Parole board seeks independent counsel, budget study as committee reviews H.559
Loading...
Summary
The Senate Institutions Committee heard testimony on H.559, which would clarify alternate-member status, pilot contracting of outside conflict counsel for parole cases, strengthen training, and require a budget study on whether the Parole Board should have a separate line outside the Department of Corrections.
The Senate Institutions Committee on March 31 examined H.559, a bill to modify the structure and legal support for Vermont's Parole Board and to study the board's budget placement.
In testimony before the committee, Mary Janie, director of the Parole Board, said the board currently has seven members (five statutory regular members and two alternates) but conducts hearings using rotating panels of three. "Our hearings are held with a forum of 3 board members," she said, and that current practice treats alternates like regular members. H.559 would change how alternates are defined in statute to reflect that practice.
The bill also responds to longstanding concerns about legal representation. Janie described a perceived conflict when the board has been advised by an assistant attorney general who is part of the Department of Corrections litigation team, noting a statutory bar on an AAG employed by DOC counselling the board in pending parole-revocation hearings. "With this, it develops an inherent conflict," she said, explaining why the board is seeking conflict counsel and neutral training.
Todd Delos, assistant attorney general, told the committee the proposal grew from concerns raised internally and that the AGO can provide legal services generally but will follow the board's expressed needs. He described the pilot approach in H.559 as a practical way to contract experienced administrative-law firms to provide conflict counsel and training without creating permanent procurement obstacles.
On funding, Janie said the board previously had $25,000 identified in the FY24 budget to solicit conflict counsel but received no responsive bids; that funding was later removed from FY27. The committee floor added $50,000 to move forward with a pilot to contract external counsel. Janie characterized the amounts and procurement as a pilot to evaluate feasibility: "The exact hours and time spent providing counsel's unknown," she said, adding the pilot is intended to identify realistic costs and operating approaches.
Committee members pressed on operational details and data. Janie reviewed board activity and outcomes: the board's recorded appearances declined since 2020 amid Justice Reinvestment 2 and pandemic effects; she reported that some appearances are repeated (not unique individuals), that 172 hearings were waived (including initial eligibility and violation waivers), and that the board held 334 parole hearings in 2025. She stressed there is no quota-setting and that the board now uses a validated structured decision-making tool developed with the National Institute of Corrections to improve consistency.
Janie also walked the committee through procedural distinctions: reprimand proceedings (no counsel; parolee typically not heard initially) versus formal violation hearings (evidentiary stage with right to counsel, then disposition). She said disposition options range from continued parole with modified conditions to a short custodial sanction or revocation and reincarceration.
The committee did not take a formal vote on H.559 during the session. Members requested more information, including the structured decision-making tool and procurement details, and asked that Janie return for further testimony.
What happens next: committee members asked staff to provide side-by-side language comparisons for related measures and signaled they will schedule additional witnesses, including DOC staff, to clarify supervision and housing resources.
Sources: Testimony and data presented by Mary Janie, Director, Parole Board; comments from Todd Delos, Assistant Attorney General. The board's July 2025 budget-study language and the H.559 pilot funding discussion were presented to the committee during the March 31 hearing.
