NEW HAMPSHIRE CITIZENS COMMISSION ON THE STATE COURTS 
COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - July 25, 2005 
Attendees: Will Abbott (Co-Chair), Kathy Eneguess (Co-Chair), Blake Allen, Kelly A. Ayotte, Jonathan P. 
Baird, Gail Barba, Kenneth J. Barnes, Dr. Eugene E. Berg, Charles G. Bickford, ?Michael Brewster,? Hon. 
Harriet E. Cady, Alan M. Cantor, Byron O. Champlin, Richard Chevrefils, Paul M. Clements, John D. Crosier, 
Sr., Sally Davis, Ross A. Doerr, Ida Dzuira, Harland Eaton, Lewis Feldstein, Larry Gilpin, Cathy J. Green, 
Martin L. Gross, Vera Peaslee Haus, Peter Heed, John W. Hennessey, Jr., Eric B. Herr, Hon, Christopher M. 
Johnson, Christopher Keating, Hon. Edwin Kelly, Michael J. Kenison, Hon. David H. Kidder, Cheryl Killam, Hon. 
William V. Knowles, Ann M. Kuster, Albert D. Leahy, Jr., Ralph Littlefield, Elizabeth Lown, Tricia H. Lucas, Hon. 
John R. Maher, Ginny Martin, Joseph M. McDonough, Stephen R. Monier, Michael A. Morgan, Laurie Morrow, 
John Moulis, Claudia D. Nixon, Stephanie T. Nute, Danny H. O’Brien. Jeffrey B. Osburn, Michael Ostrowski, 
Andrew Peterson, Cap. Mark A. Putney, Gilman Shattuck, Dr. James W. Squires, Raymond W. Taylor, Rodney 
E. Tenney, Clyde Terry, John E. Tobin, Jr., Hon. Michael Whalley, Richard F. Winters 
Other Attendees: Ann McArdle (Project Manager) Andy Smith (UNH Survey Center), Cathy Yeager (recorder) 
Unable to Attend: … Hon. James J. Barry, Anne B. Botteri, Raymond Bower, John J. Brady, Daniel J. 
Callaghan, Michael R. Callahan, Margo Connors , Donna E. Davey, Joseph Diament, Albert A. Duhaime, Bruce 
W. Felmly, Retha Lindsey Fielding, Mary E. Francoeur, Hon. Francis Frasier, Nina C. Gardner, Janine Gawryl, 
Donald W. Gendron, Sheriff James A. Hardy, Robert L. Hemeon, Gary E. Hicks, Winnie Hohlt, Steve Horton, 
Mary Krueger, Rev. Dale S. Kuehne, Ronald K. Lospennato, Hon. Robert J. Lynn, Mark MacKenzie, Marilyn T. 
Mahoney, Dr. Tim Markley, Catherine P. McDowell, Hon. James E. Michalik, Hon. Tina Nadeau, Terri L. 
Peterson, Sheriff Michael L. Prozzo, Jr., James M. Reams, John Riley, Hon. L. Phillips Runyon, III, Marcia Sink, 
Katrina Swett, Gary Tasker, Marge Webster, Peter Y. Wolfe 
Kathy Eneguess: Good morning! Did anyone else have a hard time opening their attachments? We 
have extra copies. We are running out fast! Some of you did not even try! (group laughter…) Okay, that’s it 
we have run out; you have to share now. 
So, welcome to mid-summer. I hope everybody had a nice vacation so far! As we spoke about nearly one 
month ago, we wanted to bring the group back together to, not just display how much work we have done or not 
done, but we also want to begin to not just be organized according to the public will but also we want to make 
sure that you understand where we are headed in our Work Plan, that you understand what your role is and 
what your responsibilities are. So, as we proceed today, if you have any questions about your role and where 
are headed, that is really what today’s meeting is about. So, we will continue to try to bring forth as much 
information as we know at this point in time. Think about this as thread we are trying to make into whole cloth, 
and we are still a little frayed on the edges. And, no, the web site is not up yet, but we are working on it. 
The Steering Committee was put together. Will and I have asked a variety of individuals to come and help us 
think out loud about all the varying pieces that we are going to be confronting. We certainly do not have a lock 
on that brain power. We are continuing to try to struggle with a variety of questions. So, if you have a question, 
please ask us so we can use all of the good brain power in the room. 
So, where have we been? The Steering Committee has gotten together a couple of times. We have continued 
to struggle with a variety of the issues including being very clear about where we are headed…within what 
timeframe…part of that, after Will goes through the Mission and some of the other responsibilities, I will come 
back and we can walk through what our Work Plan and Timeline look like. 

We have hired Andy Smith (…he arrives in the meeting room…); perfect timing, sir! Andy Smith is from the 
University of New Hampshire Survey Center. Many of you were in the room that last time and heard Andy 
speak about what he was going to do. We have reviewed a couple of cuts of the survey, and Andy is going to 
update us on when he is going to go into the field…exactly how many people he going to try to connect 
with…and his specific process. 
We have also hired a web site group, and we are now trying to figure out exactly the issues that you all 
raised…the transparency issue is one that we continue to struggle with. Everything will be on the web site, as 
soon as we get it up! And, as you know, building a web site is not magic! Every time I hear about another web 
site got built, I learn something new about how many more layers it takes to build that web site. These are 
things you never really wanted to know in your lifetime…but, now we are having to learn…many questions 
about…one of the last questions that we all left the room with is how to get everybody’s email addresses on 
that web site so that your email box at home does not get filled with questions. So, we are working through all 
of those questions and making sure that you have as much information as possible as we go forward. The web 
site will probably not be up until the end of August at the earliest. So, if somebody is asking you, “Where is all 
that information I sent in? What is happening with all this?” Please ask for a little bit of patience. We are early 
on in our process; soon it will be up and we will continue to add documents to that…all the meetings, all the 
minutes, all of that…will be on the web site for people to peruse. All of the emails that have come to us since 
the first hour that the Chief Justice asked Will and I to do-chair this…all of that will be available to you as 
Commissioners. It will also assist when people are trying to access and ask questions. When you need to 
access, you are going to have to figure out how to do remote email. So, if you do not know how to do that, it’s 
another little piece of homework for you! Does everybody know how to web mail? 
Ann McArdle: We will provide some written instructions… 
K. Eneguess: We will help you with it, but think about that, okay? As you are…I am watching a few of you 
going: No, I don’t even bring my documents down… So, we are going to learn a little bit about web mail along 
the way also! 
So, that is where we have been since we met the last time. We have also hired Cathy Yeager who is here. 
She is going to be assisting us with taking minutes, etc. Cathy is well skilled in this area and is going to 
continue to assist in organization. Many of you have met Ann McArdle, our Project Manager. We sat Ann and 
Andy [Smith] together…for and “Ann and Andy Show!” Let’s keep everybody awake! 
K. Eneguess: Any questions before we begin? We all found our way back here on a nice summer 
day…congratulations…you came off the lakes…not bad… 
Sally Davis: I am curious about the next emails that we get…most of us could not open them this time. 
There has to be a way… 
K. Eneguess: Yes. We will have to figure that out. So, if you could not open them…or some of you really did 
not even try…we need to have a list so we can double check and figure out if it’s your machine or our 
machine…what the difficulty is…what the interaction is…so, we will figure it out. 
McArdle: One piece of protocol for today, because this is a big room for Cathy to try to cover and get a 
transcript of…when you raise your hand to make a comment, please say your name. She has a map over 
there, but it would help. If you change your seat, that would really throw us all off! 

