Committee weighs giving Parole Board independent legal counsel and training
Loading...
Summary
The House Corrections & Institutions Committee discussed bill H.559 and whether the Parole Board needs independent legal counsel and training, noting statutory limits on who may represent the board during parole-revocation hearings, a previous $25,000 pilot appropriation, and competing budget pressures within the Department of Corrections.
Members of the House Corrections & Institutions Committee pressed officials on February 11 over whether the Parole Board should receive independent legal representation and more formal training, and how the board’s budget should be structured.
The committee continued work on bill H.559 after the chair flagged three unresolved policy questions: who provides legal counsel to the Parole Board, whether the board’s budget should be moved out of the Department of Corrections (DOC) or retain a separate line item, and how to fund training and legal services.
Why it matters: Parole revocation hearings can result in the return of a person to incarceration, and committee members said the board’s decisions increasingly involve complex legal questions. At the same time, statute limits which attorneys may represent the board during revocation hearings, and offenders usually have counsel from the Defender General’s office while the board lacks a separate legal advocate.
Lloyd Fisher, general counsel for the Department of Corrections, told the committee the embedded-attorney model used by the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) places assistant attorneys general inside agencies to provide day-to-day counsel. Fisher said that arrangement has worked with safeguards but can create overlap when some AGO attorneys also handle prosecutions or appeals tied to board decisions. "When you say conflict, that sounds...an intimidating word in the legal realm," he said, adding the practical issue is identifying overlap and reassigning matters to avoid it. Fisher also noted the judiciary has treated the Parole Board as independently responsible for its docket in prior appeals.
Mary Jane Ainsworth, director of the Parole Board, said the board does not need counsel at every revocation hearing but needs access to counsel for complex matters and consistent training on evidence and procedure. "I don't believe we need a 100% legal representation at all of our revocation hearings," Ainsworth said, but she urged the committee to authorize training, policy drafting support and on-call legal advice to avoid ad‑hoc on-the-job instruction.
Committee members cited precedents and past funding: the board received a $25,000 appropriation as a pilot for legal services and training, but members said that amount was insufficient and was later removed. Fisher estimated routine legal support historically averaged about 15–20 hours a month, while a model ensuring counsel presence for many hearings could approach full-time coverage.
Brandon Allen, policy director for the Agency of Human Services (AHS), described AHS’s agency-wide budget process and said that whether the Parole Board’s funding sits in DOC or AHS would make little practical difference to internal handling, though AHS committed to improve direct access for the board to agency leadership. John Murad, interim commissioner of the DOC, warned that DOC’s roughly $244 million budget is largely consumed by core operational costs; Murad said relatively little is available to reallocate without affecting core services.
Members agreed the committee needs more specific cost and program proposals before advancing language. Several legislators asked the Parole Board and interested agencies to return with a quantified package showing likely costs for training, contracted counsel or an in‑house position, and suggestions for statutory language to protect independence during revocation hearings. The chair also asked staff to consult appropriations staff and legislative counsel before drafting final bill language.
Next steps: The committee "parked" the issue for additional staff work: AHS and Parole Board staff will meet to refine budget access and reporting; the Parole Board will seek models from other states and provide cost estimates; and the committee will reconvene with legislative counsel present. The hearing recessed for lunch and planned further committee work afterward.
No formal vote was taken.
Sources: Testimony and exchanges with Lloyd Fisher (DOC general counsel), Mary Jane Ainsworth (Parole Board director), Brandon Allen (AHS policy director), and John Murad (Interim DOC commissioner).
