Minutes - July 9, 2026 - Professional Engineers

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 Troy Metz, PE
Dhrubajyoti (DJ) Biswas, PE Ikechukwu Agbim, Consumer
MEMBERS ABSENT:                      Tracey Clark, Consumer
Lily Kuitcha, PE

STAFF PRESENT: John Dove, Commissioner, O&P Licensing
Sarah McDermott, Assistant Commissioner, O&P Licensing
Raquel Meyers, Assistant Executive Director
Matthew Venuti, Board Counsel
Andrew Friel, Director of Government Affairs
Aajah Harris, Director of Policy
Steven Rodriguez-Cartagena, Administrative Officer
Hannah Belcher, Office Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT: Melissa Cannata from Amber Book
Qadri Hafez Shaheen Kayla Cash
Kevin Feak

Meeting Called to Order

Tony Chan Christine Roa Paul Devin

Chair Sallye Perrin called the State Board for Professional Engineers meeting to order at 9:49 am.

Departing Board Members and Staff

The Board would like to sincerely thank Mr. Edward (Ed) Hubner, Vice Chair and Mechanical Professional Engineer, for his years of dedicated service to the State of Maryland and to the professional engineering community. Ed brought a wealth of experience and knowledge to the Board, and his leadership, guidance, and commitment were greatly valued. The Board appreciates all that he has done and wishes him the very best.
The Board would also like to thank Ms. Judith Miller, Secretary and Consumer Member, for her dedicated service to the State of Maryland and to the Board. Judith brought an important consumer perspective to the Board and consistently offered thoughtful insight and meaningful contributions to its discussions and decisions. The Board is grateful for her time, service, and commitment.

Ms. Raquel Meyers, Assistant Executive Director, assumes the role of Interim Executive Director for the Design Boards upon departure of Zevi Thomas, Executive Director, on June 29. The Board looks forward to working with Ms. Meyers in this role and appreciates her willingness to provide leadership and continued support during this transition.

Introduction of New Board Members

The Board welcomed and introduced two new members, Mr. Troy Metz and Mr. Ikechukwu Agbim.

Mr. Metz has been a professional mechanical engineer in Maryland for more than 20 years and is also licensed in at least 10 other states and jurisdictions. He currently serves as Director of Engineers with AECOM, where he has overseen more than 300 building projects. In his role, he also coordinates AECOM’s East Coast engineering practice, working with both licensed and non-licensed engineers. The Board looks forward to the experience and knowledge he will bring to its work.

Mr. Agbim is a licensed architect who has been practicing for more than 20 years. He is licensed in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia and has experience working in both the private and public sectors. He has worked with firms such as WDG Architecture on projects that include hotels and high-rise office buildings. His professional experience includes working closely with environmental engineers, architects, and developers, providing him with a broad perspective that will be valuable to the Board.

Both Mr. Metz and Mr. Agbim expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to serve on the Board. They shared their enthusiasm about their appointments and their commitment to supporting the Board and serving the professional engineering community in Maryland.

Approval of June 11, 2026, Meeting Minutes

June 11, 2026, meeting minutes approved without 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. Rickert, and unanimously approved the reciprocity, including MLE’s and exam applications. It was unanimously approved by the Board.

Application Approved Administratively for PE Licensure by Reciprocity:

There were 56 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:

Ah-Sha, Heinere (67359)                       Patel, Nishal G (67381) Ahmed, Zulfiquar (67360)                                                                    Patel, Pranav (67382) Alcok, Matthew S (67361)                                                                    Patel, Ravira J (67383) Anbari, Alimohammad (67362)                                                      Pena, Michael (67385)
Anup, Gautam (67363)                          Qasim, Ghazwan (67386) Clinefelter, Dennis (67364)                                                                    Sanchez Unda, Javier (67387) Craig, Benjamin (67365)                                                                    Sharko, Joseph (67388)
Dialberto, Allen (67366)                         Sharma, Rohan (67389)
Fitzgerald, Erin (67367)                        Shi, Zehnran (67390)
Garcia, Winston R (67368)                    Shubert, Christopher (67391) Hansen, Tyler (67369)                                                                    Tippireddy, Ravi Te Ja (67392)
Hoff, Elena (67370)                                Ustaavic, Birkan (67393)
Kamel, Adel (67425)                                Ustundag, Ozan (67394)
Kumar, Pradeep (67371)                        Vu, Tuyen (67395) Laotrakul, Kanes (67372)                                                                    Weng, Shin Chi (67397) Masopust, Peter (67373)                                                                   Wijeratne, Don R (67398) McBurnett, Matthew (67374)                                                                    Zamari, Mehrdad (67399)
McCafferty, Patrick (67375)                 Zhang, Qi (67400)
Mena, Hector (67376)                           Zheng, Wei (67401)
Mishra, Ramesh (67377)                       Patlori, Nitin (67384)
Mullin, Mark (67378)
Nodzak, Henry (67379)
Parikh, Mukesh (67380)

Applications for PE Licensure by MRA are as follows:

There were no MRA applications reviewed this month.

