House Corrections & Institutions reviews Senate amendments to parole and victim-notification bill

The House Corrections & Institutions Committee on May 6 reviewed Senate amendments to a parole-related bill (referred to in the meeting as 08/05/1959), discussing changes to training, board composition, legal support, budgeting and victim notifications.

Sen. Joe Major, the Senate Institutions reporter for the bill, told the committee the Senate package makes five principal changes: it strengthens annual training requirements for parole-board members; replaces two alternate members with two regular members (resulting in seven regular members total) while calling for gubernatorial consultation with the board director and chair on appointments; clarifies the parole-board director's responsibility for training and board support; creates a fiscal‑year 2027 pilot to provide external legal counsel for the board coordinated by the attorney general's office and the Agency of Human Services; and adds budget-development and reporting duties and a requirement to report back to the legislature on whether the parole board should have its own line item in the Department of Corrections budget.

"The bill makes five changes," Sen. Joe Major said, summarizing the amendments and describing the pilot and reporting dates. He said most Senate edits are technical or clarifying and that he expected the bill to pass on third reading without roll calls or additional amendments.

Mary Jane Ainsworth, director of the parole board, told the committee she supports the changes. She said the revised wording — changing the director's duty from "developing and providing" training to "ensuring training is developed and provided" — gives the director discretion to bring in subject-matter experts and legal counsel rather than requiring the director personally to perform all curriculum development. "It just gives more flexibility because we would want to bring in experts as well," Ainsworth said.

The committee discussed how training would be produced in practice. Sen. Major and Ainsworth said the director and the board chair would coordinate development and that the director could consult outside experts, including trainers from the National Institute of Corrections, or legal counsel when needed.

On legal support, the Senate amendment establishes a pilot project in FY2027 to provide the parole board with external legal counsel for hearings and training; the attorney general's office will coordinate procurement and evaluate the pilot during the FY2028 budget process, with the parole-board director reporting recommendations to the legislature by Nov. 15, 2026. Funding language in the amendments carries forward $25,000 from the Department of Corrections' FY2026 budget and appropriates an additional $50,000 to support implementation.

The amendments also consolidate and clarify victim-notification provisions across statutes. Committee members asked whether the changes apply to releases from incarceration, furloughs or parole; Ainsworth said the bill focuses on parole (section c in the cited statute) while other subsections of the statutes address broader releases. She explained the statutes cited in the discussion (identified in the record as parts of Title 13 and Title 28) and said the victim-notification task force recommended aligning language so victims encounter consistent provisions across chapters.

A key practical change is adding consistent opt-out language: the amended text confirms victims may waive notification rather than requiring an opt-in. Ainsworth said the Department of Corrections and the parole board have already been following an opt-out practice in many cases; the amendment is meant to reflect and clean up statutory language. She also said waivers need not always be in writing and that DOC would document verbal waivers to avoid repeat outreach.

Committee members sought clarity on "presumptive parole," a status for eligible incarcerated persons who meet statutory criteria (including case-plan compliance, lack of active detainers or recent major disciplinary incidents, and exclusion for specified serious offenses). Ainsworth said DOC forwards presumptive-parole packets to the parole board 30 days in advance; the board reviews the packet, may set conditions, and the board's only mechanism to deny presumptive parole is by determining that a victim should be notified and allowed to participate in a hearing.

No formal committee vote was taken. Chair Evans said the committee will wait until the bill appears on the House notice calendar before deciding whether to concur with the Senate amendments, not concur, or propose further changes.

What happens next: the committee expects the revised draft to appear on the notice calendar (likely Friday), after which the committee will schedule a concurrence decision. The parole-board director will report back on the pilot and budget issues as required by the amendment timelines.