altering this Proposed Rule for reason that it unnecessarily narrows the scope of subjects on which
the agency may provide clarity. By its very nature, as a regulatory agency charged with enforcing
the law, a wide swath of the issues that come before the MRA could properly be characterized as
“enforcement issues.” The intent of an agency declaratory ruling, like a declaratory judgment
action within the judiciary, is to provide clarity to affected persons “in order to guide or direct
future conduct . . . .” Cf. UAW v Central Michigan University Trustees, 295 Mich App 486, 495;
815 NW2d 132 (2012). Nowhere is such guidance more crucial than with respect to controversial
matters, where enforcement may become an issue. Further, by limiting the scope of matters that
may be addressed by declaratory ruling in this manner, the Proposed rule is far narrower than the
controlling statute. MCL 24.263. As an alternative, MRA may consider rewriting Proposed Rule
420.822(9) to clarify only that a matter that has already been referred for enforcement cannot be
submitted by that licensee for a declaratory ruling.
There is Judicial Review of Declaratory Rulings
Proposed Rule 420.822(8) provides that “[a] denial or adverse decision of a declaratory
ruling does not entitle a person to a contested case hearing.” This statement may have the
inadvertent effect of chilling a licensee’s exercise of the right to appeal MRA’s decision on a
declaratory ruling. For purposes of clarity, the MRA should consider adding additional language
acknowledging that, under Section 63 of the Administrative Procedures Act, “[a] declaratory
ruling is subject to judicial review in the same manner as an agency final decision or order in a
contested case.” The MRA should further provide that its decision not to issue a declaratory ruling
is subject to judicial review. See Human Rights Party v. Michigan Corrections Commission, 76
Mich App 204; 256 NW2d 439 (1977) (“[W]e find that a refusal to issue a declaratory ruling under
M.C.L.A. s 24.263 is subject to judicial review as an agency final decision or order in a contested
case”).
II.
RULE SET 2020-117 LR (DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, R. 420.801 ET SEQ.)
This Proposed Rule Set seeks to amend portions of Rule 420.801 through Rule 420.808 to
clarify and/or strengthen the MRA’s disciplinary processes and notification/reporting
requirements. The Proposed Rule Set also seeks to add a new Rule 420.808a which sets forth the
grounds on which, and processes by which, the MRA may exclude a person from employment or
participation in a marihuana business. The MICIA supports the MRA’s efforts to clarify and/or
strengthen its disciplinary processes and further agrees with the MRA that clear and transparent
disciplinary rules facilitate regulatory compliance and the protection of the public health and
safety. The MICIA does, however, highlight that these proposed changes will increase licensee
costs and liability but a detailed cost-benefit analysis has not been provided as required by MCL
24.245(3)(h), (3)(k), (3)(l), (3)(n), (3)(p), (3)(q)–(3)(t), & (3)(bb). The MICIA further offers
industry feedback on how those Proposed Rules may be improved.
Grounds for Exclusion of Employment or Participation in a Marihuana Business
Proposed Rule 420.808a(1)(a)–(1)(f) sets for the grounds on which the MRA may, in its
discretion and pursuant to a contested case hearing if requested, exclude a person from
employment at, or participation in, a marihuana business. The MICIA generally supports the stated
grounds for exclusion with the exception that a previous finding of ineligibility for licensure, as
4
ClarkHill\98902\346090\264189386.v2-9/26/21