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

Transfer of Grades

There were no Transfers of Grades applications reviewed this month.

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

Alsabe, Fares                            Mcgee, Colin H
Bangit, Daniel                           Mintelus, Emeraude
Barr, Steven                              Nsereko, Kirabo
Barua, Koushil                           Pannullo, Abigail R
Black, Samuel                           Powell, Raymond
Cash, Kayla                                Roa, Christine Anne
Chukwurah, Daniel                  Rodd, Diana
Engbert, Timothy                     Rodriguez, Carlos R
Figueroa, Jesus M                                                   Seufert, Elizabeth Flores Alves, Carlos                                                     Shetty, Vishwambhara Forsythe, Scott                                                   Schultz, Emerson
Gleason, Thomas                     Stith, Justin
Hensel, Julia                              Weber, Eric
Herritt, Sullivan M                   Williams, Isebella
Herwitz, Eric                             Zeller, Adam Hibschman, John
Holden, Christopher Hudgins, Michael L Jung, Misun Lawrence, Everret Lawson, Lara

There were no PE Licensure by Examination applications placed in the “Needs More Information”
folder.

One application was denied because the applicant does not have the required four years of professional engineering experience. A U.S.-licensed PE signed the applicant’s first RPE; therefore, the applicant must provide examples of work experience for the remaining three years of experience required for an RPE not signed by a U.S.-licensed PE. Additionally, the applicant has provided only three-character references but is required to submit five.

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

Old Business

Backlog of applications that have not passed the Fundamentals of Engineering exam
Ms. Perrin asked for an update on the 16 applicants who have not passed the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination. It has been nearly a year since the legislation took effect requiring applicants to take the FE examination.

Ms. Belcher explained that reconciling the applicants’ records has been challenging because some of
the application documents are incomplete, not properly documented, or difficult to locate in the

existing files. Limited email access for several applicants has also made it more difficult to communicate with them. Ms. Belcher reported that she identified six additional applicants and noted that there may be others who have not yet been accounted for. She will update the Board if additional applicants are identified and their records can be reconciled.

Ms. Perrin suggested holding a working session with staff to review the application process and identify strategies to prevent similar issues and reduce delays in the future.

Assistant Commissioner McDermott recommended that Ms. Meyers and Mr. Venuti be consulted before scheduling a working session with Board members. She noted that the matter currently involves administrative implementation and does not require Board involvement at this time.
The Board also discussed a possible process for applicants who do not respond to requests for information after 60 days. One option would be to send the applicant a letter by certified mail. Depending on whether the applicant responds, the application could either remain open for additional action or be administratively closed.

Mr. Venuti will draft a letter to be sent to applicants who do not respond within 60 days.
Implement an expiration period of exam applications
Ms. Perrin inquired about establishing an expiration period for exam application approvals. Mr. Venuti explained that, under current Maryland law, once an applicant is approved to take the examination, the approval does not expire. Implementing an expiration period would therefore require a statutory change.
Ms. Perrin suggested forming a task force to review the current statutes, rules, and regulations and explore the feasibility of establishing an expiration period for exam application approvals.
Proposed Legislative Update
Ms. Perrin requested an update on the proposed legislation and the “quick list” discussed at the previous Board meeting. Mr. Venuti stated that the Office of the Secretary did not move forward with the proposals, and they were not included in the quick list. As a result, the proposals will need to be considered during a future legislative session.
Assistant Commissioner McDermott explained that there is a limit to the number of bills that can be introduced each year, and it is not yet known how many proposals the Office of the Secretary will be able to consider. She suggested identifying a private sponsor for the legislation. Ms. Perrin suggested that the Maryland Society of Professional Engineers (MDSPE) may be able to serve as a private sponsor. A draft of Article – Local Government § 13-908 was presented for discussion. Mr. Venuti stated that he would like to see all the Design Boards included in the article. Ms. Gunkel raised concerns regarding building codes that may be affected by environmental conditions. The Board also discussed subsection 13-908(b), specifically the requirements for documents that require a professional signature and seal.

