ian
Vendryes, Kadeam
Workie, Elisa

There was one exam application placed in the “Needs More Information” folder:

Ayush, Tungalag
There was no denied exam application.
There were 24 applications submitted that were not reviewed.

Old Business

a) Number of Applicants Applied Before October 1, 2025 (Section 305(d)

Ms. Perrin asked how many applicants who submitted before October 1 under 305(d), without an FE, still require Board review. Mr. Thomas referred the question to Ms. Belcher. Ms. Belcher reported that 38 applications remain unreviewed by the Board.
Mr. Hubner inquired whether these applications are administratively complete. Ms. Belcher explained that she is currently verifying their status, as many supporting documents are still being compiled. She noted that one application had been closed after documents were forwarded to the Board, and she is confirming receipt of those materials. If the applications are complete, she will proceed with processing them; if not, they will be closed.
Ms. Belcher clarified that these applicants submitted materials before the deadline, but some documents may not have been properly matched to their applications. She also confirmed that applications with incomplete information after the deadline will be closed.

b) License by Reciprocity to Practice Engineering Pursuant to §14–311

Ms. Perrin asked for clarification regarding the matter under discussion. Mr. Thomas explained that Mr. Hubner had raised the issue at the previous meeting.
He stated that Model Law Engineer (MLE) applications are considered complete once they are received through transmittal. He also noted that the Board’s website previously indicated that applicants were allowed 60 days for reciprocity submissions, but this has since been corrected. Typically, applicants do not submit transcripts or an NCEES Council Record simultaneously; verification documents are often received either before or after the initial application is submitted. As a result, it is unlikely that all required materials will arrive at the same time. There is generally a
28 or 29-day period between meetings during which applicants are expected to submit all outstanding documentation.
Mr. Hubner pointed out that the statute requires applications to be complete at the time of submission. Mr. Thomas responded that MLE applications are not the concern; rather, the issue involves applications requiring additional documentation, such as verification from another jurisdiction. He explained that if an applicant does not have a Council Record, they are not considered a Model Law Engineer and must obtain verification directly from their licensing jurisdiction. Mr. Thomas added that, as a courtesy, applicants are notified regarding the status of their application. Mr. Rickert expressed agreement with Mr. Thomas.

c) NE Zone Meeting

Ms. Perrin informed Mr. Thomas that she had not received any communication from NCEES regarding the NE Zone meeting. Mr. Thomas responded that he had received the notification and would forward it to Ms. Perrin. He noted that he distributed the information to all members once approval was obtained.

d) MDSPE Taskforce

Ms. Perrin asked when the MDSPE Taskforce will schedule a meeting with the designated Board members: Mr. Rickert, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Gunkel. Mr. Morgan responded that a meeting could be arranged in early March. He noted that MDSPE received the recent e-blast sent to licensees and commended the Board for proactively addressing the issue.
Mr. Morgan further reported that AIA Maryland representing architects, introduced legislation sponsored by Senator Cheryl Kagan. The proposed measure, Senate Bill 653, currently applies only to architects. MDSPE has expressed interest in the bill and is exploring whether it could be expanded to include all professional design disciplines. The hearing is scheduled in two weeks. Mr. Thomas is aware of the bill and can distribute it to the Board members.

SB-653 aims, among other things, for all counties and local permit offices to verify that the architect’s seal and license match the individual submitting the documents. Mr. Morgan explained that this would require code officials to confirm by phone or email that the architect whose seal appears on the drawings is the individual who submitted them. MDSPE intends to contact AIA Maryland representatives to pursue an amendment to expand the bill’s applicability to all professional design boards.
Mr. Rickert emphasized the importance of clearly defining the term “verify” in the legislation. He stated that simply confirming licensure is insufficient; the bill must require confirmation that the licensee personally sealed the drawings. He indicated that this clarification is essential to effectively address the ongoing problem.
Mr. Morgan agreed to raise this concern in discussions and suggested that Mr. Venuti could provide additional input and coordinate with Andrew Fulginiti. Mr. Venuti noted that he and Mr. Thomas had discussed the matter the previous day and plan to work with the legislative team to advocate for the amendment, subject to the Board’s support. He stated that it would be inconsistent for code officials to review numerous submissions and verify only architects’ seals, and that expanding the bill to include all design boards is reasonable.
Motion (II) was called by Ms. Perrin, moved by Mr. Hubner, seconded by Ms. Gunkel to direct Mr. Venuti and Mr. Thomas to seek amendment of Senate Bill 653 to include the Professional Engineers’ Board in the bill’s language and to encourage other design boards to do the same. The motion was unanimously approved.
Ms. Perrin thanked Mr. Morgan and Mr. Venuti for presenting the information to the Board.
Correspondence – None.