K. Eneguess: Will, would you want to come on up and go through the next… 
Will Abbott: I am going to trust that everybody has read the material even if you did not bring it with you. 
We are going to do this real quickly. It is very important that we are all on the same page in terms of the 
Commission and our goals; if the Mission Statement causes anybody any angst, I guess this is a good time to 
know that. Does anybody have any problems with the Mission Statement? I will give everybody three minutes 
to refresh yourselves with what is on paper. 
McArdle: I am passing around a sign-up sheet and want to be certain we have your correct email 
address. 
S. Davis: If you could just add a place where we could check off whether or not we could open the email. 
McArdle: I suggest that, if you could not open your files, let me know. I am making a list right now of 
folks who could not open. 
W. Abbott: Somebody once told me that a good Mission Statement is something that everybody equally 
disagrees with. So, if we have a consensus today, that is good! 
Harriet Cady: One of the things that I am already getting is emails from people who are asking me how they 
can comment to the Commission and get their issues before us regarding the courts. Will that be a “click on” 
on the web site? How can I direct them? 
W. Abbott: That’s the plan. Right now, you can direct them to send, by snail mail, to P. O. Box 419, 
Concord, NH 03302-0419, anything they would like to send. When we have the web site up, it will be equally 
possible for anybody to send electronically any input they would like to send. When we do the public listening 
sessions, we will give (at the very beginning) these instructions to everybody. So, folks will be able to submit by 
snail, by email, and by speaking at one of the public listening sessions. 
Ross Dorr: …a question regarding the web site. Do you have someone capable of making sure the web 
site will be accessible for individuals with disabilities? 
W. Abbott: Yes. That is the plan. You are talking to somebody who knows very little about web sites. But, 
the same organization that manages the web sites for the state court system is going to be working for the 
Commission. 
R. Dorr: Is it Laura Kiernan? 
W. Abbott: No. It is a national web group in Manchester. We have contracted with a national web group 
the task of managing the web site. One of the challenges we have run into…and we will talk about this later…is 
how we make this web site work for the Commission and how we make it work for the public. And, those are 
two different things. We will get into that a little later. Are there any other questions on the Mission? It is 
adopted! 
The role of Commissioners…again you are the body that is going to be doing a lot of work here. And, in 
addition to doing research with written materials that we have already turned you onto, you will be having a lot 
more material coming your way…hopefully most of it electronically to each Commission member. We are 
expecting that, when you get materials from us, that #1: You will read. #2: You will question. 

Ken Barnes: I do have a question about the Mission Statement. Commissioners…assess and, also, are 
expected to make recommendations. 
W. Abbott: That’s correct. 
K. Barnes: Should that be in the Mission Statement, do you think? 
W. Abbott: It sounds good to me…let’s add it…in recommendations. One other thing…in the section on 
the Role of Commissioners…there are a number of issues about the Right to Know law and our organization. I 
am not a lawyer and, if any lawyer in the room wants to get into a discussion about this, we are glad to do it. 
But, rather than saying that the Commission is governed by the Right to Know law, we are going to say we are 
guided by the Right to Know law. It is our intention to abide by the Right to Know law. However, because we 
are an independent body, there are some issues that are not clear cut. So, if you are familiar with the Right to 
Know law, and we do anything you think we shouldn’t be doing because the Right to Know law says we should 
not do it, you should let us know. We are going to use the Right to Know law as what we organize and 
structure the process by, but there are some issues. For example, when we go into a deliberative phase, the 
deliberations are going to be open to the public, but the public will not be allowed to participate in the 
deliberations of the Commission or of the working groups of the Commission. And, this may cause a little angst 
for some people, but that’s the only way 105 of us are going to get our jobs done. 
Harriet Cady: I would have a lot of problems if we do not obey the Right to Know low. I am on the Right to 
Know Commission to assure that state government does obey the right to know law… 
W. Abbott: Well, then you are our official “umbrage man,” then! You make certain that if we do anything 
that we are not supposed to be doing…I am serious… We intend to abide by it but we do not intend to create 
the impression that the Commission is governed by it. That may be parsing, but…are there any questions 
about the role that each of you have agreed to fill? 
S. Davis: I am little concerned with the very last sentence. I have a problem about not making financial 
disclosure statements…since I guess I am a conflict of interest person…it would just be nice to know where 
people are coming from, and I think the public has more trust if they think they have an idea about who we are. 
It seems that the only limitation is that we are not going to have to make any financial disclosure statements, 
but I would like something more definitive about what we will tell people. I am sure somebody has a better idea 
than I do about what I am trying to say… 
W. Abbott: The thought occurred to us to have 105 biographies on the web site…but…if you want to go in 
that direction, I don’t think that Kathy and I will have a problem with it, but it takes up a lot of space…I think that 
you are raising a valid point. Even the group of us in this room do not know each other…so…maybe we 
should tackle that… 
A. McArdle: Well, Sally, if we had on the web site names and professional affiliations and/or what the public 
roles are, do you think that would cover… 
S. Davis: That would be a start…a least… 
Gillman Shattuck: In the initial announcement of the Commission I believe there was a listing of the 105 
members…at least a thumbnail of what their backgrounds are. I do not really think…to post that on the web 

site in a separate phase, I think would be useful…probably sufficient. 
W. Abbott: Why don’t we do that? 
K. Eneguess: A listing including the town you are from and any affiliations…current role… If people are 
feeling that you want more, we could probably consider that. I am not sure that everybody would want to go 
further than that, frankly… 
S. Davis: …concern that somebody does not want to say who they are… 
A. McArdle: …your name, what your professional role is, maybe where your office and where your home is 
located. 
K. Eneguess: Are you asking, Sally, for a full bio up on the web? 
S. Davis: No! No! 
A. McArdle: In all honesty, Sally, my response to that is I think it is a matter of us balancing where we 
spend our time, and we have had several similar kinds of questions come up about where we really need to 
spend our time to make sure that citizens feel that they are getting full access to sending in their thoughts and 
concerns and issues, and somebody is actually paying attention to them. 
W. Abbott: I think the point is that, as an organization, we want to have credibility with the public. If we, as 
a group, can figure out a way to enhance our ability as a group to have better credibility with the public then we 
should give serious consideration to doing that. 
Paul Clements: Consideration should be to identify the members of the Commission, ask whether or not they 
have any information…courts….matters…independence of the courts…we already know this. One-third of the 
Commission members are judges. There are a number of other people on the Commission who are 
lawyers…retired judges…two attorneys general...one past; one present. I think we should let the public know 
who we represent as we sit on the Commission. 
W. Abbott: It is a very important thing…and I hope that if nothing else comes out of this discussion…we as 
a Commission…as a group of 105 people…represent about 1.2 million citizens of the State of New Hampshire. 
So, I would hope that your first loyalty as members of the Commission is for the public good and not for any 
specific agenda. I do not mean that critically…I am just saying that…I think that everybody here…it is entirely 
appropriate for you to bring issues that are of concern you to the table. At the same time, as a Commission, we 
are here to represent the public good. 
P. Clements: Public perception…one-third of the members are members of the court…the Commission does 
not represent the citizenry. 
W. Abbott: I did not say it was representative statistically. I said that our mission as a public commission 
is to look out for the public good. Whatever you may think of how you got to this room, now that you are here, 
there is an obligation. The obligation is to the public. 
H. Cady: Going to what Paul said, I have already had citizens who have said to me, “There a 
preponderance of judges and lawyers on the Commission, so how will my viewpoint be represented?” 