Ms. Gunkel stated that work requiring a professional engineer should be signed and sealed by the professional engineer responsible before being submitted to a government agency for approval. Ms. Perrin suggested expanding the language of the article to specifically include professional engineers, as the current draft is primarily focused on architects. Mr. Venuti agreed to work with Ms. Gunkel and Mr. Rickert on revisions to the draft of Article – Local Government § 13-908.

Mr. Agbim shared that, based on his experience, some jurisdictions have implemented a pre-screening process for documents submitted to government agencies. Under this process, the clerk or other authorized personnel verify the professional's seal and signature before the documents proceed through the review process. Mr. Agbim recommended considering a similar process in Maryland. He also suggested that the agency contact the design professional directly, when necessary, to verify the authenticity of the signature and seal.
Mr. Rickert emphasized that additional safeguards may be needed rather than relying solely on the telephone number or email address displayed on a professional seal. He noted that this information can be easily altered or misrepresented. Mr. Rickert suggested developing an internal government database that could be used to verify professional engineers and their credentials. He also recommended that the State contact the engineer directly to confirm the authenticity of submitted documents or drawings.

Mr. Metz shared that the District of Columbia has implemented a similar verification process. Under the D.C. system, an automated email is sent directly to the professional engineer asking the engineer to confirm that they are responsible for the submitted design or documents. If the engineer indicates that they did not prepare the work, the submission is flagged for further review. Once the engineer confirms responsibility for the work, the submission is forwarded to a Board reviewer.

Mr. Rickert noted that members of the Complaint Committee have significant concerns regarding the verification of professional seals and signatures. He expressed support for developing a secure verification system that would provide additional safeguards and help ensure that professional documents are authentic and prepared by the licensed professional identified on the seal.
State Board & Maryland Society of Professional Engineers (MDSPE) Taskforce
Ms. Perrin suggested taking the initiative to begin the legislative process and move forward with addressing the concerns discussed under Proposed Legislative Update.

New Business

Meeting Recording
Ms. Meyers clarified questions raised by several Board members regarding whether Board meetings are recorded. She explained that meetings have been recorded since the summer of 2025. Ms. Perrin noted that she and several other Board members have had difficulty locating the video recordings of previous meetings.

Commissioner Dove confirmed that all Board meetings are recorded. The recordings are used internally to assist staff in ensuring that the meeting minutes accurately reflect the discussions. He explained that the recordings are archived and may be obtained through a Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) request.
Emailing Protocols
Mr. Venuti reminded the Board that there are eight Board members and that five members are required to establish a quorum. He emphasized the importance of not discussing Board business

through email, as doing so could violate the Open Meetings Act. He also noted that emails related to Board business may become public records. Matters that require Board discussion or a vote should be addressed during a properly noticed public meeting when a quorum is present.
Commissioner Dove recommended using blind copy (BCC) when appropriate to help avoid inadvertently creating a quorum through email communications. He also recommended that Board members communicate directly with the individual responsible for sending Board-related messages rather than engaging in group email discussions.
NCEES Annual Meeting Review
Finance Motion 8 – Examination Fee Adjustments

Ms. Perrin introduced Finance Motion 8, which would establish an automatic adjustment to examination fees every two years based on a formula using changes in the Consumer Price Index and examination delivery costs. She explained that the Finance Committee would review examination fees annually and recommend changes to the formula, if necessary.
Mr. Rickert expressed concern that the proposed formula was too arbitrary and preferred continuing the current process of periodically reviewing examination fees rather than implementing automatic adjustments. Ms. Gunkel noted that smaller, periodic increases could help avoid larger increases in the future.

Following discussion, Motion (II) Mr. Rickert moved that the Maryland Board vote in favor of Finance Motion 8. Ms. Gunkel seconded the motion. The motion carried, and Maryland will vote in favor of the motion.
ACCA Motions 6, 7, and 8 – Board of Directors Authority

Ms. Perrin discussed three motions proposed by the Advisory Committee on Council Activities (ACCA) that would give the NCEES Board of Directors greater authority to make certain changes without returning them to the full Council for approval. She explained that the Board of Directors did not endorse the motions.
Ms. Perrin explained that the proposed changes would allow certain revisions made by the Committee on Uniform Procedures and Legislative Guidelines (UPLG) to be approved administratively rather than being brought back to the full Council for another vote.

