Occupations: individual licensing and registration; licensure of professional guardians and conservators; require. Amends sec. 303a of 1980 PA 299 (MCL 339.303a) & adds art. 14A.
HB 4728 would amend Michigan’s Occupational Code to create a new licensing framework for professional guardians and professional conservators, while also making a minor technical change to the start dates for terms of office for certain occupational boards. The bill adds a new Article 14A that defines “professional guardian” and “professional conservator” and directs the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) to begin licensing these individuals two years after the bill’s effective date.
Under the new licensing system, applicants would have to be at least 21, submit an application and fees, pass a criminal background check, meet education and certification requirements, carry professional liability insurance, and avoid disqualifying criminal, civil, or disciplinary histories involving fraud, abuse, neglect, theft, exploitation, or similar misconduct. Licenses would be valid for 36 months and renewable upon payment of a fee, continuing education, updated background checks, and proof of insurance. The bill also requires LARA to publish a public list of licensed professionals and authorizes appeals for applicants who dispute criminal history information.
The bill would add a new state licensing regime for professional guardians and conservators, shifting these roles from an unregulated or less formally regulated status into a credentialed profession overseen by LARA. It would also impose new statutory duties on licensees and employers, including criminal history screening, reporting obligations, restrictions on hiring individuals with specified convictions, confidentiality rules for background-check information, and penalties for false statements or improper use of criminal records. In addition, it would amend MCL 339.303a to adjust board term commencement dates for the guardians and conservators board and other occupational boards listed in the Occupational Code.
The available voting history suggests the bill was received favorably in committee, as it was reported with recommendation with substitute H-1 on a 7-0 vote. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate opposition or support beyond the unanimous committee action. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a consumer-protection and professional-standards measure rather than a controversial policy change.
The main policy issues embedded in the bill are the scope and cost of regulation, the breadth of disqualifying offenses, and the administrative burden of background checks, continuing education, and licensing fees on guardians and conservators. Potential points of contention include whether the $250 initial fee and recurring compliance requirements could limit entry into the field, whether the criminal disqualification standards are too broad or too narrow, and how the bill balances public protection with due process for applicants who challenge criminal history records. Another possible issue is the bill’s treatment of conditional employment and access to sensitive information for workers serving incapacitated or protected individuals, which may raise concerns about implementation and privacy.