Rep. Rogers Calls for Probation Reform

Still dissatisfied with the limited reforms enacted to improve the Massachusetts Department of Probation, state Representative John H. Rogers (D-Norwood) is demanding that his colleagues in the House pass tougher reforms and take more power and responsibility away from the beleaguered state agency.

Rogers wants legislation passed that takes the power away from probation officers to determine whether a criminal defendant should have his legal defense paid for by the state’s taxpayers.  Specifically, Rogers cites the last month’s audit of the probation department by State Auditor Suzanne Bump and Inspector General Gregory Sullivan.  The report revealed that almost $50 million in taxpayer money each year is likely wasted by the failure of the probation unit to adequately verify that defendants were in fact so poor that the taxpayers had to pay their legal bills.

“The fact that the probation department was charged with the duty to protect the taxpayers and grossly neglected to ascertain which of the criminally accused were actually eligible for a public subsidy is Exhibit A that this important duty be assigned elsewhere,” said Rogers, who in 2006, authored the state law that forced probation to interface with other state agencies like unemployment, welfare, and tax collection agencies to validate whether a defendant was truly indigent and therefore eligible to receive publicly financed legal representation in a criminal matter.

“The duty of determining indigency should no longer be made by a department that is need of reform, but be reassigned to a group that has proven its worth over time: the clerk-magistrates of each district and superior court,” said Rogers, who once chaired the Judiciary Committee.

In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainright that said that in all criminal matters, and in some limited civil cases, all parties have the right to be represented by legal counsel and that if unable to afford counsel then it must be paid for by the government.

“I understand the constitutional mandate, but what no one can understand is how any state agency can be so cavalier with precious tax dollars, money that should be spent only on those who are truly poor,” said Rogers.

Rogers did, however, commend Acting Commissioner of Probation, Ron Corbett, for conducting his own internal investigation of the department that he inherited after the former commissioner stepped down last year in the wake of the famous Ware Report that chronicled abuses in the hiring practices of probation staff.

In the Boston Globe Spot Light series on probation last year, Rogers was cited as having voted against increased funding on the agency because it was treated by House leadership as a “sacred cow” at a time when all other state agencies were being drastically cut.

“Probation officers should verify for judges that a defendant is complying with the terms and conditions of his probation and taking steps to ensure that he does not reoffend, period,“ said Rogers.  “They should not be duplicating the services that court clerks are doing already: that is, collecting court fees and determining who should pay them,” he said.

In April, Rogers says he will be filing an amendment to the state budget to incorporate more reforms of the probation department.

Press release from Rep. Rogers office.