Mr. Rickert explained that the current process provides an additional opportunity for review and discussion at the following Annual Meeting. He noted that UPLG may identify issues with the language of a motion that require further consideration.

Ms. Gunkel asked about the purpose of the proposed changes. Ms. Perrin explained that the intent was to streamline the process and make Council actions more efficient, but the change would also reduce the opportunity for deliberation by the full Council.
Motion (III) Mr. Rickert moved that Maryland voted against ACCA Motions 6, 7, and 8. Ms. Gunkel seconded the motion. The motion carried, and Maryland will vote against the three motions.

ACCA Motion 10 – Board Member Qualifications

Ms. Perrin discussed ACCA Motion 10, which would modify board member qualifications to allow permanent U.S. residents to serve on state boards. She noted that the motion was placed on the consent agenda and raised the issue because Maryland law currently requires Board members to be
U.S. citizens.

Mr. Venuti confirmed that Maryland's current statute requires Board members to be U.S. citizens and noted that similar proposals to change this requirement have been introduced in Maryland in recent years.

Mr. Rickert questioned how “permanent resident” would be defined. Mr. Venuti explained that the term generally refers to an individual who is legally present in the United States but has not yet obtained U.S. citizenship. Mr. Biswas noted that permanent residency can have different classifications, including conditional residency, and Mr. Agbim suggested that the motion should clarify what type of permanent residency would qualify.
Ms. Perrin agreed that clarification was needed and stated that, if the motion remained on the consent agenda, she would request that it be removed so the Council could discuss the definition and eligibility requirements.

Exam Policies Motion – NCEES Account Requirement

Ms. Perrin discussed a motion from the Exam Policy and Procedures Committee that would require candidates to create an NCEES account before being admitted to an NCEES examination. She noted that the NCEES Board of Directors endorsed the motion and raised questions about how the requirement would affect applicants who apply through state boards.
Ms. Gunkel and Mr. Rickert discussed the distinction between obtaining approval from a state board to take an examination and establishing an NCEES account. Mr. Rickert noted that requiring an account could provide NCEES with additional information about the applicant.

Ms. Belcher clarified that NCEES charges fees associated with Council Records and related services, including fees for establishing, transmitting, and maintaining a Council Record. The discussion noted that creating an NCEES account itself may not require a fee, although other NCEES services do.
Licensure Motion 9 – Direct Registration for Examinations

Ms. Perrin discussed Licensure Motion 9, which would allow individuals to register directly with NCEES to take an examination rather than requiring them to first apply through a state board. She explained that an individual could take the examination through NCEES and subsequently have the examination results transferred to Maryland for consideration of licensure.

Mr. Venuti noted that Maryland's current regulations require individuals seeking to take the PE examination to apply to the Maryland Board. The discussion focused on how the proposed NCEES process could interact with Maryland's existing requirements.
Licensure Motion 10 – FE Examination Requirement for Doctoral Applicants

Ms. Perrin discussed Licensure Motion 10 and noted that the motion was not endorsed by the NCEES Board of Directors. She explained that the proposal would conflict with Maryland's current provision

allowing an individual with an earned doctoral degree to be exempt from the FE examination requirement while still being required to pass the PE examination.

Mr. Rickert stated that Maryland has recently moved toward requiring the FE examination for applicants and indicated that the Board should vote against the motion.

MBA/MBE Motion 1 – Non-Voting Member on the Board of Directors

Ms. Perrin discussed MBA/MBE Motion 1, which would add a non-voting Member Board Executive (MBE) to the NCEES Board of Directors. She noted that the NCEES Board of Directors did not endorse the motion and explained that the proposal would provide MBEs with a voice and an additional perspective on matters before the Board of Directors.

Ms. Gunkel expressed support for having an additional perspective represented on the Board of Directors and noted that different viewpoints can be valuable when making decisions.

Mr. Rickert questioned the need for the change, noting that MBEs can currently attend meetings and provide input but would not have voting authority under the proposal.

Mr. Agbim asked whether the public could attend NCEES Board meetings. Ms. Perrin clarified that the public may attend Maryland Board meetings but not NCEES Board meetings.