W. Abbott: …by the two-thirds that are not lawyers or judges… 
H. Cady: …anyway, the point being…I have said at least: “Anybody that knows me knows that I am 
outspoken; therefore, you know that your point will be represented.” I hope that, if they are a judge or an 
attorney or some member of the court system, they will look at it from both viewpoints and give us their 
viewpoint and perception and then, as a citizen, how they would view it. Hopefully, we will come up with a 
citizen’s viewpoint at the end in the report. 
W. Abbott: Well said. And, I think that…in fairness to the goals of the Commission and the justices who 
appointed the Commissioners, I think that they quite correctly foresaw that…if we were going to make 
recommendations...and those recommendations were to be implemented successfully…there needs to be 
some linkage with this Commission in the system. So, I think that was the motivation on the part of the justices 
for creating the Commission as they created it. 
Gail Barba: I agree. I would like to bring this to a close. I think we had a little bio…if we had our name and 
what we did…if we wanted to put that information…make it available. I think that aiding that or adding to it. We 
are supposed to…no matter if we are judges or lawyers…represent the citizens. And I think that someone 
wants to put something extra, feel comfortable. But I hope that everybody is working toward the same goals. 
Harley Eaton: [not clear on tapes]: What I am hearing out in the general public is…whether judges or 
not…the average citizen out there, folks like you and me…citizens of New Hampshire…respect for the courts… 
What this represents to me is a cross section of New Hampshire representing all the different regions and all 
sides. I want judges here because I might find in their perspective what should be done or not be done. I 
represent a lot of hard workers here in New Hampshire than anybody else in this room. So, I welcome all of 
you here. I think we are really a cross section of New Hampshire and we have the best minds here to work on 
the system. 
W. Abbott: The next thing that I want to move on to is the survey. All of you are familiar with the role of 
the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is intended to help Kathy and I manage the meetings, 
manage the agenda, make certain that we are on task, raise money (if anybody wants to help us in that regard, 
we need help…), and assure that there is transparency to the work that we are doing. So, we have nine 
members of the Steering Committee now…a couple of people have asked if we would take more people on. 
The answer is yes we would, but I think we feel that the Committee is pretty well rounded right now and it’s 
tackling the job we wanted to tackle. Last, but not least, the role of the two of us as Co-Chairmen…our job 
among other things is to make sure that the Commission is adequately staffed, that we have the tools to get the 
job done, and keep all of us on task. Are there any questions about roles and responsibilities? I think that, 
when the web site goes up, we will start with the list that went out originally. It is okay to change the way we 
are doing things as we go along. If we feel that the public needs to know more about the individuals on the 
Commission than that list tells, then we can address it at that time. Any questions? Kathy? 
K. Eneguess: So, were do we go from there? As we talked about at the last meeting, we have put together a 
list of places we are going for listening sessions. This is the real public-process part of our plan at this point. 
The listening sessions will be held throughout the state. We are proposing at the moment…and we will define 
these as we find specific places to go…they will be held in public places. Right now, we are considering the 
following list: Derry, Portsmouth, Lancaster, Hanover, Keene, Salem, and Concord. The time frame that we 
are going to be doing this will be coming this fall. So the listening sessions will be held starting in September. 
Each of the sessions will have two segments: late afternoon and early evening. So, we are considering three 

to five and six to eight. They will be recorded. If necessary…if more people are there than can be heard, we 
will figure out how to accommodate that. But, at this point in time, that is how we are planning to run the 
listening sessions. We are looking at, obviously, the district court system, community colleges, university 
system, and other public entities. We want to be sure they are all open access and can make any 
accommodations for any member of the public to come. So, we are now out seeking all of those places. Ann is 
beginning that process. Cheryl and Ross and I had a discussion this morning to make sure that all of the 
access issues are taken care of and that we are clear about how folks can come and work through the 
sessions. Those listening sessions…. 
Claudia Nixon: In terms of access, it is very important to be aware that there could be communication access 
needs as well. So, in terms of the budget…budget items…you should be thinking about interpretation…there 
might be folks who have linguistic barriers… 
K. Eneguess: Okay…and I know that you can help us with that… 
C. Nixon: I will! 
Clyde Terry: A similar issue is transportation. Have you thought of that? 
K. Eneguess: Actually, we have not thought about transportation…okay. 
A. McArdle: It is now on the list. 
K. Eneguess: Are there any other issues of access that we should be considering that we have not thought 
of? 
H. Cady: I wonder how much we should be aiming toward courts where, at least in my opinion, the 
children and family law hear a lot of complaints about the courts in the family law situation…Plymouth has a 
family court and Dover. Should we be trying to target those sites also? 
K. Eneguess: We can certainly put them on the list. 
Jim Squires: …linguistic issues…deaf people… 
K. Eneguess: Yes. That is what Claudia was referring to. We have to make sure we have signage available. 
C. Nixon: …interpretation and signage available… 
K. Eneguess: Any other thoughts? 
Michael Morgan: On the list of places where you are going to suggest having meetings…even though I 
live in the southern part of the state, I am originally from the North Country. There is a perception that 
Lancaster is the “only place north of Lincoln.” I wonder what might be available for meetings. I have lived in 
Berlin. I remember, we used to have “northern meetings” for the northern part of the state in Concord! I 
recommend that we have another North Country site. 
K. Eneguess: We are trying to decide whether it will be Gorham, Berlin or just move in with Gail at the 
Balsams! Seriously, we are looking at Colebrook as a possibility, but we need to find a building with enough 

open access. 
M. Morgan: I will work with any of the school systems up there to help. 
K. Eneguess: We can accommodate folks at the college or at the high school. We are trying to decide if we 
need to go to Colebrook or not. Are there any other observations about anything we missed? 
Andy Peterson: Is there a plan to publicize these listening sessions? What would that be? Is there a way we 
could reach out and not have the usual suspects at these meetings but have a broader representation? What 
would be the plan to get that? 
K. Eneguess: There is a plan to make sure that there is full-public process…these meetings will be in the 
legislative calendars. They are also…Ann has been sending it out to a variety of newspapers. We will make 
sure that, once we decide where these listening sessions are, we will try email opportunities and other publicity 
to be sure that all the local communities know about it. We are looking to work through all the town 
governments within the region and make it as open as possible. So, we will have as much publicity as we can 
get about the listening sessions. We are going to be seeking ways. So, if you have an email list that makes 
some sense, we are going to be asking you to please forward the date, the time, the place, etc. 
C. Nixon: [not clear on tapes]…putting…the whatever…on there what the sensibilities are…so that folks 
are aware… 
K. Eneguess: Right! We will broadcast this as far and as wide as we can and use the local press to continue 
to make sure people realize when they are and where they are and about sensibility. 
H. Cady: I think, probably, the most read papers are the local free papers. So a story about this 
Commission and what they are doing will probably be crucial just before the public hearing starts, in those area 
local papers. 
K. Eneguess: Yes…that is exactly part of the plan. 
Byron Champlin: Are you planning to meet with any of the editorial boards in the major papers in the 
areas? What about editorial support on the op-ed pages? It would be a real plus. 
K. Eneguess: Will and I talked about that early on. 
A. McArdle: One of the things we talked about was putting together a team of people consisting of some 
people from the Commission and some from the local communities to take hold of communication within the 
community. The Commission members know the people to talk to, know about public meetings, are familiar 
with civic associations to give out information, know about community calendars and so forth. We plan to use 
local people as on-site missionaries to be certain the word gets out. 
K. Eneguess: So, again, obviously, this is July…Aug…Andy Smith to be conducting the survey, and he will 
explain all the details of that shortly for those of you that may have missed the last meeting. He will update you 
as to where we currently are in the survey process. We will begin the listening sessions in September but will 
also…at the listening sessions…we will need you all to be very clear. We would like to have you go to more 
than one listening session. So, once the dates and times and places are figured out, we will get that out to you 
and will ask you to please sign up! And the Steering Committee members will be running the sessions. Will 

