Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reciprocal Licensure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates effect of 3-year reinstatement law on reciprocal licensure and continuing-education requirements
Summary
Board members raised concerns that a recent law change limiting reinstatements to three years can allow some reciprocal applicants to avoid showing continuing education credits, prompting staff follow-up on verification practices.
Members of the Connecticut State Board of Landscape Architects spent part of their May 20 meeting discussing how a recent law change and the board’s administrative processes affect reciprocal licensure and continuing-education (CE) enforcement.
Board members and staff said the issue matters because it can let previously licensed practitioners who allowed a Connecticut license to lapse obtain a reciprocal license without the CE documentation now required for reinstatements, potentially creating a gap in oversight.
The discussion began when a board member asked for clarification about “waiver of examination” applications processed as reciprocal licensure. Staff explained that a recent law change limits reinstatements to a three-year window; candidates who fall outside that window and instead apply via reciprocal/foreign verification may not be subject to the same CE reinstatement requirements. Staff described one applicant who was originally licensed in Connecticut in 1988, later licensed in other states, and whose Connecticut license lapsed decades ago; CLARB and other states’ verifications confirmed licensure history but did not automatically satisfy Connecticut reinstatement CE requirements.
Board members expressed concern that this sequence could allow applicants to circumvent Connecticut’s continuing-education rules. One board member said, “I'll go on the record that I don't like it, but I understand we have to go by the rules that legal has put in place at this point.” Staff told members the board’s hands are constrained by the statutory and regulatory framework and by how out-of-state verifications are transmitted to the board.
Members asked staff to check CLARB and state verifications for disciplinary history and standing; staff noted CLARB verification confirms licensure but may not always include up-to-date disciplinary status or CE compliance and that the board sometimes must ask applicants to attest to disciplinary history. The board discussed whether the online application language and CLARB-transmitted fields should be clarified so applicants understand when CE documentation is required. Staff said they would follow up with CLARB and the board’s legal division about clearer guidance and potential process changes.
No formal policy changes or votes were taken at the meeting; staff described the matter as an administrative follow-up for legal and verification processes.
