THE THIRD BRANCH 
SUB-COMMITTEE of NH CITIZENS COMMISSION ON STATE COURTS 
Judicial 
Off-Line Meeting Minutes 
Wednesday, November 30, 2005 
Present: 
Donna Davey, Martin Gross, Andrew Peterson (Chair,) Katrina Swett, Michael Whalley, Dick Winters 
Absent: 
Kelly Ayotte, Charles Bickford, Robert Duhaime, Francis Frasier, Peter Heed, Ann Kuster 
Guests: 
Honorable John Broderick (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,) Donald Goodnow Esq. (Director of the 
Administrative Office of the Courts,) Honorable Edwin Kelly (Administrative Judge, Family Division,) 
Laura Kiernan (Communications Director, Judicial Branch,) Honorable Robert Lynn (Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court,) Honorable John Maher (Adminstrative Judge, District Court and Family Division,) Dale 
Trombley (Fiscal Manager, Administrative Office of the Courts,) Howard Zibel Esq. (General Counsel to 
the Supreme Court and the Judicial Branch,) 
Topic
Discussion
Action
Pre-meeting announcement 
to Third Branch Committee 
members: 
A meeting has been set up for December 14, 2005 for members of the 
Committee to meet with the Governor (1:30 p.m.,) the Speaker of the 
House (2:30 p.m.,) and the Senate President (3:30 p.m.) 
Third Branch Committee 
members who are able, will meet 
with the Governor, Speaker of 
the House, and Senate President 
on Wednesday, December 14, 
2005. 
Opening Address to the 
Committee: 
Chief Justice John Broderick opened the discussion with comments 
indicating that the Supreme Court as currently constituted is focused on 
having more frequent and meaningful discussion with the Legislative 
Branch. 
There was a time when the Legislative and Judicial branches relied on 
outside assistance to communicate, but a few years ago, work towards a 
goal of understanding each other’s thinking began to change that 
dynamic. Open and formal meetings were set up with the Senate to 

Opening Address to the 
Committee (cont’d:) 
provide opportunities for exchange of communication. 
This interaction led the Court and the Legislature to work together to 
review judicial budget needs and present a maintenance budget – this 
was a complete revisal of the past process of estimating the judicial 
budget needs. 
The court has diligently moved toward establishing an open and honest 
relationship with the Legislature on all subjects, both global and minute. 
Chief Justice Broderick spoke of a recent meeting of members of the 
Judicial branch with members of the Legislature, notably the Speaker of 
the House, the Senate President, the Democrat Leaders of both the 
House and the Senate and both Chairs of the Judicial Committee in the 
House and the Senate to get to know one another. 
A three page document regarding the Judicial Branch Budget Process, 
demonstrating Judicial branch contact with the Legislative branch was 
presented to the Committee (copy attached to these minutes) by Chief 
Justice Broderick as an example of interaction on the Judicial budget. 
Gains are apparent in interaction with the Legislative Branch, and there 
is hope for continued improvement. 
Budget Process: 
Some difficulties with the budget process of the past and current 
challenges and enhancements were discussed. 
1. By statute, the Judicial budget must go to the Governor before 
submission to the Legislature. The Governor follows a process of going 
before the Legislature with the budget. The Judicial branch is not 
involved in those hearings for the underlying reason that the Governor is 
the head of the Executive branch and is not involved in the Judicial 
branch, although the statute does say that the Governor can comment on 
Judicial budget requests. 
In the past, the judicial could comment, but was not involved in the 
process as it was reviewed, tweaked and approved. 

Budget Process (Cont’d) 
Currently, the Court took the initiative to have a meeting with pertinent 
members of the Legislative branch to work toward common 
understanding. The resulting combined efforts of the Judicial and 
Legislative branches prior to submission to the Governor ensured the 
Judicial was more involved in the process. The Judicial branch does 
have pre-contacts with the Governor prior to submission to the 
legislature. 
Chief Justice John Broderick noted that Governor Lynch has been 
acutely interested in the Judicial budget, that he made no budget cuts, 
and that he made that decision on an informed basis. 
2. The Legislature considered the separate court line items as solidified, 
with no fluidity among them. 
In the past and currently, in the event one court had greater financial 
need than anticipated and another court had less, there could be no 
movement from one to the other. The Legislative branch believed the 
Judicial branch always robbed from the District Court and erected a 
bullet-proof glass around the budget – don’t you dare go there! 
Currently, everyone is willing to say “why don’t we take a look at 
this?” We’ve worked to establish trust and are trying internally to get on 
the same page, to be an integrated system here, so go as a unified front. 
In working with the Legislature to revise the Judiciary budget process, 
the Judiciary agreed to state that “no new services positions are 
requested.” 
Opportunity for Improvement: There may be some benefit to public 
exposure. The Judicial branch would like to be seen by the Legislature 
as the Judicial branch, not as separate courts. Unlike members of the 
Legislative branch, members of the Judicial branch are not before the 
public for re-election, so there is a recognized need to educate the public 
about what the court does, to raise public trust in their Judicial 
representatives. The court system is a political institution. The role of 
the judicial system and the importance of an independent judiciary are 