and I have made a commitment to attend all of the sessions…why we said that is beyond us! But, that’s what 
we said…we feel it is very, very important. So, as many of you that would like to join us in the around-the-state 
task…we would love to have you there! 
C. Terry: Do you have some of the questions posed to facilitate the sessions? 
K. Eneguess: We have not gotten to that point yet. That is ongoing work of the Steering Committee. When 
we get to that point, we certainly will share that with everybody. 
McArdle: To your point, we would like to have a standard format to make sure that we are consistent 
from location to location. We want to give everyone at each venue…complete a “map” to compile responses. 
C. Terry: I guess the follow up to that is will this Commission have any input framing those questions? 
K. Eneguess: Yes. 
C. Green: [not clear on tapes…] You explained the geographic …Commission…topics…subject matter? 
K. Eneguess: No. We have not. We continue to walk through the Work Plan, and that may be one of the 
next steps we need to consider. So, listening sessions are NOT topical. Kathy is posing as a question: “Are 
we going to have specific topical questions?” No, but the process will be uniform. If the group…meaning all of 
you as the Commission…choose to have more of a focused listening session, that will be an outcome of this 
listening session process. The reason we structured it this way is that we do not know what all the topics are 
nor would we pretend to know that. That needs to bubble up from the public input. So, that is why it is 
designed in this fashion. If there is something specific that we need to go back and open up another listening 
session for, then that is the appropriate time to do that. So, between September and December we will have 
our listening sessions. If there is more follow up necessary for further input, that will be the time we will make 
those choices. 
From January to March will be the deliberative time. Within that deliberative time, it is wide open for the types 
of input that you will need. We will be structuring a set of Research Committees and a set of writing 
committees for the recommendations. Is everyone clear about the timeframe and the chunks of time we are 
looking at in order for you to get the appropriate input that you need to get to your deliberative part? 
From now until September, we will have one more Commission meeting. We are also proposing that 
Commission meetings be scheduled monthly when we get to the end of the listening sessions. As we define a 
calendar, we will be as clear as possible. The Steering Committee has chosen to meet monthly in order to 
continue to wrestle with the individual issues that continue to bubble up or raise money or do whatever things 
are necessary. At the next Commission meeting, you will be asked to go again to a couple of the listening 
sessions, so that will be your work during the fall. Come January, there will be many more meetings for the 
deliberative process. Okay? We are looking to finalize the writing in April and May and, hopefully, be done by 
June 1st. Nobody is laughing out loud yet! Good! 
Moving to the research page…Research Committee Role…at the end of the survey time…that means at the 
end of August…we will have a better idea as to what the topics are that we need to bring up to you as a 
Commission…and you as the interest as an individual member of the Commission…to break up and move into 
Research Committees. Eric will show us one of those…beginning the process of developing a Research 
Committee around the real finances of the court: How is the court structured financially? What are the inputs? 

What is the other data that is necessary? You need to be informed about a whole variety of topics. Everybody 
in the room has a different level of knowledge. So, what Andy has assisted with identifying is the general input 
from the public. The Steering Committee will then look at a variety of Research Committees and you can pick 
whichever one you wish to be part of…you can be part of all of them…or just one or two of them. But, it will 
require some timeframe. Again, your work will be…once we finalize and we have our meeting in August, we 
will know what the Research Committees will be…so your listening session time as well as Research 
Committee time will be during the fall…that means that you will get to, not just ask for further data, but ask what 
other group has already looked at this particular topic. So, you need to bring yourself up to speed about what 
the work of that other committee is. So, again, this will be a group of Research Committees led by one of the 
Steering Committee members that will, then, assist you in your knowledge base. Okay. Are there any 
questions about the Research Committee? 
H. Eaton: [not clear on tapes]: One of the things that concerns me is how many committees are you 
going to have and how many sessions are you having? Because there are ???? in the courts and, depending 
upon???? In my opinion I believe we have to get as much input as possible. I feel that, out there, we’ve 
receiving complaints. Whether it is valid or not is not the issue. If we do not get input from the people, we 
cannot anything wrong if it is wrong. 
K. Eneguess: I think you heard Will identify that, if folks have concerns, they have a variety of ways to access 
the Commission. Those ways are snail mail (PO Box), email, and hopefully the survey will assist us in raising 
some other topics. We are leaving it open. Remember that informational interview sheet that you all had from 
your first meeting? Continue to use that and bring that survey information in. That does help us gain much 
more data as we continue to move forward. Hopefully all of these mechanisms will make this public process as 
public as we possibly can. Are there any other questions? Is there anything else on understanding what your 
role is or where we are headed as far as trying to get input? Okay! 
A. McArdle: Is there any table that has not gotten the sign-up sheet yet? 
W. Abbott: Our next agenda item is communications. I would like to review… 
Martin Gross: I wondered when we are going to get to the…she just spoke of the role of the Research 
Committee, but when will we get a chance address public comments and topics? 
K. Eneguess: At the August 22nd meeting, we are going to know more about what those topics are going to 
be…once we get the survey data back. We will be able to figure out…the input is coming from the surveys as 
well as a variety of information that you have already sent back to us from the first initial surveys that have 
come in. We are trying to put that into a variety of buckets and get that back out to you. 
M. Gross: I am just trying to identify the process for various members to suggest to the Steering 
Committee the Research Committee’s topics. 
K. Eneguess: You will have input between the August 9th meeting of the Steering Committee and the larger 
group meeting which is August 22nd. So, you will have opportunities to assist in identifying what those 
committees look like. 
M Gross: I do not care as much about what they look like but what the topics are going to be. We have 
between August 9th and the August 22nd meeting for the topics to circulate. 

