Board agrees to allow retrospective accreditation review for Trevino application

The Board of Architectural & Engineering Examiners voted to permit committee review of an application from an engineer whose degree was accredited after his graduation, applying the board’s two‑year retrospective accreditation allowance for a pathway that sunsets June 30.

The decision came during the engineering committee meeting Dec. 5 in Nashville, where executive director Glenn (Executive Director) explained that the applicant, listed in the materials as Trevino, meets all experience and exam requirements but not the letter of the new unaccredited engineering-technology pathway because his degree now appears on an accredited program’s record. "The university registrar did send a letter which reflects that his degree was unaccredited at the time he graduated," Glenn said in committee discussion. He added the key question was whether the board would accept a retrospective evaluation of accreditation status at the time of graduation for pathway 5 applicants.

Board members said the application raises a narrow, time‑limited question. "If they're within two years of accreditation, they were considered acceptable," said Dr. Ash (Board Member), referencing the board’s prior use of a two‑year window when programs move toward accreditation. Staff reported that Purdue’s construction-technology program became accredited Oct. 1, 1981, while the applicant graduated May 9, 1980 — within the two‑year period. Staff also noted the applicant had passed the FE and PE exams, held licenses in other states and produced multiple positive professional references, though one Tennessee PE reference remained missing from the file.

Why it matters: the pathway in question (Pathway 5) was created during a recent legislative session and is scheduled to sunset June 30. The board’s handling of retrospective accreditation for current applicants could set a precedent for other applicants who earned degrees during transitions in program accreditation status.

During discussion members emphasized consistency and future handling. "We want to make sure that we kind of work out the particulars of that and sort of have at least a loose criteria of about what we would accept," Glenn said, noting staff would need guidance because any decision would create precedent for similar future applications.

After discussion the committee placed a motion to permit registration by committee (leaving details and outstanding application clarifications to staff) and approved it by voice vote. The committee asked staff to confirm missing references and other standard application elements — for example, the record showed timing errors in one employment entry and one missing reference — before completing the registration paperwork.

The board did not change statutory language; it directed staff to apply the existing two‑year retrospective logic when evaluating this and comparable Pathway 5 applications while the pathway remains in effect. Staff noted the board can reconvene or clarify policy again before the pathway sunsets.

Provenance evidence: the committee discussion of Trevino’s application and the motion appear in the meeting transcript during the engineering committee portion of the Dec. 5 meeting (discussion beginning around the committee materials overview and continuing through the motion and voice vote).