Board debates reciprocity, 2‑year experience rule and a proposed bill to eliminate fees
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Board members discussed whether applicants who meet other states' education/experience/exam should still request permission to sit for Connecticut’s exam, reaffirmed concern about a two‑year experience requirement, and flagged a proposed senate bill to dissolve licensure fees for legal review.
The Landscape Architecture Licensing Board spent a significant portion of the meeting debating how reciprocity, waivers, and Connecticut’s experience requirement should work and whether the board should push for regulatory changes.
Members discussed that some applicants qualify for licensure in other states and then apply for Connecticut licensure, sometimes after passing exams elsewhere. The chair suggested the board consider whether it should continue requiring applicants to appear for permission to sit for the Connecticut exam when they have met education, experience and exam requirements elsewhere. Several members said they value the state’s two‑year supervised practice minimum and cautioned against removing that safeguard without legislative or legal review.
A board member raised a related legislative concern: a bill in committee appears intended to dissolve licensure fees. Members warned that eliminating fees could reduce DCP’s administrative revenue and effectively make licensure an unfunded mandate, which could change how the department administers licenses and CEU compliance. DCP staff responded that the bill was proposed externally and is not a DCP bill and recommended the board direct questions to the legislative liaison and legal director for clarification.
The board discussed possible responses: (1) invite DCP legal and the legislative liaison to a future meeting, (2) assemble bulleted points summarizing the board’s concerns for staff to deliver to legal and to CJ Strand (legislative liaison), and (3) consider whether the department’s renewal cycle could shift to a multi‑year rotation to reduce administrative burden. Members agreed to keep the topic on the agenda and ask staff to compile clarifying materials and relevant statute references before the next meeting.
No formal policy change or motion on legislation occurred during the meeting; members asked staff to seek legal and legislative clarification and to return with recommended next steps.