K. Eneguess: If you have other interest areas, please forward them at any point. 
M. Gross: Other than what? Other than what I have seen as the four areas? 
K. Eneguess: That’s right. And, they are very much “for example.” There is nothing that is defined at this 
point in time because we do not have enough input. 
M. Gross: I got you. I am only trying to identify what the process is. Before I sit down, I would like to say 
thank you for the materials provided to help gain an understanding of the process. 
A. McArdle: When we have the Commission meeting August 22nd, I personally would consider that that will, 
for topics, be a first pass. Because, Andy, will you have the whole survey feedback… 
A. Smith: Yes. 
A. McArdle: The other thing, Kathy, is that when we go out to do the listening sessions I would think that, 
based on what you hear, you may want to take another look at the list of topics depending upon what kind of 
feedback we get. 
W. Abbott: I think the plan is…August 22nd is the meeting date at which we are going to discuss as 105 
people what the first crack of the committees are going to be. It is not going to be decided by the Steering 
Committee and it is not going to be decided before August 22nd. I think that, as Ann points out, the other part of 
this is that one of the reasons we are having these public listening sessions is to make certain…as she 
said…that we revisit that list. If there is a surge of public interest in an issue that we have not identified with a 
Research Committee, we are going to add that as a Research Committee. We certainly have the potency in 
this room to make certain that that happens. 
K. Eneguess: That is why it is important to continue to identify the interest areas. 
Richard Winters: I guess I want to put Andy Smith a bit on the spot. What I am interested in within your 
discussion would be: What would be the kinds of questions you might ask New Hampshire citizens that will 
elicit genuine areas of interest in the courts and judiciary? What I am worried about here is that the public 
interest, public knowledge and public anxieties are relatively shallow. What I am really interested in is: How 
can we elicit genuine interest of the New Hampshire public about the courts and the judiciary? I am not sure 
how that is going to be done. But, I assume you are going to cover that? 
W. Abbott: I think it is important that we all understand that our agenda is not going to be driven by Andy’s 
survey. That will be part of the input, but one of the things we also need to figure out…and I think, if anybody 
has any ideas here …a couple of you mentioned earlier your concern about everybody getting to know about 
these public listening sessions. In the traditional means of getting the word out, we can certainly manage that. 
But, I am curious about some non-traditional means of getting the word out. If everybody in this room has a 
network of people that you know and, presumably, you know people who have some direct relationship with the 
court system, I think it is very important that the 105 of us communicate with those networks of people that we 
deal with on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis and let them know this is happening. So, a certain amount of the 
burden getting the word out is on us. We really need to work at that. We cover the whole state. We cover just 
about every group of interests and organizations, and we need to use these networks to get the word out. 
P. Clements: Nobody has had more experience in the courts...teenagers…considering a listening session in 

any of the prisons? 
W. Abbott: I am ready! Are you, Kathy? 
K. Eneguess: Sure! 
W. Abbott: We have not considered it, but yeah! If it ends up being something that we should do as a 
group, we will do it! 
John Tobin: [not clear on tapes] : To go back to the survey…draft…all 105 of us…ask the question. It is 
really important for all of us to… 
W. Abbott: You will hear more today, and I think…don’t be bashful…obviously no one in this room has 
been yet…don’t be bashful about making suggestions because that’s a good thing! 
Joseph McDonough: [not clear on tapes] …to go to the prisons. May suggest that, rather than doing that, 
we contact either the Public Defender or people who interact with those individuals who might be able focus 
on…… 
H. Cady: One of the things that I am wondering about is the web site will be getting inquiries and 
comments and the…I am assuming…the subcommittees will compile in a like manner. So, are we going to 
look at a subcommittee to look at the web site fit in order to do a compilation as well as the listening sessions? 
Certainly the web site is a lot easier for those with computer access but do not necessarily get out in public very 
often or are not willing to speak publicly. 
W. Abbott: Let me talk about that because I think it is a very important thing for all of us to be improving on 
how the public actually makes their case to us or makes their presentation to us. As I said earlier, they can do 
it by snail mail…the web site we hope to have up…if not by the end of next week…by the end of the following 
week. We will communicate with everybody here so #1 You know it is up. #2 You know how to communicate 
with it because there is going to be two different ways in which we, as Commissioners, can deal with the web 
site. Number one is…and if I am not clear on this, please make sure that you ask questions…if I, as a citizen, 
wish to make a submission to this Commission by electronic mail. That will go through the web site and it will 
be accessible; the entire submission will be accessible by all 105 Commission members. It will not be 
accessible by the general public. That is a financial issue; it is not a technical issue. To make it work 
financially, we would need twice the money that we’ve got. So the way we will deal with that is that any 
individual who would like to see the entire record (snail mail record and email record) will be able to come to the 
law library in this building during the hours that it’s open and access the entire record. So, there will be 
transparency, but the cost of getting that…I am assuming that we will get a fairly significant amount of input, 
hopefully. The cost of making that accessible to the public is significant. I think we are limited in resources. 
So, we made a decision that: Yes, all the submissions will be publicly accessible but only the Commissioners 
will have access to everything electronically. 
H. Cady: If we came to the law library as a Commissioner to look at it, would we be able to print off the 
computer anything we wanted to respond to? Or, how would that work? 
W. Abbott: I do not know that we have an answer for that yet. There would be a cost. I assure you that 
you would have to pay for it. You will not get it for free. But, I do not think we’ve worked that detail out yet. 

S. Davis: Would we, as individual Commissioners, want to or should we be responding to those people? 
W. Abbott: Let’s talk about that a little bit. We all want, to the degree that we have time, to be out there 
talking with people; that’s a good thing. In terms of a public position of the Commission, I think that Kathy and I 
would prefer (for organization sake) that, if you get a call from a reporter wanting to know what the Commission 
is doing, have them call us. I do not want to say…I do encourage all of you to talk to reports and all of you to 
talk to the public. But, in terms of speaking for the Commission as a whole, I think it would be a lot more 
manageable if the two of us were the public spokesmen. Also, if people call you and want to know how to get 
their information to the Commission, then you should tell them and encourage them…if you want take the time 
to sit down and talk with an individual with a bone to pick with the court system, that’s a good thing if you have 
the time to invest in it. I want to encourage everybody in the room to do that. 
G. Barba: Will and Kathy both, I do not remember hearing anywhere here…you said to have anyone call 
you. Have you listed your number here so we can give it out to them? 
W. Abbott: We will give it to you before the end of the day. We will put it up on the board. If any of you 
know newspaper editors and you think we should talk with them, let us know who they are. Give us that 
information. But, we will give you our contact information. It should be in the list that you got originally. If it 
was not…the phone numbers may not have been…we will give that to you. 
Let’s talk for a minute about information and how you, as Commissioners, should encourage people who would 
like to submit information electronically, by snail mail, or by participating at one of these public hearings. I don’t 
think that anybody in this room wants to re-try the individual cases of individuals who have had a challenge with 
the courts. That’s not what we are about. However, the experiences that those people have had with their 
individual case and any positive or negative experiences…that’s what we want to hear about. So, I would 
encourage you. If somebody insists on sending their entire pleading or whatever, we will put it in the record. 
And, if you want to take the time to read it, God bless you! But I think the most important thing is to encourage 
people to summarize in one or two pages in narrative form what their experience is. We need, then, to think 
about change for others. That’s what this is about. Again, I do not mean to disparage anybody who has had an 
adverse or unfortunate (in their view) experience. We want to benefit from that to the degree that there are 
many people who have had similar experiences (and that’s a good thing for us as Commissioners to hear); but 
it is really important that the message go out that we are not interested in re-trying individual cases. We are 
interested in understanding the experience that individuals have had with the court system (positive, negative or 
otherwise); we want to know that. So prevail on people to take a little time to prepare a submission that 105 
people can digest and work with. We will not ever be able to visit the cabal of paper that could come at us if it 
is just thrown at us. 
Another point that is very important is that, when we receive a submission electronically and receive a 
submission in the mail, and when we encourage people to speak before the public listening sessions, they will 
be told that if they do not want information public, they should not submit it. If somebody submits to us the 
documents by mail or email, they are going to get a response that says “the information is public unless you tell 
us otherwise.” And, we have already had a couple of experiences of people sharing with us (me and Kathy) 
information which the two of us concluded was not information that the individual would want public. So, we are 
going to make the effort to communicate back with every submitter…just to verify for purposes of ours…that 
they understand that this information is public. 
Mike McDonough: [not clear on tapes] Just a word of caution here. The judicial conduct people are 
constantly receiving information on proposed judicial conduct cases submitted by individuals who ???. In that 

