The Vermont Board of Land Surveyors on Tuesday denied a request to remove a requirement that a surveyor complete a preapproved course in surveying technology and voted unanimously to table further review of the surveyor’s submitted portfolios until the board’s Sept. 16, 2025, meeting.

The action came during a disciplinary hearing in which a hearing officer for the Office of Professional Regulation, Judge George Belcher, took testimony from the respondent and the state’s enforcement staff before the board deliberated. The respondent, identified in the record as Henry Glintown (referred to in the transcript as Mr. Towne), asked the board to remove conditions placed on his license; the state opposed removal of the technology-course condition and noted not all portfolios required by the board had been verified as received.

Judge George Belcher, hearing officer for the Office of Professional Regulation, opened the matter and asked board members to confirm participation before taking testimony. The board considered a petition dated March 4, 2025, and related correspondence and docket numbers listed in the record as 2022-270 and 2023-160.

Respondent Henry Glintown (referred to in the hearing transcript as Mr. Towne) told the board he had completed an eight-hour course on retracement and submitted a certificate but said he could not identify a single, specific technology course to satisfy the second required class. "Because nobody could tell me which course to take," he said, adding that after being directed to the Office of Professional Regulation’s site he "did nothing" further because he could not determine which preapproved technology course the board wanted.

Elizabeth Neen, enforcement case manager for the Office of Professional Regulation, testified the record shows Glintown submitted evidence that satisfied the retracement course requirement but that she did not receive proof he had completed a survey-technology course. "I did not," Neen said when asked whether she had proof Glintown completed the technology course. She also confirmed an administrative penalty of $5,000 in the underlying board order and that the board had required the respondent to submit four portfolios as part of the conditions.

The board admitted two exhibits the state offered into the record (listed as the state’s exhibits 1 and 2) and heard testimony that additional portfolios and letters Glintown said he had mailed or brought to staff were not in the files available to the board at the hearing. Glintown said he had mailed multiple portfolios and letters and that some materials may have been routed to licensing rather than the docket clerk.

After hearing testimony and reviewing the matters in deliberative session, the board acted on two motions returned on the record. Michael Gaines, board member, moved to table the question about the submitted portfolios to the board’s Sept. 16, 2025, meeting to allow staff to locate and present the remaining materials; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The board then voted, unanimously, to deny the respondent’s request to remove the technology-course condition.

Following the votes, Gaines told the respondent the board had provided a mailing address for future submissions: 89 Main Street, Third Floor, Montpelier, Vermont 05602, and urged that all future correspondence and course submissions be sent to Elizabeth Neen, the OPR enforcement case manager, so staff can route materials properly.

The board’s actions keep the retracement-related portion of the disciplinary order intact as satisfied in part (certificate submitted), keep the technology-course condition in place (denied removal), and postpone a final determination on the portfolio condition until the September meeting if the additional portfolios and letters are located and presented to the board for review.

The board recorded the matter as continued to its Sept. 16, 2025, meeting for reevaluation of the respondent’s portfolios; no further evidentiary rulings on the yet-unseen materials were made at the June hearing.