Communication and Customer Service Sub-Committee Minutes 
1/19/06 
Members Present: 
Michael Callahan, Byron Champlin, Dick Chevrefils, Retha Fielding, Larry Gilpin, Mary 
Krueger, Michael Morgan, Stephanie Nute, Ray Taylor. 
Next Meeting and Location 
February 8, 2006, 1-2:45 PM. The meeting will be held in the New Department of Safety 
Stephen Merrill Building located at 23 Hazen Drive. 
Open 
Larry opened the meeting and explained where the group is headed. This group will meet 
two more times, February 8, and February 22. The full commission will meet in Reps 
Hall at the State Capitol Building on Monday March 13 where each committee will 
present their final recommendations to the full committee. 
Larry said that Kathy E. said she will have the outlined structure which we should use in 
writing our final recommendations to us by the end of January. 
Byron suggested that rather break into small groups today, that we instead take what the 
groups have done thus far and discuss the ideas with the broader group in order to begin 
prioritizing our recommendations. 
Larry said that we will need to be prioritizing our recommendations for the final 
subcommittee report. 
Meeting 
Discussion of Draft Recommendations 
The subcommittee heard from the chairs of the three task force groups, Stephanie Nute, 
on behalf of the standards and training task force, Michael Callahan, on behalf of the 
customer needs and satisfaction task force, and Retha Fielding and Dick Chevrevils, on 
behalf of the education and outreach task force. 
Mike C – raised the issue of the domestic docket as being the area of law drawing most 
people to the courts as well as the area which conjures up the most anger and frustration. 
He asked whether the number of domestic cases could be quantified. 
Ray – pointed out that the domestic docket is the area that tends to touch the broader 
community because what happens in these cases ripples out to schools, etc. 

Mike C. – Pointed out that the domestic docket also costs a great deal of money – 
especially in legal time. 
Stephanie – agreed that having the numbers for the domestic cases will be valuable for 
our recommendations. She also said that we can not assume that people appearing pro se 
in marital are people without resources, that people with the means to hire attorneys are 
deciding to forgo legal representation for other reasons. 
She also said that Family cases are the orphan child because they were not originally a 
full blown part of the case load in superior courts. Thus, they are sometimes overlooked 
in the budget. She harkened back to the days when the marital master program started and 
when they did not even have court rooms. 
Ray – Domestic cases increased because of no-fault divorce, but the support mechanism 
in place did not expand with the increased case load. As a result, the foundation for 
family issues is ill suited to handle the cases. He said that the we need to look at the 
personnel structure in order to better deal with the needs. For example, AK has an 800# 
to assist people. 
Stephanie – asked if the group had specific recommendations. 
Ray – we need a well paid, knowledgeable person at the front desk to deal with the 
public. 
Byron – talked about NJ’s ombudsman program. Each court there has its own 
ombudsman who does PR, a speaker’s bureau, education, deals with complaints, acts as a 
greeter. MD has ombudsman program with one person for entire system which serves to 
protect minority rights – there are lots of ombudsman models out there. 
Ray – emphasized there is a real need to have an on-site person 
Mike C. – says that he has never handled a divorce case where he has not had to spend 
some time calming down a client. Even with lawyers with great intentions, this happens. 
Pro se clients create even more problems for judges and mm. 
Stephanie – the public thinks court is like judge Judy. The court relies on the attorneys to 
be a buffer for the court from the client. 
Byron – AK has a mandatory training program for pro se litigants. 
Stephanie – Strafford used to have the “Scope” program where people could go in and 
ask questions about the court process, but that this program may have promoted further 
litigation. 

Mike C. – there is a substantial amount of bar time being spent on addressing the lack of 
civility amongst lawyers. Some portion of the bar feeds into marketing oneself as the 
aggressive lawyer. 
Ray – the family division is currently doing an information session for divorcing couples. 
Mary – is divorce mediation going to be mandatory? 
Stephanie – no, but, some mm are ordering it. 
The issues raised around pro se litigants in family court are just as significant for the 
probate court as well. Even the supreme court is noticing a need to deal with it on 
appeals. So, the issue is becoming a priority. 
Mike C. – should there be a recommendation about adequate security in the courts? 
Stephanie – there is inadequate security in many court lobbies, the parking areas. 
She says that the job descriptions for the court are all outdated and need to be revised. 
Ray – suggests that the c`ourt build job descriptions from the front of the courthouse to 
the back. Points out how the system has developed to place the person with the least 
experience, who is paid the least, at the front desk. 
Mary – the person who draws the short straw is stuck at the desk? 
Ray – yes. The person who is paid well and has the most information is the farthest from 
the counter. 
Michael M – we can’t recommend something that the court can not support. If going 
through training for marital cases is mandated, this requires staff. 
Stephanie – talked about how that has happened with the child impact program – where 
parents need to go through training about the impact of divorce on children. They used to 
have a staff position to oversee that parents were complying with the requirements, but, 
that position has been cut. There is no one to oversee the program, so parents may not be 
following through on what is required. 
Mike M – talked about the facilities and how marital can be relegated to the basement of 
the court. That sends a negative message to litigants. 
Mike C. – the majesty of the courtroom affects the behavior of the clients. 
Byron – the court is like a sacred space, the architecture creates that atmosphere which in 
turn affects the way in which people behave. They will behave if the environment 
commands that respect. 
Stephanie – agrees 

