GOP bill seeks to expand transparency at state Parole Commission

 

MADISON Wis. (CBS 58) -- The public could become more involved when decisions are made whether an inmate should stay behind bars or be granted parole under a Republican bill.

The proposal, introduced by Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) and Rep. John Spiros (R-Marshfield), would allow the public to watch deliberations by the Wisconsin Parole Commission when they review applications for probation, supervision or parole.

Under the state’s open meeting laws, the commission currently has an exemption to meet behind closed doors to discuss an inmate's parole eligibility. The GOP bill would remove that exemption.

“Cutting the public out of it when we don't know what they are talking about – I think that is very frustrating,’ said Wanggaard.

The commission would still have the ability to go into closed session when talking about things such as an inmate's medical history, under the open records law.

“Those types of things like that don't need to get into the public eye, but I think it’s fair to have the victims of these horrendous crimes that are happening…I think the victims need to be included in that,’ Wanggaard said.

Many Democrats CBS 58 reached out to said they were still reviewing the bill. Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee) was one of them, but she shared some initial concerns about the proposal.

"I don't know that I want to see these [parole] hearings turned into a circus, but I do believe victims and families have the right to be able to know and should be able to weigh in," said Taylor.

Britt Cudaback, a spokeswoman for Gov. Tony Evers, did not address the specifics of the bill but said in a statement, "the governor supports efforts to improve the parole commission process—especially measures to ensure crime victims and survivors have a meaningful voice in the parole process."

The 'Parole Transparency Act' would also require the Department of Corrections to publish on their website a notice of all commission meetings and a monthly report, listing individuals who were granted parole or denied, including the crime, demographics of the individual and the municipality of where they were convicted.

Last year, Republican governor candidate Tim Michels and a conservative website Wisconsin Right Now criticized Gov. Evers and his administration for failing to release public record requests of hundreds of people recently paroled that committed felonies.

In September, Wisconsin Right Now sued the parole commission for not releasing the records and a month later a Washington County judge ordered the commission to turn over the documents.

Michels and other conservatives accused Evers of being “soft on crime” for issuing discretionary paroles to individuals, some that committed brutal crimes.

Evers does not have any authority in granting paroles, the four-member parole commission does. Discretionary paroles have been handed out routinely under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

The number of individuals currently eligible for parole is relatively small because of the state’s Truth in Sentencing Law which means any person who committed a felony offense on or after Dec. 31, 1999, and is sentenced to at least one year in prison is not eligible for parole.

Therefore, the parole board has no control over setting free inmates who were sentenced after 2000.

Evers does appoint the parole chair and recently tapped former state Sen. Jon Erpenbach to lead the commission. Erpenbach did not respond to requests for an interview.

Evers asked his former parole chairman John Tate to resign after he granted parole to Douglas Balsewicz, a West Allis man who in 1997 was convicted of murdering his wife in front of their children and served less than 25 years of an 80-year sentence. Tate rescinded Balsewicz's parole on Evers' request after a flurry of controversial headlines.

Wanggaard, who served over a decade with Erpenbach in the Senate, said he’s looking forward to talking to him about his proposal to “shed light on the parole-granting process while still maintaining the privacy rights of inmates.”