A bill on Beacon Hill that would close a loophole in the law governing the Massachusetts Parole Board (see “Jailhouse Blues,” News and Features, June 22) got a boost last week from the legislature’s Joint Committee on Public Safety. On June 20, the committee gave a “favorable” stamp of approval to House Bill 2574, which would require that the seven-person parole board include members with backgrounds in the behavioral sciences. Not one of the 17 committee members expressed opposition to the legislation.

However, the bill didn’t get through without some alteration. Initially, the legislation would have mandated that at least three parole-board members come from fields such as psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and social work. But the committee reduced that number to two. “Three out of seven is very close to a majority,” explains Mike Coelho, the research director for the public-safety committee. “We felt that we’d be micromanaging the board’s composition.” By mandating no fewer than two members, he adds, “the bill still sends a message to the administration. We think that there should be a more diverse representation on the parole board.”

State Representative Ruth Balser filed House Bill 2574 earlier this year in attempt to reduce the domination of the parole board by law enforcement. After a steady diet of law-and-order appointees from former governors William Weld and Paul Cellucci, the panel includes three former prosecutors and three former police officers (there is one vacancy on the board). Yet the 1955 Massachusetts statute defining the board stipulates that its membership should be drawn not only from the field of criminal justice, but also from “psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and social work.”

Although Balser admits that she prefers the bill’s original language, she says, “This is a step in the right direction. If this change makes the bill more acceptable to more people, then I accept it. Politics is the art of compromise.”

Other proponents agree. “I’m thrilled the bill made it this far,” says Ellen Gagliardi of the Parole Project, a reform group that drafted House Bill 2574. “Frankly, we haven’t seen any bills regarding the parole board on Beacon Hill in years.”

Having made it through the public-safety committee, the proposed measure has moved to the House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee, which places legislation on the calendar for debate. If the bill does not leave this committee within 30 days, it should be placed on the calendar automatically.

In other words, House Bill 2574 could come up for debate as early as next month. And considering that not one person or organization has expressed opposition to the measure, it just may pass — at least, in the House. After all, as Gagliardi says, the legislation “is not unreasonable.” She adds: “We’re simply asking the Swift administration to do what the Weld and Cellucci administrations wouldn’t: follow the spirit of the state law.”

Issue Date: June 28 - July 5, 2001