January 27, 2026 BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES - Electricians

DATE: January 27, 2026
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
PLACE: 100 South Charles Street, Tower 1
2nd floor, Cherry Hill Conference Room
Baltimore, MD 21201
Via Google Meet Video and Teleconference + 321-465-5183; PIN: 457 489 090#

MEMBERS PRESENT: Chet Brown, Chair, Industry Member
Walter "Dave" Irvin, Vice Chair, Industry Member
Donald Steinman, Industry Member
William "Eric" Smith, Industry Member
Matthew Poch, Consumer Member
Amadou Magazi, Industry Member

MEMBERS ABSENT: Leaurdra Raye, Industry Member

STAFF PRESENT: Sarah McDermott, Assistant Commissioner, Division of Occupational and
Professional Licensing
Charles Marquette, Executive Director
Sloane Fried Kinstler, Assistant Attorney General
Aajah Harris, Policy Director, Occupational & Professional Licensing
Willam H. Gross, Administrative Officer I
Regina Cherry, Administrative Officer I

OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Seery, Fireside Heart and Home
Jesse Berry, Regional Fields Operations Manager for Fireside Heart and Home
Trey Stokely, Member of the Public

CALL TO ORDER:

After a roll call to establish a quorum, Chairman Brown called the Business Meeting of the Maryland State Board of Electricians to Order at 10:15 a.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A motion to approve November 25, 2025, meeting minutes was made by Mr. Magazi, seconded by Mr. Smith, and unanimously approved by the Board.

COMPLAINT COMMITTEE REPORT

Mr. Smith reported the findings of the Complaint Committee as follows:

Upon a motion by Mr. Steinman, and a second by Mr. Irvin, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Complaint Committee report for November 2026.

APPLICATION REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT

Chairman Brown reported that, for the month of December, the Board reviewed 18 master applications for license examination. Out of the reviewed applications, fifteen (15) master applications were accepted, two (2) were denied, and one (1) is pending additional information. Three (3) journeyperson applications were received, all three (3) are pending additional information.
Upon a motion by Mr. Smith and a second by Mr. Steinman, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Application Review Committee report for December.
Chairman Brown reported that for the month of January, the Board reviewed 5 master applications for license examination. Out of the reviewed applications, four (4) master applications were accepted, and one (1) pending. Chairman Brown stated the application was pending since it was unclear what the applicant was applying for.
Upon a motion by Mr. Smith and a second by Mr. Steinman, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Application Review Committee report for January.

CONTINUING EDUCATION PROVIDER COMMITTEE REPORT

Mr. Steinman reported that there were no new applications to be reviewed. Mr. Steinman added that he and Executive Director Marquette reviewed a request for verification from the Maryland Electrical Inspectors Association that was reviewed and approved.

Upon a motion by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Steinman, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Continuing Education Provider Committee Report.

EXAM CHALLENGES REPORT

No exam challenges were submitted; no report was necessary.

VOICE/DATA/VIDEO COMMITTEE REPORT
Chairman Brown reported that there were no new updates from the Voice/Data/Video Committee.

REVIEW OF EXAMINATION STATISTICS AND LICENSE TOTALS

For the month of September PSI exams submitted the following statistical summary:

Mr. Gross reported that since January 2025, 891 candidates were tested, 224 passed, 667 failed, for a pass rate of 25%. Since the inception of the exam, 9,155 candidates were tested, 2,591 passed, 6,564 failed, for a pass rate of 28%.

CORRESPONDENCE

SEERY fireplaces
Mike Seery of Fireside Hearth and Home stated that his company entered into a contract with a builder requiring certain fireplace models to arrive with an electrical cord attached. While some models were manufactured with the cord installed at the factory, additional models covered by the agreement were not produced that way. As a result, cords were being attached in the warehouse to junction blocks. He described the process as a basic ground connection, with the understanding that the unit would later be connected to a live electrical source at the job site.