material is sometimes very sensitive information concerning adults that may or may not be true. Worse, in 
some cases, information concerns juveniles. In those cases, especially concerning juveniles, there is a process 
to redact the names of the juveniles and redact any information that might enable a casual reviewer to identify 
the juvenile. I think that it is important for us to have a similar policy to make sure that anyone, wittingly or 
unwittingly put such information in the public domain. 
W. Abbott: I think that’s a good point. We have talked about that at the Steering Committee level. And I 
think that, by virtue of the fact that we will have the opportunity to read material before it gets put on the web 
site and before it gets put in the library, if there are any questions we will try to deal with them at that point. You 
are raising a very important issue, and we talked a lot about it. 
Are there any other questions about public submission of information or about the process by which you as a 
Commissioner tell a member of the public how we are doing our job and how they can interact with us? 
A. Peterson: I have been having some thoughts. One is if it is possible to do a poster and have it in the 
town halls and court houses stating the dates for the listening sessions and so forth? It would be a tangible 
expression that we want to be accessible. Secondly, as you have been saying, people who come to submit 
material to the Commission and come to hearings do not tend to be necessarily ones who want to give a 
glowing review of the court system. It is probably somebody with something burning a hole in their side and 
they want to express it. However, there is a difference between identifying that something is wrong and 
knowing what to do to fix it. I have a suggestion that, perhaps, one of our Research Committees would give us 
information about what’s done in other states. I do not know that we necessarily have the research capacity or 
the funding to be able to get the kind of professional help to understand what happened in other states. Simply 
listening to grievances of our citizens and having some idea of how other modalities to deal with them…it is a 
very interesting thing. Colorado is doing a thing with building in victim’s rights, etc. I do not think we are going 
to do away with our Governor’s Council or elect our judges, but other things happening in other states might be 
interesting. 
W. Abbott: There is an organization called the National Center for State Courts which you all heard from at 
the last meeting. In addition to the two folks who spoke here who volunteered to help us, they have a fairly 
significant research capacity. They have already agreed to share that and they have assigned a member of 
their staff to our Commission. They are doing this without charge. If any of the Research Committees are 
interested in specifics that are going on in other states, it is simply a matter of asking the National Center for 
State Courts to respond to questions for us. So, we have that resource available. 
The other thing about publishing the dates is that I think that we should create that poster electronically so all of 
you can send it out to anybody. The other thing is that, if we committed it to a little [wallet-sized] card like this 
that you could hand out, would you do it? Would you use these things? Well, we will see if we can get some 
printed up as soon as we have the schedule completed and we will get them to you to distribute as far and wide 
as you can. Are there any other questions on communications? 
Laurie Morrow: Can I make a comment? My name is Laurie Morrow and I am not a lawyer; I am a writer and a 
journalist and I look at things differently than, probably, most of you. So, remember that movie “Mr. Smith Goes 
to Washington?” Jimmy Stewart standing on the floor of the court pleading his case. It is representative of a 
??? deal. Every person that is going to come to us is going to want to know why and how they can make better 
use of the court system and, if we have something like 40% of the people out there trying to try their own cases 
for one reason or another, but primarily because they don’t know how…they do not know what’s available to 
them. This was a big thing that came up at our last meeting. How do we communicate to our citizens (our 

fellow citizens) about is available to them. How do we get the word out? What we are doing; who we are; the 
basis behind the meetings. At the end of the day…the word Commission is a big word but the word ?Judge 
Smith? is a small word...an individual…a person who is willing to hear somebody’s case. Yet, they reach you 
by internet and they reach you by mail and they come to reach me at my kitchen table. I think that this is 
something that we all ought to consider. I am from the North Country…I am from Freedom…you don’t know 
where it is because most people don’t. It is a tiny little town near North Conway. We have local papers. These 
are good people. And they might be willing to give us a column…once a week or once a month. A question 
and answer column where people pose questions…or, at the beginning, we pose questions for them, but we 
get the word out that they can have communication, and that’s important. Then, the Commission or the 
committees answer these questions and, at the bottom, there is the name of the Commissioner in that area and 
contact information. People like to know who they are talking to. And, more importantly, it opens up feedback; 
people will start looking in the newspaper every week to see if there is another question and answer column 
and information about upcoming sessions that people ought want to know. Just like “Mr. Smith Goes to 
Washington,” where it was the traditional means of communication. Newspapers reach the masses get the 
word out. The fact of the matter is it is always going be about communication, and I think that is the biggest 
challenge we’ve got. So, I’d like for us to accept the challenge and ask for a column. And, if they won’t give it 
to us for free, ask how much they will charge for it. Fifty bucks? A hundred bucks? The Union Leader has a 
vested interest in the Commission that looks to represent every person in this state. Like I said, I am not a 
lawyer, but I am a writer and I would be more than happy to help….that one time…communicate…it is a 
question and answer…because a question being asked by the very people that…give them access…no 
one…have questions. Remember…they will ask about protocol and will ask how we can help them out. This is 
one way to reach that target…probably our biggest challenge is getting the word out. 
W. Abbott: Are there any other questions, comments or observations about the communication issues? 
H. Cady: Going along with what Laurie just said, I think that you and Kathy have asked that we refer all 
news media to you. Perhaps you’d be willing to do a piece that you could email to us and let us see for 
suggestions. Then, you could ask us to put it in our local paper and, at the bottom it could indicate the local 
members on the Commission? So, people will not only feel they could contact you, but there are local people 
representing them. 
W. Abbott: Good suggestion. Good idea. Any others? 
K. Eneguess: We are ahead of schedule, and we will try to listen to as much advice as you offer us, we are 
going to arrange the end of the agenda to begin addressing some of the questions that have come up about the 
buckets of research that we want to do. So, when we get to the end of the agenda, we just want to do a 
brainstorm list of those items for research. And, Marty, we want to thank you for raising that so well. As we 
proceed, we know that things are going to evolve, so we really do appreciate your out-loud thinking and helping 
us work through all of these varying pieces. Another person came up to me and said, “I’d really to help you 
fund raise. And here is a foundation to go and ask.” Let me help you understand a little bit of our thinking 
around fundraising. Almost everybody in the state may have, at some point, something to do before the courts. 
We need to be very careful about raising money from a specific agenda. So, again, we have tried very hard to 
be very thoughtful about this. So, if you do have an idea for fund raising, please let us know. Again, the 
Steering Committee needs to have a conversation about this. When Will and I started trying to work through 
this, when we did not have a Steering Committee, we learned there is a variety of issues we need to consider 

