Issue 7: Current Law Does Not Hold All Parole Decision Makers to the Same Standards of Objectivity and Independence.
Summary
Key Recommendations
· Expand conflict of interest provisions concerning financial and personal interests to include parole commissioners.
· Expand restrictions on previous employment with TDCJ to include parole commissioners.
Key Findings
· The Board of Pardons and Paroles shares much of its decision-making authority regarding prison releases and parole revocations with 12 parole commissioners.
· Provisions to protect the objectivity and independence of parole decision making do not apply to parole commissioners.
· Other states, as well as other state agencies, apply certain provisions to decision makers to ensure impartiality.
Conclusion
To ensure objectivity and prevent potential bias, the Legislature enacted certain provisions affecting the eligibility of appointments to the Board of Pardons and Paroles (Parole Board). For example, conflict of interest provisions ensure Parole Board members do not have inappropriate financial or professional relationships with persons or entities that could unduly influence parole determinations. In addition, previous employment restrictions establish independence from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), which is directly affected by parole decisions.
The Legislature changed the composition of parole panels in 2003 to include parole commissioners, who have comparable decision making authority to Parole Board members in parole determinations. Despite the similar responsibilities, parole commissioners are not subject to the same conflict of interest provisions and previous employment restrictions as Parole Board members. Without application of similar provisions, commissioners may be susceptible to conflict, limiting the appearance of objectivity and decreasing the public’s confidence in parole panel discretion.