Board approves enforcement actions, updates company-review policy and defers two reinstatement cases

The Board of Architectural Engineering Examiners took several formal actions at its June meeting, approving civil penalties, procedural clarifications and case-specific outcomes after staff and legal counsel presented investigations and recommendations.

Why it matters: The board’s votes clarify how out-of-state discipline, continuing-education audits and advertising claims will be handled going forward. Several decisions also change how the board’s staff and committees will handle applications from registrants who have prior discipline in other states.

Votes at a glance - Fresh-start reinstatement (Detman): Committee moved and voted to allow the applicant to pursue reinstatement in Tennessee because the applicant had been reinstated in his home state and five and a half years had passed since conviction. Motion carried (motion made; second recorded; all in favor; no recorded oppositions). (Action: allow reinstatement process to proceed.)

- Applicant with felony conviction (Hosek): Board voted to deny the applicant’s request for reinstatement at this time but to revisit the file at the August meeting when additional documents (sentencing and court records from the home state) are expected. Motion and second were recorded and passed. (Action: denial with right to reapply; revisit in August.)

- Applicant with out-of-state restrictions: The board denied an application and required that the applicant may reapply only after any restrictions imposed by the discipline state (Texas) are fully lifted. The motion specified the Tennessee board would consider a reapplication once the other state’s restrictions are removed; the motion passed. (Action: denial until Texas restrictions lifted; applicant may reapply.)

- Update to company-application review ("comity/corporate" policy): The board amended the policy so that a prior disciplinary action in another jurisdiction will be acceptable for a Tennessee license by committee review only if (a) the discipline is at least five years old, and (b) the license has been reinstated and remains in active status without restrictions in the same jurisdiction. The committee also asked staff to propose parallel language for architects and landscape architects. Motion passed.

- Civil penalty — practicing on an expired license (Case 202406811): Board approved staff recommendation to assess a $500 civil penalty for an individual who the record showed certified work had occurred while the license was expired. Motion to accept counsel’s recommendation passed (motion/second on record; vote in favor recorded).

- Letter of instruction — advertising surveying services (Case 2025001141): A licensed engineering firm that advertised land-surveying services after its in-house surveyor left was given a letter of instruction to remove the remaining reference to land surveying from its website; the land-surveyor board separately assessed a civil penalty for the same conduct. Board voted to issue a letter of instruction (motion/second; approved).

- Continuing-education audit cases (two files): - Case 2024067501 (audit nonresponse): Board accepted counsel’s recommendation to assess civil penalties (cited regulation corrected during discussion) and require submission of records; the board added a stronger notice that continued nonresponse may lead to revocation or nonrenewal if the registrant does not satisfy established requirements. Motion carried. - Case 2024062571 (insufficient documentation; late remediation): The board increased the civil penalty to $1,000 (from staff’s lower recommendation), required the registrant to make up the deficient hours and directed staff to flag the registrant’s next renewal for an audit. Motion carried; board instructed staff to monitor compliance and the next renewal.

- Firm advertising/design-build (in-house engineering) case (inherited files): The board reaffirmed an earlier decision to assess a civil penalty and to require removal of in-house engineering language where the firm did not have the registrants on staff to perform those services; the board voted to maintain the previously authorized penalty and requirement.

How the board framed decisions - Reinstatement and comity: The board emphasized that when considering out-of-jurisdiction discipline, the crucial elements are whether the prior discipline is fully resolved, the passage of time since the order was issued and whether the reinstated license in the other jurisdiction is active without restrictions. Committee members said a restriction that remains active in the original jurisdiction is not equivalent to a clean reinstatement.

- Enforcement posture: Board members requested clearer warning language in audit and enforcement correspondence that continued nonresponse could lead to revocation or denial at renewal. Legal staff confirmed due-process limits — final revocation or nonrenewal actions require formal notice and opportunity to be heard — but agreed to add clearer, stronger language in initial communications.

What the board asked staff to do - Collect and present court and sentencing documents in the Hosek matter for the August meeting. - Flag registrants who remediated CE compliance late so the board can audit their next renewal automatically. - Update comity/company-application policy language for architects and landscape architects and prepare a full-board presentation.

Ending: The board closed the enforcement and application agenda items and scheduled follow-up materials for its August meeting so members can review court records, updated contract language for grants and any supplemental documents from other licensing jurisdictions.