Mr. Seery expressed concern regarding whether his subcontractors or employees—who are not licensed electricians—are authorized to perform this connection work in the Maryland warehouse. He also asked whether the lack of electrical licensure could create liability exposure in the event of an electrical incident, such as improper grounding leading to fire or damage. He further inquired whether there is a distinction between performing the work in the warehouse versus at the job site, and whether a licensed electrician would be required in either setting.

Mr. Steineman stated that the issue appeared to be more related to UL listing requirements than to the authority of the State Board of Master Electricians. He indicated that if the product maintained or obtained proper UL listing after the cord installation, that might address the concern. He reiterated that this seemed to be a UL compliance matter rather than a Board licensing issue.

Mr. Smith stated that he agreed with Mr. Steineman’s assessment.

Counsel stated that the Board cannot provide legal advice or issue an opinion on the propriety of Mr. Seery’s business model based on the information presented. Counsel advised Mr. Seery to consult private legal counsel to determine what licenses or credentials, if any, are required for the work being performed.

OLD BUSINESS

Review Journey License Requirement for Master Eligibility
Counsel stated that, at the last meeting, the Board asked to see language on this issue. All the mechanical boards except for electricians have a provision that sets out the hierarchy of the apprentice, journey, and master license levels, including holding the prior license to be credited for work experience required to qualify to move up. Counsel added that she believes that was the intention of the legislature when it moved to statewide licensing. But when the bill to establish statewide licensing was drafted, it failed to return this language to the title requiring an apprentice or journey licensee to hold that license to earn work experience credit required for license and exam eligibility.

Counsel stated that the seven (7) years of work experience required for master is clarified by statute, that the 7 years includes 4 years working as a licensed apprentice followed by an additional three (3) years working as a licensed journeyperson under the direction and control of a licensed master. Counsel reminded the Board that it had wanted to establish by regulation the license requirements to eliminate unlicensed technicians and laborers seeking master licensure claiming that they have been a technician for more than 7 years, so they have met the work experience requirement. However, the Board does not find technician or laborer level work to provide the training necessary to qualify a person for a journey or master level licensure.

Mr. Smith agreed with the concept but found language requiring journey level licensee in another state who then comes to Maryland and cannot attain a master license until they have held a journeyperson electrician license in Maryland for three (3) years. Counsel explained that the Board is authorized to credit up to three (3) years of alternative work experience for certain training or work history if the Board finds it to be comparable to working under a Maryland license. Md. Ann, Code, Bus. Occ. & Prof. §6-304(b)(2) and (c)(2). All other mechanical boards have statutory language authorizing the Board’s discretion in this regard.

Mr. Smith moved to accept the regulatory language as drafted, which Mr. Steinman seconded. Counsel asked for clarification as to whether the Board wished to propose action pending approval of the Office of the Secretary or merely to authorize Mr. Marquette to pursue regulation concept approval.

Mr. Smith moved to revise his motion to accept the draft and ask Executive Director Marquette to move forward with concept approval on COMAR 09.09.03.03. Mr. Steinman seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote.

NEW BUSINESS

Discuss NEC 2026 Committee
Executive Director Marquette stated that the Board should consider enforcement of with the 2026 NEC, in compliance with Md. Ann, Code, Bus. Occ. & Prof. §6-205(a)(3). Chairman Brown sought volunteers to serve on the Committee. Mr. Smith, Mr. Steinman, and Mr. Poch volunteered to be on the NEC 2026 Committee.

Mr. Irvin moved to establish the NEC 2026 Committee with Mr. Smith, Mr. Steinman, and Mr. Poch. Mr. Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Chairman Brown asked Mr. Steinman to chair the Committee; Mr. Steinman accepted.

Enforcement of 2023 NEC Code
Counsel explained that, unlike the other mechanical boards, the Board of Electricians does not have a statutory duty to formally adopt the National Electrical Code (NEC) or any other mechanical code. Other mechanical boards are required to adopt particular code(s). However, under §6-205(a)(3), the Board of Electricians’ duty is to “enforce” the most recent version of the NEC within 18 months of its publication.