as we go out and ask for funds so we do keep at arms length from the court and any of its mechanisms; 
somebody may have a specific agenda. We are trying to be as thoughtful as possible and, at the same time, 
be as transparent as possible. Sometimes it gets lumpy! So we ask for all of your brain power to assist us. 
So, at this point, Andy is going to explain to us where he is, where some of his thinking is, and where the survey 
is at this moment. 
A. Smith: Thank you! Good morning! I will begin with a little information about where we are in the 
process and what’s next. One of the big concerns I got when I was thinking about this survey and what to do 
with this survey was the whole issue of non-attitude. We had some questions on the Granite State Poll back in 
the spring when we asked what people knew about the courts and some other things like that. We found that 
over 60% of the people in the state said they did not know anything or know very little about what the courts are 
doing. So, as a working assumption going into any sort of questionnaire on this, I have assume there is not a 
lot of detailed information from the people in the state about what’s going on with the courts, let alone what the 
issues and problems within the courts are. 
That being said, the qualitative sources of information that we’ve got available are going to be critical for you to 
help in your role as Commissioners to figure out what the specific problems are with the courts and what 
specific solutions there may be for them. So, the survey that you filled out; the survey that was given to your 
colleagues, friends, neighbors, etc. to fill out; the web survey is mounted so that same information could be 
done electronically; the web site will have a link to that survey, so people can get information to us in a 
qualitative format which will be made available back to you. That is important. 
The listening sessions are going to be critically important because that gives you rich detailed information about 
what peoples’ experiences are with the courts. That’s important. The quantitative survey measures some of 
the current assumptions and problems that people see with the courts. But, it not going to give us that rich 
detail, and knowing that is important. 
Partly for that reason, I looked at a number of other surveys that other states have done and the one that I 
settled on (and the Steering Committee settled on) to use as the base for the questionnaire that we’ve got here, 
is a survey that was done by the National Center for State Courts. It is a national survey that they have done a 
couple of times. I used it for a couple of reasons. The biggest one is that it allows us to have direct 
comparisons with what is going on nation wide. If we can see that we are particularly higher or particularly 
lower on some items than the nation is, we know that those things deserve to be looked at in more detail. 
The second reason that I feel it is important to use surveys that have been done before is that we know what 
the results mean. Other people have used these results. Other people have looked at the results. All of these 
questions have been tested out already. We do not need to go through the whole process of testing out what 
the questions mean, etc. It saves us time. Frankly, time is a major issue for this Commission in the collection 
of data here. We have a draft questionnaire that we have gone through that is still open for review and some 
things can be added to it. Hopefully a lot of things can be deleted from it because it is a really long survey now. 
It is much longer than we originally intended. So, if anybody here is really interested in this, come and talk with 
me after the meeting today or during a break or something and we can talk about some of this and ways that 
you can get some of your own information into it. 
So, again, this survey is based on the National Center for State Courts with some specific issues that are 
peculiar or unique to New Hampshire. One of the things that I have done while respecting my role of not being 
a Commission member but working for the Commission is to not put in what my perceptions are of the 

problems that we want to test in this survey. I hope you wanted me to do that because I do not want to get shot 
at by some people on the Commission or anybody else out there for dictating the direction of the questionnaire 
and direction of the agenda of the Commission. I want to make sure that you know that the information is 
coming in on issues specific to New Hampshire. They are coming up from you! 
Because of the timeframe, we would like to begin interviewing on this survey this week. So, if you have some 
comments, please come and talk with me and share information. I can share questionnaires with you. We can 
turn things around very quickly here, but we do have some timing issues. If we want to get information back to 
the Steering Committee on the 9th to help you form your Research Committees for the meeting on the 22nd and 
I will need to present information back to you on the 22nd, we really need to get moving on the data collection! 
So we will be presenting that on the 22nd. 
Regarding the qualitative data sources that are continuing to come in, we’ve got the web survey. If you have 
people who want to complete the survey right now, it is at www.unh.edu/survey-centernhcourts.edu. I will write 
that down over here. 
The other thing that we’ve got is a big stack of these sorts of qualitative pieces of information that Kathy and 
Will have gotten from various people. We are taking the information that can be included in the data base. The 
questionnaire is with the data base and is sometimes sent by email. It is included in that large data which will 
give, again, the Commissions a good way of looking at consolidated information about those specific topics. 
That’s where we are. Are there any questions? [addressing Winters] Did I answer your question? No? 
Repeat the question for me again. 
R. Winters: I think that what worries me is precisely the issue of non-attitudes here. I think the sort of 
sensibilities among the New Hampshire public about the courts is very demanding and very shallow. We are 
going to get a tremendous number of rather random responses. On the other hand, we all know there are a lot 
of people who feel very strongly about the courts. But, in a survey of New Hampshire residents, we are going 
to get a very small number of those. A lot of those people are going to drive what you get here, but it will not be 
a representative sample of those who feel s strongly about the courts. 
A. Smith: When I looked the national survey, one of the things I looked at was that about 40% of the 
people in that national survey said they had had personal experience or a family member had a personal 
experience with the courts in the previous year; about 40%. I thought that was kind of high. But, if you use that 
40% assumption, it means that about 300 people out of the 750 we hope to interview will have had some 
personal experience with the courts. Now, that gives you a pretty decent sample size to make some 
assumptions about what’s going on. 
R. Winters: I would wager that the response rate in New Hampshire is going to be significantly lower than 
the national average. 
A. Smith: That could possibly be. We have lower crime rates and so forth than other states. Even if it is 
25%, we will get a couple of hundred people to talk with and the sampling is often seen as the indication of a 
survey’s accuracy. It’s really not that important in the overall scheme of things, but with 200 people you will get 
a pretty good sense of where the major issues and problems are. Distributions are pretty normalized with a 
couple of hundred people. 
R. Winters: And the questionnaire has within it open-ended venues from people really to, basically, unpack 

their issues. 
A. Smith: We can put those in. Yes. 
R. Winters: The way this is raised (and John Tobin had a similar comment), is our thinking about research 
topics are going to be driven, in part, by the results. I think it is important that we feel confident that this is a 
genuine range of responses of New Hampshire citizens. 
H. Cady: Wouldn’t it be important to label, on a scale of one to ten, the importance of answers? For 
instance, “have experience with the court” versus “had no experience,” and “no experience and have no 
opinion.” So, you will at least get the issues that were most important to those who have had direct experience. 
A. Smith: That will be part of the analysis because we do have questions that allow to look at the level of 
experience they have and we have demographic tables in the report which has that sort of stuff. All the 
questions are broken down by the various demographic groups and one of them would have the person’s level 
of experience in the courts. So, we will be able to break that down in the analysis. We will do that. That is 
some of the information that I will get back to you. It will be people who have had experience and people 
indicating some of the types of experience they have had be it civil or criminal and how they view them. 
J. Tobin: Can you tell us a little bit more about what you are asking them about the roles of lawyer? Are 
you asking about technology? Are you asking about courtesy in the offices and delays in paperwork? 
A. Smith Yes! 
A. McArdle: The people who have seen the draft survey are the members of the Steering Committee, not 
the whole Commission. 
A. Smith: Right! The questionnaire has a large “customer service” component with people’s personal 
experience in terms of, “what you think as a real customer, your customer satisfaction, you were treated well, 
you were treated fairly, and you felt that you were listened to and that your rights were respected” and that sort 
of thing. And there are questions about more technical issues such as delays and cost and access. There are 
questions about people’s sense of how different kinds of people are treated by the court be it minorities, pro se 
litigates, etc. There are questions about general satisfaction with the court systems and comparisons of the 
court system with some other major institutions such as local police and the local schools so you can see where 
the courts stack up to other major public organizations. I think that pretty much all the things you addressed are 
included in the survey. That is why I think that the National Center for State Courts survey is quite valuable 
because it is so broad and it covers all of these topics. The problem that we’ve got is that it’s more a matter of 
having not enough resources to do the length of survey that it becomes. It is already about a 20 to 25 minute 
survey, and we are budgeted for only a 10 to 15 minute survey. And, if any of you were on the phone and I told 
you that I’ve got a 25-minute survey, the phone goes down! So, we want to make certain we can tell people we 
have a 10 to 15 minute survey that is incredibly important to answer and make sure we can focus on the kind of 
questions that are the most important. 
The guidance I gave to the Steering Committee is that, if you’ve got to come up with ways to get rid of 
questions. If you do not know what you will do with the answer to a question, get rid of it! If there are questions 
you really cannot do anything with because of legal reasons or financial reasons or it is a policy thing and there 
is no way this will fly in this state, you should not ask it! You do not even want to raise the expectation that 
something is going to happen based on those results. If you already know the answer to a question, don’t ask 

