Children: child care; provider advisory council; establish. Amends 1973 PA 116 (MCL 722.111 - 722.128) by adding sec. 16a.
HB 5723 amends Michigan’s child care licensing law, 1973 PA 116, to create a new Provider Advisory Council within the Department responsible for child caring institutions and child placing agencies. The council must be established within 90 days of the bill’s effective date and must include 7 to 11 members drawn from providers headquartered in Michigan, with geographic representation across the state and a nonvoting representative from an industry-recognized statewide professional membership association serving children and families.
The council’s main role is to review proposed initial contracts, renewals, material amendments, and certain department requests for proposals and funding notices. Before the department can execute most new or amended contracts, it must submit draft terms to the council at least 120 days in advance, allow the council to issue a recommendation, and then provide a written response explaining whether recommendations were accepted, modified, or rejected. The bill also requires conflict-of-interest disclosures, recusal rules, and prohibitions on gifts and anticompetitive conduct, with enforcement tools including disqualification, contract termination, damages, administrative sanctions, and possible referral for criminal charges.
The bill would add a new section to the Child Care Organizations Act, creating a formal advisory and review process for state contracts with child caring institutions and child placing agencies. It would increase procedural oversight over department contracting, require public explanations in some cases, and impose ethics and transparency obligations on council members. The measure also creates exceptions for public health or child welfare emergencies and for contracts needed to comply with federal law or court orders, limiting the council’s role in those circumstances.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to increase provider input and transparency in child welfare contracting, which may appeal to affected providers and oversight advocates. At the same time, it also adds administrative steps and constraints on the department, which could draw concern from those focused on agency flexibility and timely contract execution.
The main points of potential contention are the extent of provider influence over state contracting, the added delay and procedural burden before contracts can be finalized, and the scope of the council’s authority over department decisions. Another likely issue is the composition of the council, since membership is limited to representatives of child caring institutions or child placing agencies headquartered in Michigan, which may raise questions about representation and independence. The bill’s conflict-of-interest and antitrust provisions are also notable, as they impose strict ethics rules and penalties on council members.