Executive Director’s Report

Mr. Thomas stated that the Board will convene in closed session to discuss improvements to administrative processes. He reported that he spent part of the previous day meeting with the DoIT team, including IT staff and Google representatives, to address the ongoing issues affecting the administrative and technical processes. The staff also met to review potential solutions, which will be discussed further during the closed session.
He noted that the e-blast requested by the Board to notify licensing professionals was distributed last month and generated several responses.
Mr. Thomas also shared that updates are being made to the consumer pages on the Boards website to help the public identify properly licensed professional engineers. These updates will extend across all design disciplines and will include guidance on using the license verification tool, as well explanation for consumers regarding the practice and title protection.
Additionally, he reported that a notice was issued a few months ago regarding the agency’s digital accessibility initiative. The agency is working to ensure ADA compliance across its website and all application forms. As part of this effort, existing materials will be revised over the next few months to make them accessible to individuals who may be visual impaired. The Board can expect to see ongoing updates to the website and modifications to forms that are not currently fully accessible.
Finally, Mr. Thomas noted he will circulate the draft of SB-653 for the Board’s review following the meeting, including the proposed statutory language.

Board Counsel’s Report

Mr. Venuti reported that the Board has already discussed most aspects of his legislative update in

connection with the proposed bill. He explained that the Board of Landscape Architects proposed legislation to modernize landscape architects’ act.
Among the primary proposed changes is renaming the Board from the Board of Examiners of Landscape Architects to the Board of Professional Landscape Architects. The legislation would also establish an emeritus licensure status, consistent with what other Design Boards currently offer.
He also noted that the Board for Professional Land Surveyors is seeking sunset extension before the legislature. Ms. Perrin asked whether there were any concerns regarding the Board’s sunset status. He does not anticipate any issues with this sunset. Mr. Venuti explained that the sunset extension is part of an omnibus bill that includes other occupational and professional licensing boards scheduled for sunset review this year.

CPC Provider Committee Report

Mr. Biswas reported that the CPC Provider Committee reviewed and approved three applications. Ermann Associates, LLC dba Amber Book Powerlift Doors Consultants, LLC Rothoblass
Motion (III) was called to accept the CPC Provider Committee Report, moved by Mr. Hubner, seconded by Ms. Gunkel and unanimously approved.

Complaint Committee Report

Mr. Rickert reported on the status of complaints discussed by the Complaint Committee January 8, 2026
11-PE-26 Closed. Not in PE Board’s jurisdiction
39-PE-23 Closed. Settled between all parties involved.
The Complaint Committee reviewed two applications for reinstatement, one reciprocity application involving DUI-related conduct, and one renewal application that included conduct disclosures. The Committee acknowledged the reported conduct in each case and voted to approve all applications. Of the reinstatement applicants, one submitted documentation of record of professional experience (RPE) obtained while working under a licensed engineer for one year. The other applicant returned to school to pursue a Ph.D. Both reinstatement applications were approved for licensure.
Additionally, the Committee reported that several pre-charge matters remain pending and are currently being addressed in coordination with the litigation attorney.
Motion (IV) was called to accept the Complaint Committee Report, moved by Mr. Hubner, seconded by Mr. Biswas and unanimously approved.

Executive Session

Motion (V) was called by Ms. Perrin, moved by Mr. Biswas, seconded by Mr. Hubner and unanimously to enter Executive Session at 10:31 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 on a proposed settlement agreement for 16-PE-24 and 21-PE-23, administrative process improvements, and four reciprocal application denials. Upon completion of this closed session, the Board reconvened its public meeting at 11:26 a.m.

Other Business

1. The next Board meeting is scheduled for March 12, 2026.
2. NCEES Annual meeting will be held from August 18 – 22, in Henderson, NV.
3. Mr. Thomas confirmed that first time attendees are covered by NCEES.
4. Administrative Process Improvements follow up and test prior to the next meeting.

Adjournment
Motion (VI) was called by Ms. Perrin, moved by Mr. Biswas, seconded by Ms. Kuitcha and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 11:31 a.m.

With Corrections

x Without Corrections

Chair’s Signature:

Signature on File