“GOOD MORAL CHARACTER”
House Bill 6110 as introduced
Sponsor: Rep. Brandt Iden
House Bill 6111 as introduced
Sponsor: Rep. Beth Griffin
House Bill 6112 as introduced
Sponsor: Rep. Michele Hoitenga
House Bill 6113 as introduced
Sponsor: Rep. Joseph N. Bellino, Jr.
Committee: Regulatory Reform
Complete to 9-25-18
SUMMARY:
House Bill 6110 would amend an act (Public Act 381 of 1974) that defines “good moral character” as it relates to qualifications for occupational licenses to establish criteria for when a licensing board may consider a criminal conviction as evidence in determining an applicant’s good moral character.
House Bills 6111, 6112, and 6113 are companion bills that would revise definitions of “good moral character” within their respective acts to comport with the changes to Public Act 381 proposed by House Bill 6110.
Each of the bills would take effect 90 days after enactment.
House Bill 6110 would amend the title and several provisions of Public Act 381 of 1974. The statutory requirements for many types of occupational licenses issued by the state of Michigan require that an applicant for a new or renewal license be of “good moral character.” Public Act 381 defines “good moral character” and also contains provisions intended to support the rehabilitation efforts of former offenders by, among other things, prohibiting the use by a licensing board of a criminal record as the sole proof of an applicant’s lack of good moral character.
Title
The title describes Public Act 381 as an act to encourage and contribute to the rehabilitation of former offenders and to assist them in the assumption of the responsibilities of citizenship. The bill would amend the title by specifying that the act is “to define the term ‘good moral character’ (rather than ‘prescribing the use of’) and establish how good moral character is determined when used as a requirement for an occupational or professional license or when used as a requirement to establish or operate an organization or facility regulated by the state.” (Underlining denotes proposed changes.)
Definition of “good moral character”
The changes to the definition would be largely technical, or editorial, in nature rather than being substantive. For example, the phrase “those laws shall be construed to mean” would be replaced with “a statute of this state, means”. As amended, the definition would read:
The phrase “good moral character”, when used as a requirement for an occupational or professional license or when used as a requirement to establish or operate an organization or facility regulated by this state in a statute of this state or administrative rules promulgated under a statute of this state, means the propensity on the part of an individual to serve the public in the licensed area in a fair, honest, and open manner.
Definitions
The bill would add several definitions and revise an existing one.
“Felony” would mean a violation of a Michigan penal law for which the offender may be punished by imprisonment for more than 1 year or an offense expressly designated by law as a felony. (A misdemeanor that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 2 years, also known as a “high court misdemeanor,” would—for purposes of “good moral character”—be treated as a felony.)
“License” would include a registration.
“Licensing board or agency” would mean a principal department, or a board or agency within a principal department, that issues occupational or professional licenses.
“Principal department” would be slightly revised to mean a department that has jurisdiction over a licensing board or agency.
Consideration of a criminal conviction or judgment in a civil action
Currently, a judgment of guilt in a criminal prosecution or a judgment in a civil action cannot—in and of itself—be used by a licensing board or agency as proof of an individual’s lack of good moral character, though either may be used as evidence in the determination of the individual’s good moral character. The bill would delete this provision.
Under the bill, a licensing board or agency could not consider a judgment in a civil action against an individual as evidence of his or her lack of good moral character.
Further, a criminal conviction could not be considered, in and of itself, as conclusive proof of an individual’s lack of good moral character. A licensing board or agency could only consider a criminal conviction as evidence in the determination of the individual’s good moral character if all of the following were found:
· The criminal record includes a felony conviction.
· The applicable occupational or professional licensing statute specifies that the type of felony of which the individual was convicted is a disqualifying offense.
· The licensing board or agency concludes that the specific offense has a direct and specific negative effect on the individual’s ability to perform the duties authorized by the occupational or professional license.
