May 20, 2026 Meeting Minutes - Real Estate Commission (MREC)

DATE: May 20, 2026

TIME: 10:30 A.M.

LOCATION: 100 S. Charles Street
Tower 1
Baltimore, MD 21201
(Teleconference via Google Meet)

MEMBERS PRESENT: Demetria Scott, Commissioner, Chair
Sandy Olson, Commissioner
Joe Wilson, Commissioner
Jackie Alexander, Commissioner
Hope Mims, Commissioner
Nea Maloo, Commissioner
Roxanne Alston, Commissioner

MEMBERS ABSENT: Kambon Williams, Commissioner

STAFF PRESENT: Robert Pambianco, Assistant Attorney General
Scott Lederer, Executive Director
Tenensia Matthews, Administrative Assistant
Christopher Morton, Paralegal
Aajah Harris, Policy Director
Japonica Kearney, Education Director
Allison Simpson, Education Assistant

PUBLIC PRESENT: Bunmi Akinyosoye
Charlene Faison
Greg Fisk
Andrew Friel
Deb Hutson
Brenda Kasuva
Christa McGee
Stephanie Gones
Tamekia Martin
and others

Roll Call/Quorum Announced and Meeting Called to Order

• Chair Scott called the meeting to order at 10:32 a.m. Executive Director Lederer conducted a roll call, confi rming that a quorum was present.
• The meeting was recorded and transcribed to ensure the accuracy of these minutes.

Approval of Report of Complaints/Administrative Dismissals for April

Motion (made by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Mims) to approve the Administrative Dismissals for May 2026.
No discussion.
Motion carried.

Approval of Minutes

Motion (made by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Maloo) to approve the April 22, 2026, Business Meeting minutes with amendments to the legislative comments, changing the word substituting to supplementing.
No discussion.
Motion carried.

Committee Reports

Education - Commissioner Mims, Chair

• The Committee met last month to continue discussions regarding educational standards for approved schools and instructors. The Committee is evaluating potential standards and performance measures to help ensure that students receive quality instruction and are adequately prepared to successfully pass the state and national exams.
• Commissioner Mims reported that the student evaluation surveys for educational courses are being reinstated. The surveys will allow students to provide feedback regarding course content, instructor effectiveness, and their overall educational experience. Feedback collected from the surveys will be used to identify trends, evaluate program quality, and support improvements among education providers.
• The Committee will continue its review of educational standards and student feedback initiatives at its next meeting on Tuesday, May 26th.

Legislative – Commissioner Alexander, Chair

• Commissioner Alexander reported that the Legislative Committee met twice during the past month, including rescheduling the May meeting originally scheduled for Monday, May 25th, due to scheduling confl icts.
• The Committee conducted a review of legislation from the recent General Assembly session, including bills that passed and may impact the real estate industry.
• The Committee was advised of an upcoming Maryland Realtors webinar on May 28th that will provide an overview of legislation that passed, failed, or was tabled during the session.
• Mr. Lederer invited Tanya Mimion, a staff member at the State Board of Precious Metals, to speak with the Committee regarding that board's fi ngerprinting and background-check process for license applicants. The Committee received information on
  • Fingerprinting procedures and requirements
  • Background check process
  • Frequency of fi ngerprinting
  • Ongoing monitoring and updating of criminal history records
  • Use of third-party vendors
• The Committee discussed the possibility of implementing fi ngerprinting and background checks for Maryland real estate license applicants and expressed interest in using existing, proven systems rather than creating a new process.
• Mr. Lederer and Counsel Pambianco are working on a legislative proposal that would authorize fi ngerprinting and background checks for real estate licensees. The Committee anticipates developing and refi ning the proposal over the coming months, with the goal of presenting a formal proposal for consideration in the fall or early winter.
• Commissioner Olson mentioned that several neighboring states, including Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, currently require fi ngerprinting for real estate licensure and may serve as additional resources during the Committee's review.

