Committee weighs parole board appointment consultation and AGO conflict-of-interest options

Legislative counsel presented a revised draft amendment to H.559 that the House Corrections and Institutions Committee discussed on Feb. 5. The draft adds consultation steps for governor appointments, clarifies training roles and removes a proposed term limit.

"The first key change was...that prior to appointing a member, the governor shall consult with the chair of the parole board," counsel explained, and added language encouraging the governor to consider geographic representation and a balance of knowledge and experience on the board.

Committee members asked whether consultation should happen "upon notification of a vacancy" rather than immediately prior to a formal appointment; the group largely agreed on changing the language to require consultation at the time a vacancy is notified so the chair and director can offer meaningful input.

The session turned to an active conflict-of-interest concern: committee members questioned whether the Attorney General's Office (AGO) can ethically advise both the Department of Corrections and the Parole Board. Chip Connor (AGO/AHS legal unit) explained the practical approach used: AGO attorneys had placed an "ethical wall" between staff advising Corrections litigation and those advising the Parole Board but acknowledged this arrangement is "awkward" and "less than ideal." He said the AGO has started to stop representing parole/probation officers before the board at Corrections' request and that the AGO currently advises the board via embedded attorneys.

"It's awkward, and it does need to be fixed," Connor said, describing the ethical wall practice used since 2020. He outlined an alternative: contracting outside counsel to advise the parole board; AGO provided a rough estimate of $25,000 to $50,000 annually for such external counsel based on an earlier solicitation.

Parole Board Director Mary Jane Ainsworth said she currently notifies the governor's office about upcoming vacancies and often provides information about needed skills and duties. Committee members directed staff to schedule further committee time to examine the conflict-of-interest, potential budget line items for outside counsel, and whether the Parole Board should be administratively relocated.