Counsel explained that enforcement includes applying that code to the evaluation of complaints, the consideration of regulatory action, and establishing the applicable standard in disciplinary cases. She added that the Board may also begin testing on the updated code at an appropriate time, including revising or adding questions to the examination pool. The statutory requirement is that within 18 months of publication, the Board must begin using the updated code for complaint evaluation and adjudication.

Counsel responded that the Board may adopt the code by motion or establish a standing policy specifying that on a certain date—consistent with the code publication cycle—the Board will begin enforcing the new edition. She emphasized that regardless of the method, the Board is required to use the most recent NEC within 18 months for complaint evaluation purposes, and no additional formal action is strictly required beyond compliance with that statutory mandate.

The Board discussed the standard process for publication of the NEC. As the Code is usually finalized in the summer, the Board recommended that enforcement of the new edition of the Code begin in August of the coming year, giving the Board time to notify local jurisdictions and stakeholders that the State will begin enforcing the most current version at that time.

Mr. Marquette indicated that local jurisdictions follow their own adoption schedules—some enforce immediately, others transition within a few months—but generally all adopt the begin using the new code within the first year. Permits issued prior to the transition date continue to be reviewed under the prior code until those permits expire.

Mr. Steinman raised the problem of contractors’ confusion because local jurisdictions may be using different NEC editions. He expected the Board’s effort to begin enforcing the 2026 NEC beginning in August will be helpful to licensees.

Executive Director Marquette stated that he maintains regular communication with the counties and will continue strengthening those channels. This can be included in his next discussion with local jurisdictions, particularly since they routinely ask what code the State is enforcing and testing on. The Board can use that opportunity to clarify when it will move to the 2026 NEC and expect alignment statewide. Mr. Marquette also suggested that the Board could issue a mass email communication to all licensees outlining the State’s enforcement timeline to ensure clarity and maintain consistent messaging.

The Board discussed whether regulatory action was appropriate. Counsel stated that previously, prior to statewide licensing, the Board formally adopted a code. It now must enforce the code rather than adopting it, in compliance with statutory language. Once the Board determines how it intends to proceed, the regulation can either be repealed or amended to state that enforcement of each new code will begin on a specified date following publication. Alternatively, if preferred, the Board could simply issue a public notice on its website indicating when enforcement of the new code has begun.

Chairman Brown mentioned that the Board might request draft regulatory language pertaining to the Board’s Code enforcement schedule in the future.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Director Marquette stated a new Electrical Board Administrator has been hired for the Board; she will begin on Wednesday, February 4, 2024.

COUNSEL’S REPORT
Counsel stated that while she did not have a formal report, the Board would need to convene in closed session to consider a litigation matter. Specifically, the Board received a Recommended Decision from an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in a regulatory case, and Counsel must present it for the Board’s consideration regarding its proposed order.
Counsel explained the Board’s obligations and discretion when considering a recommended decision of an ALJ in accordance with the State Government Article.
Counsel stated that the Board would convene to consider the Recommended Decision in Case No. ELEC 24-000015. The Board is permitted to meet in closed session pursuant to General Provisions Article § 3-305(b)(11) to seek advice of counsel. Counsel indicated that she would present the factual findings, legal conclusions, and analysis, after which the Board would determine whether to accept or modify the ALJ’s recommended conclusions and order, before reconvening the business meeting.
CHAIR’S REPORT

Chairman Brown did not offer a report.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Stokely discussed the pitfalls of local jurisdiction enforcing an earlier or different code edition than the State. At the time of installation, a contractor follows the code adopted by the local jurisdiction. However, once the State begins enforcing a newer edition—within the 18-month statutory window—a conflict can occur if the two are not aligned on the applicable code cycle. He also observed that the 2026 NEC changes terminology from “low voltage” to “limited energy.”

CLOSED SESSION

Upon a motion by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Steinman, and unanimously carried, the State Board of Electricians voted to convene in closed session, which Chairman Brown called to order at 11:22 a.m.
to consider the Recommended Decision in Case No. ELEC 24-0015. The Board is permitted to meet in closed session pursuant to Md. Ann. Code, Gen. Prov. Art. 3-305(b)(11), to obtain advice provided by Counsel regarding a litigation matter.

