Governor's Pardon Advisory Board hears roughly two dozen applicants, moves to closed session

Mel Barnes, chief legal counsel to Gov. Tony Evers and chair of the Governor's Pardon Advisory Board, opened a livestreamed July 10 hearing and outlined procedures: applicants would have about five minutes each to address three questions — a brief description of the offense, what they've done since, and why they seek a pardon. After public testimony the board voted to move into closed session to deliberate and formulate recommendations to the governor.

The panel heard personal statements from applicants with convictions ranging from property offenses and thefts to drug- and violence-related charges dating from the 1990s through the 2010s. Each applicant described their version of the offense and framed the pardon request around rehabilitation, restored civic participation and practical barriers a felony creates for employment, licensing or international travel. "I take full responsibility for my actions," said Justin Prinivo, who told the board he has worked steadily, volunteered at his church and sought to make amends for a burglary conviction from two decades ago. "A pardon would be something from the state saying they forgive me for what I've done," he said.

Several applicants detailed post‑sentence milestones the board noted as material to their requests: paying restitution, completing treatment and education programs, founding nonprofits or businesses, adopting children, and long periods without new convictions. Alexander Barkster said a 2014 conviction was expunged in 2018 and described completing nursing training and working in an intensive-care unit. Ramon Sloan recounted earlier convictions including an armed robbery in 1995, then described a film‑production business and reentry work that he said creates jobs and community opportunities. Tim Archambault, who described 21 years of sobriety, said participation in the state's challenge incarceration program changed his life.

Board members pressed applicants on specifics the files flagged: outstanding monetary obligations, past probation violations, gaps in applications and why some applicants did not submit letters of support. Cindy O'Donnell, a former deputy DOC secretary on the panel, repeatedly asked applicants whether they had submitted supporting letters and for details about unpaid restitution or additional offenses not disclosed on applications. Judge Jeffrey Kremers questioned applicants about the amount and source of restitution payments in several cases. "We have all been through your application materials," Mel Barnes reminded applicants; the hearing was meant to add context, not to retry the facts.

Some applicants cited official support letters. The board members noted when district attorneys or judges had provided input — for example, multiple applicants told the board that county DA offices had reviewed their petitions and provided supportive letters that the board had included in the record.

Several applicants said a pardon would directly affect workforce access. Michelle Arellano, who acknowledged stealing an inmate's credit card while employed in a jail, told the board a pardon could let her pursue other roles at the airport where she recently returned to work. Others said federal contracting, travel or professional licensing remained blocked by a record despite years of steady employment or community service.

After the testimony and follow-up questions, the board voted on the record to move into closed session under Wisconsin Statute §19.85(1)(a), (d) and (f) to consider applications and applicants' private histories. The chair paused the livestream while members prepared to deliberate.

What happens next: the board will deliberate in closed session and send recommendations to the governor; applicants should expect notice of the board's recommendation and the governor's final decision in about one to two months. The board's public record shows a mix of applications backed by prosecutors' offices and others relying mainly on applicants' statements and supporting letters; the closed‑session deliberations are when the panel will weigh those materials and vote on which files to forward to the governor.

Reporting note: quotes and attributions in this account come from the July 10 Zoom hearing transcript and the applicants' on‑the‑record remarks to the advisory board. This story confines itself to statements made at the hearing and to recorded procedural actions; it does not infer outcomes of deliberations or the governor's decisions.