Mike C. – suggested taking his draft report and meld it into Stephanie’s draft report since 
there is overlap in the task force recommendations. (Mary will send to Mike C’s 
assistant.) 
Mike C. – discussed the court’s schedule. 
Larry – should we suggest that the court stay open until 6:30 – or 8:30? We should be 
specific about the recommendation. 
Mike M – the court needs to get away from the banker hours. 
Ray – the court could shift hours due to demand 
Mary – why not recommend that the courts have non-banker hours and let the legislature 
figure it out. 
Byron – pointed out that court hours and other recommendations do not necessarily need 
to be approved by the legislature. 
Dick and Retha – begin their presentation. 
Dick – says his group met and came up with a basic communication framework. They 
suggest launching a campaign called “Courting NH.” It will promote the what, how and 
who of the court. 
Retha – the idea is to target media, individuals using the court, children and schools. The 
rational for their recommendation is the UNH study done for the commission which says 
people do not necessarily know what the courts do. the campaign will depend on what 
message comes out of the full commission report. It can not be developed in advance of 
that. The chief, or whomever, can announce the changes. 
The idea of the Face of the Court was rejected because that is the kind of thing that the 
court should decide. Their recommendation will piggyback on to the “We the People” 
campaign currently going on in the schools. The long-term goal would be to reach people 
so that they come into the court knowing what to expect. 
Let the public know: here is what the courts can do for you. 
Dick – we started on the lower level and went to a higher level. Retha suggested putting 
together the campaign., we need the knowledgeable experts to drill down. The court is 
dynamic and changing and we can not put together a message until we know what it is. 
Byron – agreed that hiring a PR staff can become a political thing for the court to 
implement. 
Stephanie – asked if there was any recommendation as to how the court can communicate 
to individual litigants. 

Retha – said that the web is a piece of that – and that we need to look at who is the 
audience. 
Byron – where do we go from here? 
Prioritizing 
Larry – Let’s talk about priorities. 
Dick – If we are going to be making recommendations – we need to keep it simple and 
practical so that the report doesn’t just sit in some filing cabinet. 
Mike C. – there is nothing more important than technology for things like: 1) scheduling; 
2) e-filing; 3) teleconferencing. 
1) A lack of scheduling coordination amongst courts contributes to attorneys having to 
file motions to continue in order to appear at a conflicting hearing elsewhere. This costs 
the client money. All courts should be talking to one another. 
2) e-filing – look at what the federal courts are doing – less paper. 
3) teleconferencing – saves time and money so that attorneys do not have to travel to 
appear for preliminary motions and structuring conferences. Travel time costs clients. 
Ray – the web page is a priority. What is there now is just a starting point. It needs great 
improvements to help out court users more. The bang for the buck is well worth it. 
Dick – recommends four areas: 
1) technology 
2) professional development 
3) public education 
4) user communication 
Stephanie – suggests that someone put together the ideas presented in the drafts be placed 
under these four categories. At the next meeting, we can discuss, edit, and add to the draft 
for the final version. 
Mike C. – volunteered to do this. 
Stephanie – says that another priority is to look at the pay scale for court employees – 
starting clerks make only $21,000 – they qualify for food stamps! Also, says that 
improving the courts is not a failure of the staff, but a failure to have sufficient resources. 
Mary – points out that the legislature needs to get the message from this committee that 
the courts are here to provide a service to the public and that tax payer dollars should 
support improvements to that service - justice. 

Byron – It is the people’s court – it is the people who suffer when it is not funded. Maybe 
we should label the campaign the “people’s court” rather than “courting nh.” 
Meeting Wrap-up 
Michael Callahan offered, and this subcommittee agreed, for him to incorporate the task 
force drafts and the ideas discussed at this meeting into a draft to be reviewed at the 
February 8 meeting. The ideas will be placed under four categories: 
1) technology 
2) professional development 
3) public education 
4) user communication 
End Meeting