Comments from Executive Director Lederer

• Mr. Lederer reported the license count for April as follows:
  • Brokers: 3,867
  • Associate Brokers: 2,960
  • Salespersons: 36,897
• The total license count reflects an approximately 2.6% decrease compared to April 2025. The decline in license numbers will continue to be monitored monthly.
• In response to a question from Commissioner Alexander regarding educational improvements and pass rates, Mr. Lederer stated that pre-licensing examination pass rates have remained relatively consistent over the past one to two years. He noted that changes in license counts appear to be driven primarily by market conditions rather than examination pass rates. The license count has declined from more than 50,000 licensees in prior years to fewer than 45,000, although the rate of decline has slowed.
• Commissioner Alexander inquired about the potential impact of artifi cial intelligence(AI) on the industry. Mr. Lederer stated that AI will likely infl uence how work is performed in the future, though its impact on license counts remains uncertain.
• The total number of complaints currently in process is approximately 269. The complaint volume has remained relatively stable over the past year, and staff continues to monitor complaint caseloads and work to move investigations through the process as effi ciently as possible.
• The Guaranty Fund balance as of March 31, 2026, is $1,198,709.16.
• The Education Department processed 85 qualifi cation letters for out-of-state licensees in April. These applications involve individuals licensed in other states seeking Maryland licensure through educational waivers and qualifi cation to sit for the required PSI examination. Depending on the applicant's state of licensure, applicants may be required to take either both portions or only the state portion of the exam.

Comments from Counsel Robert Pambianco

• There were no comments from Counsel Pambianco.

Comments from Chair Scott

• Chair Scott announced that she would like to amend future Commission meeting agendas to include a standing report from the Application Review Committee, along with the Education and Legislative committees. The Application Review Committee reviews applications that require additional screening or consideration. Future reports would not include a discussion of specifi c applicants or application details, but would instead provide
  • The number of applications currently pending review
  • The age of the oldest pending application.
• Chair Scott mentioned that she has been receiving regular inquiries from individuals regarding pending applications and believes a routine committee report would improve transparency and provide the Commission with greater awareness of application processing timelines.

Old Business

• Counsel Pambianco reported that the public comment period for the proposed revisions to the Maryland Disclosure Disclaimer Form closed on April 30th.
• Three comments were received from members of the public/industry
  • Add a “both” option for properties that have both a basement and a crawl space.
  • Add a question regarding whether a sprinkler system is functional.
  • Request additional details regarding prior flooding or fire damage
• Mr. Pambianco explained that the Commission could:
  • Accept the comments and revise the proposed form, which would require republication and an additional review process; or
  • Proceed with the form as currently drafted and consider the comments during a future review
• Commissioner Alexander expressed concern that continual revisions could signifi cantly delay the implementation of the updated form and recommended proceeding with the current version while retaining the suggested changes for future consideration.
• Commissioner Olson noted that determining whether a sprinkler system is functional may be difficult for homeowners to answer accurately.
• Commissioner Wilson supported adopting the current version of the form, stating that additional questions could be addressed through buyer inquiries and due diligence during a transaction.

Motion (made by Commissioner Alexander, seconded by Commissioner Wilson) to accept the form in its current iteration.
No discussion.
Motion carried.

Motion (made by Commissioner Alexander, seconded by Commissioner Wilson) that the proposed revisions in the comments not be adopted at this time, but they be retained for future potential revisions for the form.
No discussion.
Motion carried.

• Following the motion, Counsel Pambianco advised that approval should be explicitly made subject to approval by the Secretary of Labor.
• Mr. Pambianco advised that once approved by the Secretary of Labor, no additional Commission action would be required before final publication and adoption.

Motion (made by Commissioner Alexander, seconded by Commissioner Mims) to rescind the previous motion regarding approval of the Maryland disclosure disclaimer.
No discussion.
Motion carried.

Motion (made by Commissioner Alexander, seconded by Commissioner Wilson) in favor of approval of the revised Maryland disclosure disclaimer pending approval by the Secretary of the Department of Labor.
No discussion.
Motion carried.

• Chair Scott requested that staff and counsel continue to keep the Commission informed of implementation timelines and the effective date of the revised form, so that licensees can be properly notifi ed of the transition.

