DCP licensing board approves dozens of license applications, debates foreign‑degree evaluation policy

The Department of Consumer Protection licensing board voted to approve reciprocal licenses and exam credits for dozens of applicants and discussed how the board and credential evaluators should treat missing general‑education credits in foreign engineering degrees.

Board members spent the meeting approving individual reciprocity and exam applications, taking motions to grant exam credit or reciprocity for candidates including Paul J. Gallagher, Gerald Lehi and multiple groups of applicants who passed CBT and model‑law exams. The board also reviewed correspondence from a town official about whether local permitting staff may accept layperson surveys and discussed a planned effort to pursue regulatory or application‑form updates with department staff.

The votes mattered because the approvals determine who may sit for Connecticut exams or practice in the state; the foreign‑degree discussion could affect how applicants with non‑U.S. degrees are classified for licensing purposes.

Most motions were procedural approvals of applicant files after member review. For example, the board moved to approve Paul J. Gallagher for a Class 4 reciprocity license after confirming prior exam history and experience; the motion passed. A separate motion approved Gerald (Gerard) Lehi to take the Class 8 exam after members concluded his endorsers and experience were sufficient to allow exam eligibility.

Members also approved multiple batches of candidates for exam credit or reciprocity. Individual reviewers presented each file, noted any deficiencies (for example, missing endorsers or non‑model‑law/foreign‑degree issues) and recommended approval when reviewers judged the application complete. Where questions arose — such as an applicant whose work history is primarily in industry without licensed PEs as immediate supervisors — members discussed the industrial exemption and past precedent before voting to approve eligibility to sit for exams.

Janita, a complaints‑center staff member, described how the office handles incoming complaints: "When we get complaints in, the complaint center will enter it based on what is written in the complaint by the complainant. . . . it's my job to look at it and assign it to the investigator to be investigated," she said. Janita said matters that appear to implicate a violation are forwarded to legal for review and possible compliance meetings; other matters may be closed as civil disputes.

The board reviewed a letter from Shelly Kalta Jerome, described in the record as representing the director of community development for the town of Glastonbury, asking whether a town may accept plans or surveys that do not meet the state regulations. Board members agreed the item was a factual/legal question for municipal counsel and recommended a short reply: they would acknowledge receipt and "strongly recommend that you review your questions with your town attorney," a consensus response drafted during the meeting.

A substantive policy debate focused on how to treat foreign education evaluations that show missing credits in general education or humanities while meeting engineering course totals. John DeWolf and other members said credential evaluators sometimes label programs ‘‘not equivalent’’ because of missing general‑education credits, yet then allow used‑masters credits to substitute. DeWolf criticized that approach, saying evaluators appear to count engineering course credits without assessing the undergraduate curriculum breadth: "They're just saying, look. He took enough engineering classes to be an engineer, but he didn't prove that he could . . . did all the undergraduate breadth of study," DeWolf said. Tony (board member) said, "I don't think we need to change the class," arguing that missing humanities or non‑engineering credits should not automatically reclassify an otherwise engineering‑equivalent program.

Board members agreed to keep applicants whose foreign evaluations show adequate engineering coursework in the same classes they otherwise would occupy and to avoid routinely downgrading an applicant solely because of missing non‑engineering/general‑education credits. Members said they plan to raise the matter with the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) at its upcoming annual meeting to seek greater clarity on evaluators' practices.

Board members also discussed internal paperwork and minutes language to reflect that "foreign evaluations that are deemed equivalent would be considered a class 1 or class 9 for EIT," and voted to amend the prior meeting minutes accordingly; one member recorded an abstention on that vote because they had not attended the earlier meeting.

Separately, several board members said they will pursue a small working group or workshop to propose edits to the licensing application for the land surveyor (LS) category and to meet with Department of Consumer Protection staff about potential updates to regulations or fees. Jane (department staff) said she would try to set up a Teams meeting to identify the people who should be involved in any application‑form or regulation changes.

The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn and a note that the board will reconvene in October.

Votes at a glance: - Motion: Approve Paul J. Gallagher for Class 4 reciprocity (application complete; EIT in 1970 and Part B passed). Outcome: approved (motion carried; no opposition recorded). - Motion: Approve Gerard (Gerald) Lehi for Class 8 exam (applicant had endorsers and experience). Outcome: approved (motion carried; no opposition recorded). - Motion: Approve Ryan Bhatt and Audra (Audra) Chabidi for Class 1 exam credit, Part 1 (EIT passed). Outcome: approved (motion carried; no opposition recorded). - Motion: Approve sets of model‑law and CBT exam candidates and multiple batches of reciprocity applicants (individual names and batches presented by reviewers across the meeting). Outcome: approved (motions carried; no opposition recorded in roll calls described). - Motion: Amend July meeting minutes to adjust wording about foreign evaluation equivalency and add a name; outcome: approved with one recorded abstention (member who had not attended the earlier meeting).