The future existence of the Oregon Board of Parole as a discretionary decisionmaking authority apparently lies in its ability to clarify its mission and purpose in the Oregon criminal justice system. By clarifying its role, the Board can then make decisions that are in accord with the will of the public and thus receive the full support of the legislature. The Board should undertake an assertive approach to information dissemination regarding parole rules and regulations. Currently, the Board is bound by and adheres to the cumbersome rules and rulemaking procedures under the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act. Yet those rules, as they apply to the Board, require notice of proposed rules and rule changes only to persons and organizations on its mailing list and to those who make a formal written request for the notice. The common citizen and the average lawyer are rarely aware of the administrative rules as they apply to them until they are already enmeshed in the system, be it as victim, lawyer, defendant, or interested citizen. The public education approach to the problem of public apathy would involve practitioners and the Board in public relations through speaking engagements, lectures, and presentations. These efforts could target schools, business and government organizations, the media, and special interest groups such as victims' rights groups. In delivering information to the public about parole law and how the Board functions and what its rules dictate, practitioners and the Board can engage in an ongoing dialog with the public and keep abreast of the public's perspective on crime and punishment. 28 notes