New Business

Team Names

• Mr. Lederer requested the Commission's guidance on the use of the word “Estates” in a real estate team's name. Mr. Lederer explained that several inquiries had been received regarding team names that use “Estates” instead of terms such as “Team” or “Group.” As an example, he referenced a made-up team name structured as “Smith & Wesson Estates of ABC Brokerage.”
• The concern presented was whether the use of the word “Estates” could lead the public to believe that the team is operating as an independent brokerage rather than under the supervision of a licensed broker.
• Counsel Pambianco reviewed §17-547 of the Maryland Real Estate Brokers Act and noted that:
  • A team name may not contain the terms “real estate,” “real estate brokerage,” or any other term that would lead the public to believe the team is offering brokerage services independently of the broker.
  • Regulations further require that a team name be directly connected to the brokerage name through specifi ed connecting words or prepositions.
• Counsel Pambianco stated that the issue was not specifi cally addressed in statute or regulation and, therefore, involved interpretation of whether “Estates” could be viewed as implying independent brokerage activity.
  Commissioner Olson shared that a team within her brokerage operates under the name “Legacy Estates Group,” noting that the inclusion of the word “Group” clearly identifi es the entity as a team rather than a brokerage.
• Mr. Lederer clarified that:
  • The Commission approves team leaders, not team names.
  • Team names are not currently required to be submitted for formal Commission approval.
  • Staff may provide guidance when requested, but there is no formal approval process for team names.
• Mrs. Matthews questioned whether team names must be submitted when requesting team leader status. Counsel Pambianco and Mr. Lederer indicated that they were unaware of any statutory requirement mandating submission or approval of team names and agreed to review the matter further.
• Commissioner Alston asked what potential harm could result from public confusion regarding the term “Estates.” Mr. Lederer responded that consumers could mistakenly believe the team is an independent brokerage and may not understand that broker supervision and accountability remain in place through the licensed brokerage.
• Mr. Pambianco noted that the Commission could, if desired, consider future regulatory amendments to provide additional guidance or examples of terms that may be considered misleading, although no such action is currently required.
• Chair Scott invited motions regarding the matter; however, no formal motion was offered by the Commission.
• Mr. Lederer requested informal guidance from the Commission regarding future handling of similar inquiries. Chair Scott stated that, absent formal Commission action, the Executive Director should continue exercising his professional judgment in interpreting and applying existing law and regulations.
• Commissioner Wilson expressed the view that when a team name is clearly connected to a brokerage name, the relationship to the brokerage remains apparent, although he acknowledged that the term “Estates” could potentially create some confusion.
• No formal action was taken by the Commission regarding the use of “Estates” in team names.
• The matter concluded with general support for the Executive Director's continued application of existing statutory and regulatory guidance to team-name review, including whether a proposed or selected team name could reasonably cause the public to misconstrue the team as an independent brokerage.

Broker Supervision Continuing Education Hours

• Chair Scott opened a discussion on the broker supervision CE requirement and clarified that the Commission was not voting to immediately change the requirement, but rather on whether to pursue legislation during the 2027 legislative session to restore the requirement from 1.5 hours to 3 hours.
• Mr. Lederer noted that the Commission has received signifi cant feedback from brokers, educators, and industry stakeholders, citing increasing broker supervision complaints both nationally and within Maryland as a reason for reconsidering the requirement.
• Commissioner Wilson shared his experience taking the 1.5-hour broker supervision course. He stated the course content was covered effectively, but felt additional time would allow for more discussion, greater engagement, and a more detailed review of supervision issues. He expressed support for returning to the 3-hour requirement.
• Mr. Lederer reported that complaint investigations frequently involve broker supervision issues and brokers being added to complaints due to an apparent lack of supervision. He indicated that feedback was received from Instructors, education providers, and association executives. He suggested that 1.5 hours is insuffi cient to adequately discuss supervision scenarios and answer participant questions, and that the previous 3-hour format provided more opportunity for meaningful discussion and instruction.

Motion (made by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Alexander) that the Commission move forward with a recommendation to move back to a three-hour requirement for the broker supervision.
No discussion.
Motion carried.

• Mr. Lederer explained that the proposal will be added to the Department of Labor’s legislative “quick list.” Upon approval, a legislative concept sheet will be developed. The proposal may then be introduced as legislation during the next General Assembly session.

