Top Massachusetts probation officials today urged lawmakers to reject a Patrick administration proposal that would move their agency out of the judicial branch of government and into the executive branch, saying the bill would increase costs and lessen the power of judges.

Elizabeth V. Tavares, first deputy commissioner of probation, read a lengthy statement to the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee that said the governor’s proposal would create a new and unnecessary bureaucracy and cost taxpayers $37 million more per year.

“Massachusetts taxpayers cannot and should not have to bear this unnecessary financial burden,” Tavares said in her prepared remarks.

Outside the hearing room, Tavares and Stephen V. Price, the executive director of the Office of Community Corrections, downplayed allegations that the probation service is a patronage haven for the Legislature. CommonWealthmagazine.org reported last week  that Probation Commissioner John J. O’Brien’s daughter works at the Office of Community Corrections and the spouses and relatives of many lawmakers work elsewhere at the agency.

“In any business, people like to hire people they know,” Price said, adding that all people hired at the probation service must meet the job qualifications. He said probation workers are experienced, educated, and very competent. “If it’s patronage, I guess sometimes patronage works,” he said.

But Secretary of Public Safety Mary Elizabeth Heffernan (pictured at right) told the legislative committee that moving probation into the executive branch and merging it with the parole department would bring all community supervision of criminal offenders under one agency’s control. “The operation of two independent agencies of supervision has resulted in lost and poor communication, duplication of services, and inefficient supervision of offenders,” Heffernan said.

Secretary Heffernan also said the governor’s proposal would usher in more transparency at probation, in part because probation, as part of the judiciary, is not subject to the state’s Public Records Law. She also said the proposal would address the “unique autonomy” that probation enjoys, noting O’Brien has no term limit on his service and has full authority to hire and fire employees.

Robert A. Mulligan, the trial court’s chief justice for administration and management, testified that he favored keeping probation within the judiciary. He said moving probation to the executive branch would lessen the confidence judges have in probation officials and cause judges to sentence more offenders to prison time. He noted it costs $46,000 a year to incarcerate an individual.

Mulligan also said he feared the administration would divert resources from probation, which generally supervises offenders who receive non-jail time sentences, and toward parole, which supervises offenders post-incarceration.

Though he wants to keep probation within the judiciary, Mulligan told CommonWealth previously  that he wants greater control over the agency, specifically restoration of a term limit for the commissioner and greater oversight over hiring and firing. Mulligan currently has the authority to disapprove a probation appointment only if it violates judicial hiring procedures. He is currently being sued by Stephen P. Anzalone Jr., who Mulligan rejected on the grounds that he had failed to fully disclose on his job application that his father, his sister, and two cousins work at the agency.

Price said outside the hearing room that a term limit for the commissioner of probation “should be looked at” and suggested Mulligan already has significant control over hiring and firing. “There’s a lot of authority there already,” he said.

Lawmakers at the hearing asked no questions of witnesses testifying on the probation legislation.