· The licensing board or agency determines that the state’s interest in protecting public safety is superior to the individual’s right to pursue the occupation or profession. However, this determination must be based on all of the following:
o The specific offense is substantially related to the state’s interest in protecting public safety.
o The individual, based on the nature of the offense of which the individual was convicted and on any additional information provided by the licensee regarding his or current circumstances, is more likely to commit a subsequent offense if he or she has the occupational or professional license than if he or did not have the license.
o A subsequent offense committed with the aid of the license will cause greater harm to the public than it would if the individual did not have it.
Currently, a licensing board or agency must consider an individual’s certificate of employability, if any, if a judgment of guilt in a criminal prosecution is used as evidence in the determination of an individual’s good moral character. The bill would delete the italicized language and instead require the licensing board or agency to consider—as evidence in the determination of an individual’s good moral character—the certificate of employability and any additional information about the individual’s current circumstances, such as how long ago the offense occurred, whether or not the sentence for the offense was completed, other evidence of rehabilitation, testimonials, employment history, and employment aspirations.
(Under the Corrections Code, the Department of Corrections is required to issue a certificate of employability to a prisoner who successfully completes a career and technical education course, who had no major misconducts and not more than 3 minor misconducts during his or her last 2 years of incarceration, and who received a silver level or better on the National Work Readiness Certificate or similar score on an alternative jobs skills assessment test administered by the department.)
Rebuttal of lack of good moral character
The bill would revise a provision pertaining to an individual’s ability to rebut a determination by a licensing board or agency as to a lack of good moral character based on a judgment of guilt in a criminal proceeding or a civil judgment to reflect the amendments described above.
Under the bill, if a criminal conviction is used as evidence of lack of good moral character, the individual must be notified and permitted to rebut the evidence by showing that at the current time he or she is able to, and is likely to, serve the public in a fair, honest, and open manner, that he or she is rehabilitated, or that the criteria described earlier have not been met.
Use of criminal records
The act currently prohibits the use, examination, or request by a licensing board or agency of certain criminal records in a determination of good moral character. The bill retains the prohibition but makes several revisions of an editorial, not a substantive, nature.
Miscellaneous provisions
The bill makes numerous revisions that are largely technical or editorial, rather than substantive, to several provisions. In addition, a few phrases have been deleted and replaced with language that comports with the changes made to how determinations of good moral character are to be made by licensing boards and agencies. For example, instead of specifying that when a person is found to be unqualified for a license because of a lack of good moral character the person shall be furnished by the board or agency with a statement to this effect, the bill would specify that if a licensing board or agency determines that an individual is not eligible for a license because of a lack of good moral character, the board or agency shall provide the individual with a statement to this effect (italicized text denotes revisions).
MCL 338.41
House Bills 6111, 6112 and 6113 would amend various acts to revise the definition of “good moral character” contained in those acts to mean good moral character as defined in, and determined under, Public Act 381 of 1974. Currently, most of the affected provisions do not include the phrase “determined under” and only reference Section 1 of PA 381. As amended, determinations of good moral character made under each bill would have to follow the provisions within PA 381 as established by House Bill 6110.
House Bill 6111 would amend the Public Health Code and would also make several other changes of a technical nature. (MCL 333.16104 and 333.21755)
House Bill 6112 would amend the Skilled Trades Regulation Act. (MCL 339.5105)
House Bill 6113 would amend the Occupational Code. (MCL 339.104)
Each of the bills is tie-barred to House Bill 6110, meaning that none could take effect unless House Bill 6110 were also enacted.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The bills would not have a significant impact on expenditures or revenues for the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA), or for other units of state or local government. LARA already makes determinations regarding “good moral character” of applicants, licensees, and registrants. HB 6110 would result in changes to the processes utilized by LARA to determine “good moral character.” However, the process changes would not be expected to lead to new or additional costs for the department.
Legislative Analyst: Susan Stutzky
Fiscal Analyst: Marcus Coffin
■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.