House committee reviews H559 to modernize parole board structure and training

The House constituent committee on January 8 heard testimony on bill H559, which would update the state parole board’s composition, training requirements and staff support. Mary Jane Ainsworth, director of the parole board, and Todd Delos of the attorney general’s office briefed members on the proposal and the challenges the board faces.

Ainsworth told the committee she and AGO counsel have worked “to really look at the parole board statutes and see how they could be modernized,” noting many provisions have not been updated for years. She said the board is seeing more people with substance‑use and mental‑health needs and needs members with specialized experience to evaluate risk and rehabilitation. “They are really the subject matter experts in a lot of these areas,” Ainsworth said of corrections staff, describing efforts to bring Department of Corrections subject‑matter staff into monthly parole‑board meetings to improve information flow.

The attorney general’s office framed the board’s legal status. “The board is a quasi‑judicial entity, so it’s making determinations,” Delos said, explaining why the board sits apart from the department that prepares reports and brings revocation cases. That separation, he said, supports impartial adjudication but creates practical tensions when lawyers counsel both DOC and the board.

Ainsworth flagged one particular conflict: the assistant attorney general assigned to provide legal services to the board also oversees attorneys who defend the Department of Corrections, limiting opportunities for candid training and advice. She told the committee that, in the past, the board set aside $25,000 for outside conflict counsel but received no bids. The statute further constrains training: Ainsworth cited a portion of Title 28, chapter 7 (section 456) that bars assistant attorneys general or DOC‑employed attorneys from counseling the parole board in pending revocation hearings and requires notice to the defender general when DOC attorneys provide training.

Committee members pressed on board composition, recruitment and pay. The draft bill would move from a structure described in statute as five regular members plus two alternates to seven regular members; Ainsworth said that could ease scheduling and reduce the burden on individual panelists. She also described current pay and prep arrangements: board members receive about $100 per hearing and one day of reimbursed prep per hearing, which some members and witnesses said is low relative to the workload.

On caseloads, Ainsworth gave recent figures: she confirmed the board oversees roughly 600 people on parole and said last year 63 individuals had their parole revoked after hearings, with another 41 waivers that resulted in revocation. The board recorded about 200 potential parole‑violation hearings and just under 120 individuals who were continued on parole.

Members directed staff to continue work: the committee’s legal counsel, Michelle Childs, will draft materials for a future meeting and the committee will decide how far to move the statutory changes. Members also discussed whether parole should have a standalone budget line — currently the parole board’s budget is inside DOC’s accounting — and asked staff to consult with corrections liaison Trevor Cummings.

The hearing did not produce a vote. The committee agreed to receive a draft and further testimony before any formal action.