Governor's Pardon Advisory Board hears applicants seeking relief; board to deliberate in closed session

Madison — The Governor’s Pardon Advisory Board on Friday heard from dozens of applicants seeking pardons, with each briefly summarizing their offenses, steps taken since completing sentences and why they believe the governor should grant clemency.

Mel Barnes, chief legal counsel to the governor and chair of the board, opened the livestreamed session on Wisconsin Eye and YouTube and explained the process: applicants would present three short statements (offense summary, post-sentence rehabilitation, and reasons for requesting a pardon), board members would ask follow-up questions, and the board would later meet in closed session to make recommendations to the governor. "We will not give you an answer today," Barnes told applicants; she said applicants would be notified of outcomes in about a month to a month and a half.

Applicants who spoke ranged in age and offense history. Perry Staples, who identified himself as an enrolled member of the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, described decades-old convictions and said, "I have been sober for the last 16 years," noting work as a certified peer recovery specialist and tribal employment. Mary Anne Sanford, a longtime recovery counselor, said she had completed probation and graduate study and asked the board for a pardon so she could "leave a clean slate when I leave here." Several applicants described job training, degrees or business ownership they said had been hampered by conviction records.

Board members repeatedly asked about three common themes: whether applicants had complied fully with sentence conditions, whether they had letters of support from employers or community members, and whether victims had been contacted. Cindy O'Donnell, a board member and former deputy corrections secretary, frequently reminded applicants that local judges and district attorneys are consulted for input and noted when those offices had returned supportive letters.

Several applicants said they had received letters of support from judges, prosecutors or employers; others said shame or record-keeping problems had delayed submission of recommendation letters. Applicants seeking career-related relief emphasized licensing barriers, while others described wanting to restore family or civic participation. Victoria Bertrand told the board she had already obtained an expunction and sought a pardon to pursue social-work licensing and county employment.

After the public presentations, the board voted by voice to move into closed session under Wisconsin Statute §19.85(1)(a),(d),(f) to deliberate on individual applications and review applicants’ personal histories. The motion carried and the live stream was paused; the board did not announce recommendations during the public meeting.

What happens next: the board will deliberate in closed session and forward recommendations, if any, to the governor, who makes the final decision. Applicants were told they would receive notice of outcomes from the governor’s office in roughly four to six weeks.

The hearing transcript shows the board followed a consistent format of brief applicant statements followed by targeted questions from members concerned with rehabilitation, victim contact and verification of supporting materials. The public record from the session documents applicants’ statements and the procedural motion to convene in closed session but contains no public votes on individual cases.