Budget Process (Cont’d) 
important for the public to understand. Some venues to talk about the 
role of “how government works,” perhaps with live web casts may be 
considered. 
3. The budget is set for 2 years. 
In the past and currently: When unanticipated and unknown expenses 
come in, that makes it difficult. When a Governor comes in January, he 
may be living with someone else’s budget until July. 
Opportunity for Improvement: The Judicial branch would 
recommend annual budgets. 
4. The Federal Government sometimes requires things they don’t always 
fund. (Chief Justice Broderick) We had it rough from time to time with 
the Legislators. (Marty Gross) 
Currently: More problems come through the court system that used to 
be resolved elsewhere, i.e. town halls, churches. Once here in our 
jurisdiction, we have to resolve them. (Chief Justice Broderick) 
5. The Supreme Court moved from being among the other Judicial 
courts to a separate place on the Heights. 
6. Many Representatives were also Selectmen. This is one of numerous 
incidents that caused a divide. (Chief Justice Broderick) 

Questions: 
Q: Is the budget presented in the same way as other agencies? (Dick 
Winters) 
A: It’s hard to know how other agencies present their budget. It’s 
expected that any budget is estimated in the same way. The change that 
has taken place here is in the dialogue that’s going on. 
The Judicial branch identified 10 priorities with a dollar sign. A skeletal 
budget was given the Legislative branch of what the Judicial branch is 
utilizing now. Some things dropped. Some changes are initiated. Then 
we go back to the Legislature and say, “remember when we mentioned 
#X – now that’s on the other side and needs to be funded.” (Chief 
Justice Broderick) 
Q: Is the budget presented on the same form as others? (Marty 
Gross) 
A: One exception is in regards to personnel – the Judicial branch has a 
different format that lists the person/title/where expected to be 
working/$ amount. A detailed submission is always prepared. The 
reason the personnel schedule is different is that there are different pay 
grades and levels that differ since the unification of 1984. (Dale 
Trombley) 
(The unification of 1984 refers to the unification of the court system in 
which court personnel were previously county employees, courts were 
local, and Judges were paid by the Executive branch.) (Howard Zibel) 
Q: Is there any concern with that? (Marty Gross) 
A: 65% or so of all Judicial branch employees (non-judges) have 
reached step 6. In the Executive branch, after Step 5, a person waits 2 
years for a 2% pay raise. In the Judicial branch, after Step 5, a person 
waits 5 years for a 5% raise. (Chief Justice Broderick) 

Questions (Cont’d:) 
Opportunity for Improvement: Chief Justice Broderick would like to 
change this, perhaps with longevity pay raises after each top step, so that 
people in a labor grade aren’t stuck. Many of the Judicial branch staff 
openly state they would not remain in their positions if it weren’t for 
benefits. 
Q: To what extent do you hear from the public? (Katrina Swett) 
A: In the Communications office, the public is heard from in terms of 
crisis – a change in court hours, etc. A number of explanatory 
documents were created relating to the processes and that has enhanced 
the quality of the reporting. (Laura Kiernan) 
Chief Justice Broderick explained that on a net basis, the Supreme Court 
has about 1 ½% of the entire Judiciary budget. “The complaints we get 
are related to service, which in a sense goes back to the budget, but the 
public doesn’t see our budget and doesn’t hate us for our budget.” 
He stated that occasionally, an intranet mailing would go out saying 
“this is what we are doing on the budget,” giving periodic updates. He 
thinks strides have been made. 
An effort was made to make known that there is interaction, discussion 
– that reasonable people are sitting down saying “this is what there is, 
this is what we need.” (Laura Kiernan) 
Q; Do you have greater flexibility in line items than the Executive 
Agency (they’re constrained.) (Andy Peterson) 
A: The same limitations that apply to the Executive Branch apply to the 
Judicial Branch. There are 2 differences, travel expenses and PAU’s 
(Program Appropriation Units) that apply to the Supreme Court and the 
Superior Court. Previously, Supreme court expenses would have to be 
applied to Superior Court expenses. We’ve lost flexibility in that now 
we cannot transfer when we have a tight budget in place and room in 
another. (Dale Trombley) 

