Senate committees advance four nominees to New York State Parole Board

Albany — The Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections Committee on June 11 held a combined confirmation hearing for four nominees to the New York State Parole Board and voted to advance all four to the Senate floor for consideration.

The nominees — former Assembly member Daniel “Danny” O’Donnell; Darlene Ray Bruce; Elizabeth Case; and Jose Ramirez — each described professional and personal experience they said would inform parole decisions, while senators pressed them on how they would weigh victim impact, statutory factors and public safety in cases involving violent or heinous crimes.

The hearing matters because the parole board decides whether people sentenced to long terms can return to communities and because recent years have seen policy and appointment changes that prompted questions from senators about board practice and accountability.

Danny O’Donnell, whom the governor nominated after a legislative career that included chairing the Assembly corrections committee, described visits to prisons and work with inmates and staff. “I would follow the law,” O’Donnell said when asked how he would approach tough cases. He also told senators that family connections and stable housing play an important role in whether people reoffend and noted he had visited “38 prisons” while chairing corrections.

Darlene Ray Bruce framed her background in corrections oversight, legal work and community service as preparation for the board. “It is my belief that I acquired skills that have prepared me to sit as a fair and objective commissioner on the parole board,” she told the committees, describing work with incarcerated people, victims and reentry programs.

Elizabeth Case, a nominee with decades of prosecutorial and defense experience who said she served under Robert Morgenthau in the New York County District Attorney’s Office and as a village justice, told senators she would review each file holistically. “I would apply the law, I would apply the facts, the circumstances, victim impact statements, and all of my years of experience,” Case said.

Jose Ramirez, a former police commissioner who described community-focused policing and reentry partnerships in his career, told the committees he would weigh statutory factors and victim statements but would not base decisions solely on law enforcement opposition. “My job as parole commissioner would be to take into consideration the victim statement, the law, the statutes, and the policies that are in place, and apply them fairly and consistently regardless of who is the person that is standing in front of you,” Ramirez said.

Senators used the hearing to press nominees on several recurring themes. Multiple members asked how nominees would weigh victim impact statements, with the nominees saying victims may speak to the board and that those statements would be part of the record. Senators also asked whether nominees could set aside personal views to follow statutory standards; nominees repeatedly said they would apply the law and the board’s regulations to the facts in each file.

Some senators raised high-profile concerns about board outcomes and accountability. One senator described prosecutions in Western New York and a case cited from 2023 to argue for legislation that would require certain parolees to be released close to a voting senator’s district — a proposal the nominee Danny O’Donnell said he had not reviewed and that he would defer to the legislature on. Several senators also asked nominees whether they would travel to parole hubs and visit correctional facilities; nominees said they understood the travel requirement and the importance of visiting institutions when practical.

After questions and brief statements by several senators, committee members moved to advance the nominees. Senators formally moved the slate and, after a voice vote in which some members recorded “without rec” vote designations, the committees’ chairs announced that all four nominees will be forwarded to the Senate floor for consideration.

The committees’ action was procedural: advancing a nomination to the floor does not confirm an appointee. The Senate must still vote to confirm each nominee. The committees scheduled the hearing to conclude before noon and then recessed to prepare for a separate set of nominees from another committee.

The hearing record includes repeated references to New York law and parole regulations that candidates said they would follow; nominees also cited their varied experiences with prisons, victims and reentry programs as central to their approach if confirmed. The full Senate will consider the nominations after the committees’ clerks submit the recorded ballots and votes to the floor calendar.