[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]
The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 5771 September 4, 1980 ATHLETIC BOARD OF CONTROL: Power to require bond to guarantee promoter's contractual obligations The Athletic Board of Control is without authority to require a promoter to file a bond which guarantees the promotor's contractual obligations to pay moneys to contest participants and ring officials. Silverenia Q. Kanoyton Director Bureau of Commercial Services Department of Licensing and Regulation Lansing, Michigan 48909 Your predecessor has requested my opinion on the following question: May the Athletic Board of Control require a promoter to file a bond which guarantees the promoter's contractual obligation to pay moneys to contest participants and ring officials? The requirements for a promoter's license are contained in the boxing, sparring and wrestling exhibition act, 1939 PA 205, as amended; MCLA 431.101 et seq; MSA 18.422(1) et seq, Sec. 15, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: '. . . Before any promoter's license shall be granted to any person, club, corporation or association to conduct, hold or give any boxing or sparring match, wrestling exhibitions or contest, such applicant therefor shall execute and file with the board a bond in the sum of $2,000.00, the form of said bond and the sufficiency of the sureties thereon to be approved by the board, said bond to be conditioned for the payment of the tax herein invoked and to be renewed annually thereafter: . . .' (Emphasis added.) The above quoted statute requires a promoter to file a bond for the sole purpose of insuring the promoter's payment of the taxes imposed by that statute. The authority of the Athletic Board of Control to promulgate rules is set forth in 1939 PA 205, as amended, supra, Sec. 22, which provides as follows: 'The board shall prescribe such rules and regulations not inconsistent herewith to provide such further safeguards and conditions as shall insure for the public fair sportsmanlike and scientific contests.' (Emphasis added.) This statute places a limitation upon this rule promulgation authority by requiring that the rules be consistent with the Athletic Board's enabling legislation. Your question raises the issue of the validity of 1954 AC R 431.117(103), a rule promulgated by the Athletic Board of Control, which provides as follows: 'No license shall be issued unless the application for same is accompanied by an approved surety bond. Said bond shall run to the Michigan State Athletic Board of Control and shall contain the requirements specified in Section 15 of Act 205 of the Public Acts of 1939 and shall further guarantee the fulfillment of all contracts entered into by the license and the payment of all ring officials.' (Emphasis added.) A review of R 431.117(103), supra, reveals that it incorporates by reference the requirements of Section 15 of 1939 PA 205, as amended, supra; namely, that the promoter's bond be conditioned for the payment of taxes by the promoter. In addition, it requires that the promoter's bond guarantee the fulfillment of the promoter's contractual obligations and the payment of all ring officials. R 431.117(103), supra, extends the statutory purpose of the promoter's bond to include two requirements not mentioned in Section 15 of 1939 PA 205, as amended, supra. To this extent, R 431.117(103), supra, is inconsistent with the language of Section 15 of 1939 PA 205, as amended, supra. An administrative agency may not promulgate rules which enlarge authority granted to the agency by statute. Coffman v State Board of Examiners in Optometry, 331 Mich 582, 589; 50 NW2d 322 (1951). Further in Michigan Sportservice, Inc v Commissioner of Department of Revenue, 319 Mich 561, 566; 30 NW2d 281 (1948), the Court stated: '. . . The provisions of the rule must, of course, be construed in connection with the statute itself. In case of conflict, the latter governs. It is not within the power of the department of revenue to extend the scope of the act. Acorn Iron Works, Inc. v State Board of Tax Administration, 295 Mich 143 (139 A. L. R. 368).' It is my opinion, therefore, that the Athletice Board of Control may not require a promoter to file a bond which guarantees the promoter's contractual obligations to pay moneys to contest participants and ring officials. It follows that the portion of R 431.117(103), supra, which provides for a bond to guarantee contracts and payment of all ring officials, underscored above, is void. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General
[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]