Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensure Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Connecticut landscape-licensing board debates whether applicants must appear before exams, eyes biennial renewals
Summary
The Connecticut Landscape Architecture Board probed whether regulation language requiring applicants to present evidence before the board should be revised and discussed moving licensure renewals from annual to biennial to align with continuing-education reporting; staff said statutory changes would be required and the department can process routine approvals.
The Connecticut Landscape Architecture Board spent a large portion of its meeting debating whether applicants must present evidence to the board before being approved to sit for the licensing exam and whether licensure renewals should move to a biennial schedule.
Paul Grabowski, representing the Department of Consumer Protection, told the board that the regulation at issue (20-3-68-2a) uses the word “shall” but that chapter 4-16 (including section 21a‑8) gives the commissioner authority to handle some licensing functions administratively. “There is more leeway for the department to do some of these reviews where there's not a question of the qualifications,” Grabowski said, adding that the regulation could be revised if the board wants the department to take a larger role.
Chair (speaker 1) said the board is split, noting the board’s interest in licensing practitioners who meet “the education, the experience, and the examination” while also wanting to avoid operating “outside of a legal interpretation.” He said the current practice of sometimes seeing applicants only after they have taken the exam has created a practical gap the board needs to decide how to address.
Board members raised reciprocity concerns and checks-and-balances questions if department staff handle approvals without board review. Dom Soltruda argued for retaining the board’s option to weigh in and for educating universities and corporate license holders so candidates understand the state’s process.
The board also discussed a staff suggestion to switch to a biennial (every two years) license-renewal schedule aligned with continuing-education deadlines. Grabowski said such a change would require a statutory amendment and offered to work with the board and the department’s legislative liaison if members decide to pursue it.
The board did not vote on a regulatory change at the meeting; members agreed to continue the discussion at the August meeting and to consider drafting proposed language if they want to pursue rule or statutory revisions. The record shows the board plans outreach (letters to corporate license holders and continued engagement with professional groups and local programs) as part of an education strategy while the committee refines its position.
