On Wednesday, lawmakers on the Joint Prison Oversight Committee had a series of tense exchanges with Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles chair Leigh Gwathney regarding the board’s guidelines for reviewing possible parolees.
The congeniality shifted, however, when Gwathney took the podium.
Allegations against the parole board have been numerous in recent years. Accusations of race-based discrimination and ignoring parole guidelines. Most notably, State Rep. Chris England (D-Tuscaloosa), who sits on the oversight committee, has repeatedly called for Gwathney to be replaced, claiming her arbitrary formulation of guidelines has increased the racial disparity in paroled and pardoned inmates.
Gwathney began with a monologue, seemingly giving a preemptive defense ahead of the anticipated examination. Committee chairman State Sen. Clyde Chambliss (R-Prattville) halted Gwathney several times to allow questions from lawmakers, who quickly showed visible frustration with her responses.
The tension began when Chambliss questioned Gwathney about the parole hearing process. Gwathney described the files that the parole board “studies” on individual inmates before a hearing takes place. Chambliss questioned what information was in the files and who prepared them.
“Those files are prepared by the Bureau of Pardons and Paroles,” Gwathney said.
She continued, “So the Bureau prepares all of those things. They docket the files for us. We are the people who are appointed by the governor to hear the cases and to make the decisions.”
Gwathney went on to describe the details included in the files, including disciplinary records, mental health evaluations, supervision failures, social history, sometimes going back to childhood, health issues, IQ and much more.
“It can be looked at that we are only looking for one side of things, that could not be further from the truth,” she continued. “We look for as big and total and complete of a picture as possible.”
After further comment, Gwathney was halted again, this time for a question from England. England asked Gwathney if individual inmates had input with the board before their parole hearing.
Gwathney began explaining that applicants do not attend their own hearings but communicate with institutional parole officers before a hearing. England asked his question again, clarifying that he was trying to determine if inmates communicated directly with the board.
“Every inmate has the opportunity to write to the board, and many of them do,” Gwathney responded. “I can think on every day that we have hearings, I can tell you that there are files where we have direct communication from the inmate in written form….
England interrupted Gwathney again.
“I’m sorry. I don’t mean to interrupt you, but I don’t think you’re understanding my question,” England said. “So the answer to my question is no. The applicant does not get an opportunity, other than writing a letter, to speak to you in person.’
Gwathney confirmed that they do not hear from the inmates in person.
“They do not appear in person," she replied before being stopped, "but there are other forms in which the inmate communicates with the board ..."
“Do you think that it would help your decision-making process to hear from the applicant in person?” England interrupted to ask.
“We do hear from the applicant,” Gwathney responded.
A series of interactions between England and Gwatheny followed in which England grew visibly frustrated at her answers.
State Sen. Bobby Singleton (D-Greensboro) echoed England’s frustration, questioning why inmates were not allowed the same ability to dialogue with the board in the same way as victims and advocates.
The conversation shifted to the board’s parole guidelines. Chambliss asked Gwathney to explain who crafted the current guidelines and how they are applied. Gwathney handed out copies of the point system used by the board to rank an inmate’s risk assessment. She also stated that the board does not always follow the guidelines and is only required to “consider” them.
When Gwathney began explaining the point system, Chambliss interrupted again, asking who formulated the guidelines and not how they are applied.
“The people who developed these guidelines roughly six, seven years ago,” Gwathney responded.
“And those people are not the board?” Chambliss responded. “Who is that?”
“I don’t know who,” Gwathney said. “I could not tell you who those people were. I was not employed. I was not on the board at that time.”
England chimed in, saying that the Alabama code requires the board to review its criteria every three years and publish the new criteria after a public comment period.
Partial exchange as follows:
ENGLAND: If I’m not mistaken, you were appointed in 2019. It’s 2024. When can we expect, A, a review of the current guidelines…
GWATHNEY: Very soon.
ENGLAND: But it’s been, you’re about two years overdue.
GWATHNEY: Fair enough.
The meeting continued with several tense exchanges between Gwathney and lawmakers. Several seemed frustrated with her perceived evasiveness and lack of clarity on why the guidelines have not been updated.
England later questioned Gwathney about her criteria for altering the scoresheet or guidelines and in whose favor those alterations came. She responded, saying her alterations “always weighs in favor of the inmate.”
“I think one of the things that you’ve done today, and I really appreciate it, is that you’ve, inadvertently, made the case that the board needs oversight,” England said. “Because standards that have been created, obviously only 20%, and in your case, 8% of the applicants can reach the standards and the guidelines that we paid for to create. Again, either they’re broken, or the process in itself is broken. But also, to hear that what we paid for and the creation of it is not being followed, and not only not followed but altered, also underscores the fact that somebody else needs to be involved in this process. Because if you’re saying that you have to amend the scoresheet or the guidelines to benefit the applicant, and it only gets to 8% released, there is a problem in the system.”
To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email craig.monger@1819news.com.
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
Editor's Note: An earlier version misidentified Leigh Gwathney as the chairman of the Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles.
