The House Corrections & Institutions Committee on Jan. 15 heard a legal walkthrough of bill 559, a draft amendment to Title 28, Chapter 7 that the committee’s counsel said is focused solely on the parole board.

"This bill is really talking about the parole board only," said Hillary Treder Ames of the Office of Legislative Counsel, as she summarized the measure. Ames told members the draft makes three principal changes: it alters board composition, requires regular training for members, and clarifies responsibilities of the parole board director.

Under the draft, the board would expand from five members plus two alternates to seven regular members, and no member could serve more than two consecutive terms. Counsel said the bill also modernizes the statutory description of required experience, replacing older phrasing with knowledge or experience in criminogenic behavior, mental‑health treatment, substance‑use disorders and serious‑crime rehabilitation.

The bill would add training obligations. Ames said the draft charges the Department of Corrections commissioner to provide regular trainings in collaboration with the parole board director and adds language requiring each board member to "attend trainings designated by the parole board director" at least annually. The draft lists topics as examples — parole determinations, criminogenic behavior, substance‑use treatment, trauma‑informed victim work and rehabilitation — but counsel said the list is illustrative, not an exhaustive limitation.

Members raised policy questions the committee flagged for testimony. Several asked whether the statute should keep a quorum of three after the board grows to seven members; counsel confirmed the draft can define quorum as three but noted that other statutes set default quorum rules and that the committee should decide the policy choice. Members also questioned whether a two‑term consecutive limit would help recruit qualified appointees; Mary Jane Ainsworth, the parole board director (on Zoom), said the update is meant to "modernize the board and bring the statutes more up to today's time."

The committee did not vote on the bill. Members asked staff to schedule follow‑up testimony from the parole board chair (if available), at least one board member, Department of Corrections staff and other stakeholders to explore the term‑limit and quorum concerns and the scope and frequency of training. The committee also noted a related Senate draft on parole matters and said staff would monitor parallel work in the Senate.