Anonymous Advertising Complaints Process

• Chair Scott opened a discussion regarding the Commission’s process for handling anonymous advertising complaints. She noted that legislation permits anonymous advertising complaints involving real estate licensees, associate brokers, brokers, team leaders, and salespersons. She explained that anonymous complaints have been handled administratively by the 7
• Executive Director, but that process has not been formally adopted by the Commission.
• A review of the Commission’s standard complaint process is as follows:
  • Complaint received.
  • The respondent is given 30 days to respond, with possible extensions.
  • A complaint may be administratively dismissed if unsupported.
  • If warranted, the matter is assigned to an investigator.
  • Investigative fi ndings are reviewed by a panel of commissioners
• Chair Scott stated that if the Commission wishes to establish a different procedure for anonymous advertising complaints, it should formally consider and adopt such a process.
• Mr. Lederer described how anonymous advertising complaints are currently handled:
  • He referenced a Commission practice dating back to 2007 that involved the informal correction of advertising violations before formal complaint processing.
  • He reported that approximately 27 anonymous advertising complaints have been received during his tenure.
  • He reviews supporting documentation to determine whether an advertising violation exists.
  • If a violation appears valid:
    • Contact the licensee and supervising broker.
    • Provides documentation supporting the complaint.
    • Allows 30 days to correct or remove the advertisement and provide proof of compliance.
  • If the issue is not corrected within 30 days:
    • The matter is referred to the formal complaint process.
• Mr. Lederer noted that more serious matters, such as individuals advertising real estate activity without a valid license, have been referred directly to the complaint department for investigation. He reported that the informal correction process has been largely successful in obtaining prompt compliance.
• Commissioner Maloo questioned whether a separate process should exist for anonymous complaints and expressed concerns that all complainants, including anonymous complainants, should be subject to a clear and consistent process. She suggested that if a different process is used, it should be formally defi ned and transparent.
• Chair Scott explained that the Commission had previously developed advertising compliance tools, including an advertising checklist, to create clear standards for licensees. She expressed concern that allowing staff to resolve complaints independently may bypass the traditional panel-review process afforded to licensees.
• Commissioner Olson supported continuing the current administrative review process and noted that advertising complaints are often straightforward, that early intervention by staff can resolve issues quickly, and that routing every advertising complaint through the full investigative process could increase workload and delay the resolution of other complaints.
• Mr. Lederer clarified how anonymous advertising complaints would proceed under the standard complaint process:
  • The complaint administrator forwards the complaint to the respondent.
  • The respondent submits a response.
  • Paralegals review the complaint and response.
  • The matter is either recommended for dismissal or referred for investigation.
  • Dismissals are ultimately reviewed by the Commission.
• He noted that many anonymous advertising complaints originate from other licensees who may be reluctant to file complaints publicly.

Motion (made by Commissioner Maloo, seconded by Commissioner Alston) to potentially review this in another meeting to determine whether there should be some changes to the process.
No discussion.
Motion carried.

• The issue will be placed on a future Commission agenda for further discussion and consideration of whether to adopt a formal policy or procedure for anonymous advertising complaints.

Public Comment

Brenda Kasuva

• Ms. Kasuva expressed support for the Commission’s discussion regarding restoring the 3-hour broker supervision CE requirement and raised a concern regarding the CE credit structure. She noted that returning broker supervision to 3 hours could leave only 1 hour remaining for licensees seeking the minimum 15 CE hours and that current CE approvals generally require a minimum of 1.5 hours. She suggested that the issue be considered during future implementation discussions.
• Ms. Kasuva also asked for clarification on the proposed student evaluations/surveys and whether they would apply only to Continuing Education (CE) classes or to both CE and pre-licensing classes. She asked whether evaluations for virtual classes, Zoom instruction, and self-paced/distance learning courses had been fully developed.
• Mr. Lederer confi rmed that the Commission is currently focused on reinstating student evaluations for continuing education (CE) classes. He stated that extending evaluations to pre-licensing courses may also be considered in the future and indicated that evaluations for in-person and Zoom classes appear feasible. Procedures for distance learning and self-paced courses are still under review. He noted that the Commission may seek input from industry educators regarding implementation.

Christa McGee

• Ms. McGee provided membership statistics in response to an earlier discussion regarding license trends, reporting that Maryland Realtors' membership is currently down approximately 1.5% year over year.
• Ms. McGee formally announced that Chuck Kasky, CEO of Maryland Realtors for the past 11 years, will be retiring. Bo Patton will become the new CEO effective July 1.

Commissioners' Comments

• Chair Scott reminded commissioners attending the ARELLO Annual Meeting to register for the conference and forward registration confi rmations to Mrs. Matthews. She thanked the staff for distributing travel and registration information.

Adjournment

There being no further business.
Motion to adjourn the meeting (made by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Maloo).
Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 11:55a.m.
The next monthly business meeting is on Wednesday, June 17, 2026.