Case No.: ELEC 24-0015

This matter involves charges brought against the Respondent after a complaint was filed with the Board by the City of Hagerstown (“City”). The City revoked the Respondent’s registration after several jobs between 2021 and 2023 either failed inspection or were never inspected. In some instances, permits were not pulled; in others, permits were pulled but the Respondent repeatedly failed to appear for inspection, which was required due to his several prior failed inspections.
Following a hearing with the City, the Respondent’s local registration was revoked. In response to the complaint the Board charged the Respondent with violating Md. Ann. Code, Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 6-316(a)(i) for fraudulently obtaining a license and subsection (a)(20) for failing to respond to a communication from the Board, in violation of COMAR 09.09.03.01.
When the Respondent subsequently applied to renew his license in 2024, he answered “no” to the question asking whether he had been disciplined by a local jurisdiction. This was inaccurate, as the City of Hagerstown had revoked his license in 2023. Additionally, he failed to respond to the Board’s request for a response following receipt of the City’s complaint. A hearing was conducted at the Office of Administrative Hearings before and Admirative Law Judge (“ALJ”).
The Board sought a $5,000 civil monetary penalty and revocation of his state license. The ALJ agreed with the Board and recommended revocation of the license and imposition of the $5,000 penalty.
Counsel explained that if the Board adopts the ALJ’s findings and issues a proposed order revoking the license and imposing the penalty, the Respondent generally would not be eligible to seek reinstatement until the monetary penalty is paid in full. She also explained the administrative process moving forward, which could include an exceptions hearing or an appeal to circuit court.
After review and discussion, Mr. Smith moved to approve the recommend decision and order without modification and that the Board issue a proposed order in the matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Steinman and was unanimously approved by the Board.
Counsel stated that she will prepare the prosed order and mail it to Chairman Brown for his signature.
Petition to for Reinstatement Without Exam
Executive Director Marquette states that a former licensee has requested renewal of his Master electrician license, which expired in 2022 and has been lapsed for more than two years. Under the statute, a license expired beyond that period requires retesting; however, the statute permits the individual to appeal to the Board for reinstatement without retesting.
The applicant submitted a written statement for the Board’s consideration. In his letter, he respectfully requested reconsideration and approval of reinstatement of his electrician license, acknowledging that it has been expired for more than three years. He further stated that he understands it is his responsibility to maintain an active license and renew it every two years as required by the Board.
Mr. Steinman interjected by stating that when he sat on the Montgomery County Board this request would occasionally be presented and the Board always required the tradesman to retest.
Executive Director Marquette noted Mr. Steinman’s position and continued presenting the applicant’s request explaining that he had completed the continuing education required for renewal. The applicant explained that the lapse occurred because of a period of significant personal hardship, including a divorce that required him to find alternate housing and take on additional responsibilities related to the well-being of his children. The applicant explained that his personal situation has stabilized and he is able to fully commit himself to working as an electrician. He expressed a commitment to take professional responsibilities seriously and remain committed to complying with all licensing laws in the state of Maryland. He asked that the Board consider the extenuating circumstances and grant him the opportunity to reinstate my license without first sitting for an exam so that I can continue working in the trade.
After review and discussion, the Board decided that due to the significant period of time since expiration the applicant will need to pass the exam to have his license reinstated.
Mr. Poch moved to deny the reinstatement of master electrician license without exam. The motion was seconded by Mr. Irvin and was unanimously approved by the Board. The applicant will be eligible for reinstatement if they take and pass the license exam
A motion to return to the business meeting was made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Steinman, and unanimously approved by the Board at 12:01 p.m.

Upon reconvening the business meeting, Mr. smith moved to adopt the findings of the closed session of January 27, 2026, seconded by Mr. Steinman and unanimously approved by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Smith moved to adjourn the meeting; Mr. Magazi seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by the Board at 12:03 p.m.

_________________________________ ______________
Charles Marquette, Executive Director Date
Mechanical Boards

As voted and approved by the Board on: _________