Smith v. Board of Parole

Administrative rules OAR 255-030-0025 and OAR 255-030-0026 are valid in accordance with the policies of the Board of Parole.

Flynn challenged the validity of two administrative rules, OAR 255-030-0025 and OAR 255-030-0026, arguing that the rules give too much power to the Board of Parole by limiting how many people an inmate may have present at board hearings. Regarding Flynn’s argument that the Board exceeded its authority by establishing the rules in question, the Oregon Court of Appeals determined that Flynn had misinterpreted the effect of the rules. The Court found that the rules, instead of limiting the amount of people inmates may have present at Board meetings, allow inmates to choose the persons present at the board hearings. The Court therefore rejected this claim. Flynn also argued that the rules stated that, according to ORS 144.123, the people chosen to attend board hearings must be “pursuant to rule promulgated jointly by the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision and the Department of Corrections.” Flynn claimed that this meant that the Board should have enacted one singular rule to govern this body of law, rather than two, and that the phrase “promulgated jointly” invalidated the rules. The Court determined that the term “promulgated jointly” simply means that the rules must be consistent with current board policy. Therefore, the Court found the rules to be VALID.