Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Victim Notification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Victim advocates, parole director urge keeping detailed DOC notification language while Senate reviews H.559
Summary
At an April 8 Senate Institutions hearing on H.559, victim advocates and the Parole Board director recommended keeping victim-notification duties in Title 28 (DOC statutes) with a cross-reference into Title 13 so practitioners can find the guidance; legislative counsel will draft a strike-all amendment for review.
Jennifer Pullman, Executive Director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, told the Senate Institutions committee that the Victim Notification Task Force did not specifically consult the Parole Board and urged caution about where to place notification language in H.559. “I would keep the language intact in Title 28,” Pullman said, arguing Title 28 more directly addresses Department of Corrections obligations and that a cross-reference in Title 13 would be preferable to moving or duplicating the text.
Pullman told the committee the task force included DOC representation (two of eight members) and that DOC officials testified they provide personal notification to victims in serious cases rather than relying solely on automated messages. “They speak to DOC obligations,” Pullman said, and the victim-services specialists “make that contact” to determine what support victims need in the parole process.
Hillary Chabot, Assistant Legislative Counsel, summarized the drafting options for the committee: keep consistent language in both Title 28 and Title 13; move the language to only one place without a cross-reference; or move it to one place and add a cross-reference. Chabot said legislative counsel has no technical preference but flagged that the committee should consider user access and statutory consistency when choosing where to place the operative language.
Mary Jane Einsworth, director of the Parole Board, told the committee she did not have a strong statutory-placement preference but favored making the language “easier and more acceptable” for practitioners. She and advocates agreed that preserving an opt-out notification regime (the current practice in Title 28) was important.
As a procedural next step, Chabot offered to prepare a draft "strike-all" amendment incorporating the committee’s direction and other language fixes raised during testimony. She said she would share the draft with Pullman, Einsworth, DOC, and Kim McMannis for review; the committee indicated it could post the draft publicly and schedule a possible vote when members return.
No formal motions or votes were recorded at the April 8 hearing. The committee closed the item after agreeing to circulate the draft amendment and solicit stakeholder feedback before further action.