Questions (Cont’d:) 
Q. What budgetary challenges do you see, anticipate because of the 
roll out of the family court, causing a reduction of Superior Court 
Judges, etc.? (Andy Peterson) 
A. We have to be enormously careful in presenting a budget to the 
Legislature that would move money from areas needed now to the 
Family Court system. We’re doing well with that. We’ve been able to 
put the Family Court development online (putting people with 
alternative dispute resolution.) At this point in time, we’re not prepared 
to say it’s a struggle because of budgetary concern or because it’s a 
change and change is difficult to implement. We’re absolutely dedicated 
to going back to the Legislature and saying “we promised we’d do this 
(redirect to Family Court) and we have.” Efficiencies are gained by 
having a dedicated core of Judges to Family Court vs. changing types of 
law and statutes. 
We are going from 11 to 29 sites throughout the State to have marital 
cases heard at the Court level. Many of these sites were not designed 
for larger case loads so it will take time to ramp up. (Chief Justice 
Broderick) 
Q. What about public disclosure on contacts between the Court 
System and the Legislative and Executive branches? There is a 
potential for an increasing level of cynicism that somehow people 
are meeting behind closed doors. There’s a risk that comes along 
with increased contact. There needs to be transparency, to keep as 
open as you can. These contacts do happen and happen routinely. 
(Marty Gross) 
A. If we design a view based on the most cynical person, the system is 
going to crumble. 
Comment: It’s not a matter of cynicism. People come before you for 
resolution. (Marty Gross) 
Comment: It’s an issue of educating the public with what the court does. 
There’s a need to raise the educational level out there and build trust. 

Questions (Cont’d) 
(Katrina Swett) 
Chief Justice Broderick spoke about civic education and finding some 
venues to talk about the role of “how government works.” He stated 
they have live webcasts now. 
Q. Does the court have certain standards about what types of 
legislation to comment on with the Legislature? (Andy Peterson) 
A. Some types of legislation the court may need to comment on, such as 
when a certain legislation will increase court attendance and the need for 
more Judges. The legislation may be good legislation and it may be a 
good thing to do, but the Legislature needs to take into account what 
effect passage will have upon resources. Other types of legislation may 
be inappropriate to comment on. The general rule is, if it is a policy 
matter, we don’t take a position. If the issue affects the way we 
accomplish our jobs, then we need to give our input – not to urge 
legislation one way or the other, but merely to advise what the effect 
may be upon the courts day-to-day internal operations. 
My job is to move the system forward. That necessitates being involved 
in the political process. There is a code of ethics that all members of the 
Judicial branch adhere to. We will not opine on something 
unconstitutional. The public expectation is that there will be dialogue 
among leaders of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of 
government. We could do a better job increasing public awareness that 
these contacts occur. (Chief Justice Broderick) 
Q: Ever feel that too much time is spent in the Legislative arena? 
(Andy Peterson) 
A: Most of the time, Judicial input is given at the request of a particular 
Committee considering legislative change. Many times the Legislature 
asks for comment on a particular bill. This is not unduly burdensome 
and is part of the position. There would be concern if the Legislature 
questioned, “why are these guys here so often?” 

Questions (Cont’d) 
Exercise: Put on the web search “separation of powers” and see what 
comes up and how many number of rulings there are. 
Chief Justice Broderick stated “We have three branches that are co-
equal. In an inter-jurisdictional dispute, there are three dogs in the race 
and one has an umpire’s suit on. We’re one branch of government and 
another has the purse strings. It’s deliberately set up that way. The 
Supreme Court is not in the habit of filing litigation, or becoming 
involved in disputes. The number of times separation of power issues 
have come here, they are very fast, very law and very history intensive. 
The Judge on these cases has no option but to sit. That’s how the 
system is established. It’s a wise system. I don’t have a dog in the race. 
I’m just holding the chair and doing the best I can. In a totally personal 
sense, I don’t have a point of view. We intentionally and appropriately 
stay as far away as we can. These collisions are far and few between. 
There is a LOT of shared responsibility in the system. It seems 
appropriate from where I’m sitting because I know the people involved 
and their intentions and I know my own intentions.” (Chief Justice 
Broderick) 
Q: To what level has divergence of opinion been allowed? Thinking 
people have varying views that have merit. (Andy Peterson) 
A: You can’t run a system where no one can have differing opinions. 
Free speech is alive and well. (Chief Justice Broderick) 
Q: Would there be any efficacy in rewriting the code? (Andy 
Peterson) 
A: It’s currently being revised by the ABA. By next August it should be 
sent to delegates for approval. (Chief Justice Broderick) 
Q: What policy is there that in a way has some teeth to it that is 
useful for public education? (Andy Peterson) 
A: Chief Justice Broderick stated that he met with the Governor the day 

Questions (Cont’d) 
before and the financial disclosure form is being revised. That might be 
helpful. 
Nest NH Citizens on the 
State Courts Commission 
Meeting: 
The next formal meeting of THE THIRD BRANCH sub-committee of 
the NH Citizens on the State Courts Commission will be held in 
conjunction with and during the next NH Citizens on the State Courts 
Commission meeting on January 17, 2005. 
The Third Branch sub-
committee will meet formally at 
the next NH Citizens on the 
State Courts Commission 
Meeting on January 17, 2005