Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parole Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee seeks costed options after questioning Parole Board independence, training and legal counsel
Summary
Members directed staff to schedule a 90‑minute full‑board session and asked Mary Jane (DOC staff referenced in testimony) to provide detailed cost estimates for training, legal representation and budget templates to clarify whether the Parole Board should have a separate line item.
During the Feb. 12 meeting, the House Corrections & Institutions Committee spent a substantial portion of its time on structural and operational problems raised about the state Parole Board. Committee members framed three distinct issues: (1) what training board members require and who may lawfully provide it under current statute; (2) whether the Parole Board should have a separate budget line to ensure independence; and (3) whether the board has adequate legal representation when conducting revocation hearings.
Committee members noted statutory language requiring training on parole revocation hearings be coordinated in a way that gives the Defender General notice and an opportunity to participate, and they discussed potential conflicts of interest if AG or DOC attorneys provide training. An unidentified committee member summarized the statutory constraint: "If any attorney employed by DOC or an assistant AG ... provides training to the parole board members on the subject of parole revocation hearings, the Defender General shall be notified prior to the training and given the opportunity to participate."
Members repeatedly said testimony to date had been vague about the scope and cost of training and that the board’s budgetary inputs were unclear. The committee referenced a current allocation to the Parole Board of roughly $600,000 and said low per diems have impeded recruitment and the retention of board members. "If you don't pay a per diem, it's going to attract people," one member said, arguing compensation affects board quality and the seriousness of the work given life‑and‑liberty decisions.
The committee asked staff to schedule a 90‑minute session next week with the Parole Board and with Mary Jane (DOC/administration staff referenced repeatedly in testimony) to supply: cost quotes from potential training providers, options and estimated costs for independent legal counsel or general counsel to support the board, a template for budget submissions tied to board functions, and a clear statement of what duties—if any—DOC will continue to provide (office space, administrative support) if the board’s budget is transferred or restructured.
No formal vote was taken; the committee said it will determine next steps after receiving the requested materials.
