THE APPARENT PROBLEM. There has been a proliferation of online coursework opportunities for college students during the past decade. To better ensure the quality of those online courses, the Midwest Higher Education Compact (MHEC), one of four regional higher education compacts in the United States, is taking part in a national initiative to reduce costs and provide access to interstate distance education programs. Recently, MHEC has begun working with Midwestern states to develop a State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement—known as XXXX. Generally, XXXX is intended to make it easier for students to take online courses offered by postsecondary institutions based in another state. See Background Information below. The XXXX is designed to create uniformity among varying state regulations; reduce the burden on colleges and universities to seek and receive authorizations for on-line courses in all states; ensure quality; and, preserve consumer protections for students. Midwestern higher education institutions wishing to be part of the M-XXXX will need to be authorized by only one state—the one they reside in—and then will automatically be authorized in all other states that adopt the XXXX. This reciprocity agreement is voluntary, both for states that become members, and for the academic institutions that participate. To enable public and private Michigan colleges and universities to participate in M-XXXX, legislation is proposed to create a fee-based central authorization and oversight program in the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.
THE APPARENT PROBLEM. Under the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act - formerly Public Act 116 of 1974 and recodified as Part 361 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act - a farm owner may enter into a contract (a development rights agreement) that provides the farm owner with a tax credit and exemptions from several special assessments that generally do not benefit the farmland, in exchange for a promise to retain the land for agricultural use or as undeveloped open space land. The purpose of the agreement is to ensure that the land remains in agricultural use for at least 10 years and that the land not be developed for a non- agricultural use. According to committee testimony, there are approximately 50,000 of these agreements, lasting an average of 25 years, and covering 4.3 million acres of farmland in the state. The act states that a development rights agreement or easement does not supercede any prior lien, lease, or interest in the property that is subject to the agreement or easement, and any lien recorded under Part 361 is subordinate to a lien of a mortgage that is recorded before a lien under the act is recorded - meaning that a development rights agreement or easement has priority over any subsequently recorded lien, lease, or interest. Reportedly, several landowners enrolled in the PA 116 program have experienced problems when they attempted to refinance a portion of their property, due to the existence of the developments rights agreement on their property. As such, legislation has been introduced to help alleviate the problem.
THE APPARENT PROBLEM. Public Act 386 of 1996 regulates viatical settlement contracts. Such a contract is written between the owner or holder of a life insurance policy who has a terminal illness or condition (known as a “viator”) and a person or entity who “buys” the policy at a cost below the amount of the death benefit (known in the act as a “provider”). Under the contract the policyholder gets a proportion of the money while alive that would have been paid out when he or she died, and the purchaser pays the policyholder a discounted amount and then receives the full benefit when the insured dies. The viatical settlement industry reportedly began with AIDS patients but has grown to include policyholders with other life- threatening and terminal diseases. The early access to life insurance proceeds can help to pay for medical care and end-of-life living expenses. Public Act 386 imposes a number of requirements on providers, mostly requiring certain notifications to policyholders and insurance companies, and providing for a “cooling-off” period during which the contract can rescinded for any reason. The act also specifies what documentation must accompany a contract and allows the insurance commissioner to step in when there are abuses. A new concern has arisen recently: that some people might offer money to others on the condition that they commit suicide. Some people believe that state law should make a strong policy statement against this.
THE APPARENT PROBLEM. Public Act 390 of 1978 regulates the payment of wages and fringe benefits for Michigan workers. In particular, the law provides for the settlement of disputes between employees and any employers who fail to pay them the wages and fringe benefits they are owed. When an employee is not paid the wages or fringe benefits owed him or her, the employee can file a complaint with the Department of Consumer and Industry Services (CIS), Bureau of Safety and Regulation, Wage and Hour Division. That division administers the law, and working together with the Office of the Attorney General, enforces its provisions. In brief, when a complaint is filed by an unpaid employee, representatives of the department try to resolve the dispute informally. If no resolution can be reached, then CIS issues a written determination. If the employee or the employer is dissatisfied with the determination, either may request a review before an administrative law judge, who can affirm, modify, or rescind the determination. If an employer does not pay the amount ordered, CIS can refer the order to the Office of the Attorney General, who can then file a civil suit on behalf of CIS in circuit court and obtain a judgement. If the judgment is not paid, the employer’s bank account or local assets can be seized. In 1996 the law was amended so CIS (then called the Department of Labor) could pursue wage claims with employers from out of state who fail to pay their past employees in Michigan the wages and benefits that they have earned in Michigan. Now CIS is able to pursue the claims because the department has negotiated reciprocity agreements with other states that allow them to collect back wages. The reciprocal agreements also allow CIS to accept claims from other states in order to pursue collection of claims for employees that worked for Michigan-based employers who have failed to pay their out-of-state employees the wages they have earned. In addition, reciprocal agreements also allow the department to pursue companies that relocate to other states in an effort to avoid paying wages earned by employees. Currently there are 16 reciprocity agreements that have been negotiated with other states, and 10 more are anticipated. See BACKGROUND INFORMATION below. According to committee testimony, the Wage and Hour Division of CIS has referred at least 20 claims to other states since February 1997. The most recent case was a referral to Wisconsin for a $4,207.47 wage claim in April 2001. Other states ...
