Committee reviews proposed changes to victim notification for parole hearings

The House Corrections and Institutions Committee on April 9 reviewed proposed statutory changes intended to standardize how victims are notified about parole-board proceedings and to allow victims to opt out of certain Department of Corrections (DOC) services.

Hillary Cheddar Ames, Office of Legislative Council, told the committee that Senate Institutions has drafted an amendment to H559 to consolidate the details of victim notification into Title 28 and add a cross-reference in Title 13. “The plan is that Title 28 will have all of the information related to victim notification of parole board hearings and that Title 13 will have a cross reference to Title 28,” Ames said.

The discussion centered on three statutory provisions that currently read differently: 28 V.S.A. §507 (parole-eligibility notification), 28 V.S.A. §502A (parole-release/notification), and 13 V.S.A. §5305 (victim-notification provisions in Title 13). Ames said the amendment under development would place the broad notification language in 28 V.S.A. §507 and use a cross-reference in Title 13 to avoid inconsistent or out-of-sync edits between the two titles.

Committee members asked whether the term “parole eligibility hearing” is narrower than the phrase used in Title 13 — “parole board hearing concerning the defendant” — and whether the amendment should use broader language. Ames said she expects input from the Parole Board director and other stakeholders to make sure the amended text captures the intended set of hearings.

The committee also considered a second change recommended by the victim notification task force: adding a general opt-out provision so victims could decline any services offered by DOC, analogous to language already found in Title 13 for victim-advocate services (13 V.S.A. §5304(b)). Ames summarized the task-force record that DOC representatives told the group they would be more comfortable offering a VINE-style “menu” of notification options if statutory authorization explicitly allowed an opt-out. “A victim can decline any service provided by the Department of Corrections,” Ames said, characterizing the kind of catchall language under consideration.

Ames described two placement options for that DOC opt-out: include it early in Title 28 within the commissioner’s powers/duties section (28 section 102) even though that section typically lists affirmative duties, or create a new early section in Title 28 specifically authorizing the opt-out/menu. She invited DOC or other witnesses to indicate a drafting preference.

On next steps, Ames said the amended language for H559 should be posted on the Senate Institutions website by early next week for stakeholder review, and she will follow up with Haley to gather DOC input on the opt-out/menu drafting and placement. Committee members generally agreed Legislative Council should consult DOC and that the committee would take testimony if needed. The group also discussed whether one recommended change is already included in the miscellaneous judiciary bill currently before Senate Judiciary; Ames committed to confirm that point and notify the committee by email.

No formal motions or votes were recorded during the session. Committee members asked Legislative Council to circulate drafts and confirm statutory citations so the committee and interested stakeholders can review the specific amendment language before any further action. The committee adjourned and planned to reconvene at 3:15.