The Board discussed the potential value of having an MBE provide a non-voting perspective to the NCEES Board of Directors. No formal motion or vote was recorded on this item during the discussion.
UPLG Motion 4 – Professional Engineering Experience

Ms. Perrin brought UPLG Motion 4 to the Board's attention because of its potential relevance to Maryland's future review of its regulations. The motion would specify that professional engineering experience should be gained under the supervision or mentorship of a licensed professional engineer.

Ms. Perrin suggested that the Board consider whether similar language should be incorporated into Maryland's regulations during a future regulatory review.
Mr. Rickert expressed concern that requiring experience to be obtained under the supervision or mentorship of a licensed professional engineer could create difficulties for engineers who obtained their professional experience outside the United States. Ms. Gunkel agreed and noted that her own professional experience may not have met such a requirement because licensed professional engineers were not present in the setting where she gained her experience.

The Board did not take a formal vote on this motion but discussed the potential impact of the proposed language on Maryland's regulations.

Correspondence - None
Executive Director’s Report - None

Board Counsel’s Report

Mr. Venuti provided his report and, at the request of the Department and Board members, will help ensure that Robert’s Rules of Order are followed to keep meetings focused and ensure they conclude in a timely manner.

CPC Committee Report

Mr. Biswas reported that he approved one CPC provider application, Ward-Boland Associates. Motion
(IV) was made by Ms. Gunkel, seconded by Mr. Biswas and unanimously carried by the Board to accept the CPC Committee report.

Complaint Committee Report

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

28-PE-26 — Investigating 27-PE-26 — Investigating 26-PE-26 — Investigating 23-PE-26 — Investigating 22-PE-26 — Investigating 21-PE-26 — Investigating 19-PE-26 — Investigating 18-PE-26 — Investigating

There were two reinstatements. The one reinstatement is needed, further information about what exact work the person has been doing without a PE license. The next reinstatement took an opportunity to take classes and is currently working on getting his Record of Professional Experience (RPE).
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 (V) was made by Ms. Gunkel; seconded by Mr. Biswas and unanimously carried by the Board to accept the Complaint Committee report.

Election for Vice Chair, Secretary, and Complaint Committee Assignment

Mr. Rickert nominated Mr. Biswas to serve as Vice Chair. Mr. Biswas was elected Vice Chair by acclamation.

Ms. Perrin nominated Ms. Gunkel to serve as Secretary. Ms. Gunkel was elected Secretary by acclamation.
Ms. Perrin will continue to serve as Chair. Ms. Gunkel and Mr. Agbim will serve with Mr. Rickert on the Complaint Committee.

Ms. Gunkel will continue to serve on the Task Force and will serve as Chair of the Legislative Committee and Complaint Committee. Mr. Metz will join the Legislative Committee.

Executive Session

Motion (VI) was called by Ms. Perrin, moved by Ms. Gunkel, and seconded by Mr. Biswas, and was unanimously approved to enter Executive Session at 11:25 a.m. The session was closed pursuant to §3-305(b)(7) and (b)12 of the General Provisions Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland to consult with counsel and, to comply with specific statutory requirements that prohibit public disclosure of certain proceedings or matters. The Board convened in closed session to protect confidential communications and licensing information exempt under the Maryland Public Information Act, in connection with applications. Upon completion of the Executive Session, the Board reconvened its public meeting at 11:48 a.m.

Ms. Gunkel had questions regarding the list of 16 applicants who have not passed the FE examination and have been awaiting a response since fall 2025. Ms. Gunkel suggested creating an updated list that includes both existing and new applicants requiring follow-up. She recommended providing a status update for the applicants who have been pending since last fall.
Mr. Qadri Hafez Shaheen asked about the anticipated timeframe for receiving a decision on his PE licensure exam application. He clarified that he applied under Option D and that his application had previously been identified as needing additional information. He stated that he had worked with Board staff to address the outstanding documentation and understood that the requested supporting materials had been provided for Board review.
Ms. Perrin advised Mr. Shaheen that Ms. Belcher would follow up with him regarding the status of his application within the next day.

Other Business

The NCEES Annual Meeting, August 18 -21, 2026, Henderson, NV.
The next Board meeting is scheduled for September 10, 2026, at 9:45 a.m.

Adjournment

Ms. Perrin called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion (VII) was made by Mr. Agbim, second by Mr. Metz and unanimously carried to adjourn the business meeting at 11:53 a.m.

With Corrections

x Without Corrections

Chair’s Signature:

Signature on File

Date: 09/21/2026