it. You are wasting money. So, those are the guidelines I’ve given the Steering Committee for ways to pare 
down that survey. I am relying on their guidance and their input from the various people on that Committee, but 
I would be more than happy to give any of you interested that questionnaire so you can look at it and tell me 
what you think. 
Cheryl Killam: You are contacting people by telephone? 
A. Smith: Yes. 
C. Killam: Then you are eliminating those who cannot speak… 
A. Smith: Her concern is about people who are deaf or do not have access to telephones. I can give a 
little bit of background on that… 
C. Nixon: It is not an issue of not having access. …just you have to go through another survey, and that 
increases the amount of time. Also we need to look at how these questions are formed and the language with 
which they are being formed. So there might be, as you say, pro se and might be interpreted… 
A. Smith: We do not use the word pro se. 
C. Nixon: But, it’s not only that. It’s the general community; there would be a glossary of terms you have 
to explain. 
A. Smith: We avoid using technical terms whenever possible and use laymen terms. So, pro se would 
be “somebody who is going to defend themselves in court.” That’s just an example. This survey that the 
National Center for State Courts developed is very useful because they have gone through that process 
already. They tested out the questionnaire and made sure that the questions used are understandable by the 
general public. 
C. Nixon: In relation to what Cheryl is talking about, are you saying that you are going to ????. How do 
you know the phone numbers you are going to be calling? How are you going to get the individuals to… 
A. Smith: The methodology we use is something called random digit dialing. It is designed in such a way 
so that every household with a telephone in the state has an equal chance of being included in the survey. It 
excludes people not having telephone lines at all which is about 2% of the households in New Hampshire; they 
do not have landlines. So, almost every household in the state gets included. The researchers have looked at 
the households not included because they do not have telephone lines and it tends to be either people who 
have moved recently into an area or moved into a new home or something and temporarily are without a 
telephone. Or, they are low-income people whose telephone service goes up and down. Some states have 
had a big increase in people using just cell phones; that is not yet a concern in New Hampshire. A very low 
percentage of households in New Hampshire use only cell phones, and they tend to be young, college-age 
folks so there is no real issue with that. 
Ross Doerr: For the sake of clarification, landline use in New Hampshire is going down proportional to the 
increase of wireless use nation wide; we are there. 
A. Smith: It is just not as large a concern here as other places. 

R. Doerr: Yes it is. I sit on the Public Utilities Residential Rate Payers Advisory Board. 
A. Smith: I am looking at numbers from the 2004 census…the Current Population Survey or whatever it 
is called. 
H. Cady: Andy, I am deeply concerned that we would leave out portions of the population that either do 
not have phones or, because of their mental capacity, may not be willing to attend, and so forth. I currently am 
working on legislation for the mentally ill and I think… The Rockingham County Court Superintendent told me 
that over half of the County’s population has mental illness. 
A. Smith: Over half the population!?! 
H. Cady: Yes. Over half the population. I would like to assure…I am very concerned that we reach the 
populations that are being incarcerated...for instance through Southern New Hampshire Services which serves 
a lot of the poor in Manchester, the Developmental Disabilities, the Governor’s Commission on the 
Handicapped, etc. So, while your survey may be one way of doing it, there certainly is no reason we cannot 
send the survey questionnaires to those facilities and agencies to get those actual big users of the system into 
the process. 
A. Smith: That is one of the major limitations of a survey like this. You are not going to get special 
populations included in the survey in any large enough numbers to be meaningful. The flip side of that is that 
those populations (with the exception the 50% in Rockingham County that you mentioned); we generally do not 
have problems with people who have some issues of mental illness because they include themselves in the 
survey, although the group is generally very small and does not alter the distribution of state-wide numbers very 
much. Even if we are missing 5% of the households in the state not having telephone landlines; that cannot 
move the distributions much at all, even if they are completely different in their attitudes than those households 
with telephone lines. The map just does not allow the numbers to move much. 
W. Abbott: Andy, this is just a point. I think it’s good that we’re sensitive to getting a survey response that 
we are all talking about. I do not want people to put too much emphasis on the survey itself. This is not going 
to be the major information gathering data activity of this Commission. So, the very audiences that you are 
talking about are the people that we, as Commissioners, need to get to the public listening sessions. We need 
to get them engaged in submitting their testimony or whatever you want to call it. That, to me, is a far better 
exercise of our Commission’s ability to reach out than this survey is going to be. I do not mean to diminish the 
significance of reaching all populations in the survey; I just want everybody here to focus on what we can do 
proactively to get public input. 
K. Barnes: At the last meeting of the Commission, one of the issues that people thought very important 
was the lack of access to the court system for a large number of people; probably the majority of the New 
Hampshire population, not just the poor people, but middle class people as well, can’t afford to hire 
professionals to represent them. I was wondering if you have any kinds of questions in the survey that will look 
at that. Not just, “What was your last experience with the court system?” Or, “How much experience have you 
had?” But, “Have you had issues you would have liked to have raised through the court system?” Maybe, 
“Somebody caused you damage and you would have liked to have sued them, but you could not afford a 
lawyer.” 
A. Smith: There are several questions about reasons people may have not gone to court. One of them 
includes the cost of a lawyer, the ability to get a lawyer, the time it takes to go through a court case. All of those 

sorts of issues are included as well. 
? ?: What comes up on caller ID when survey calls are made? 
A. Smith: That is a curious thing because one of the things about New Hampshire is, and I do not know if 
this is still the case but it was two or three years ago; we had the largest number of telephone companies of any 
state in the country. Mom-and-pop telephone companies are spread throughout many small towns we have. 
And, each time a telephone signal goes through those different companies, it gets switched from one to another 
and there is the potential to lose some of that caller ID information. Ours goes out from trunk lines from the 
University and there is an 862 extension on some of them. The University leases other lines when the 
telephone service is heavy; sometimes it will come out with a number on it. We can’t get it to say “UNH Survey 
Center” or “University of New Hampshire” on the signal when it goes out. I have worked with our 
telecommunications office staff; they look at me like I am crazy. But, it does have a real telephone number on 
there when it does out. 
C. Green: What questions are you asking about criminal justice? 
A. Smith: We have only one question specifically about police. Again, what we are trying to focus on in 
this survey is the courts. So, we tried to keep away from the Criminal Justice System. In fact, the introduction 
to this specifically says, “By courts, I mean the judges. First I would like you to think about the courts in your 
community. By courts, I mean the judges, their staff, and the clerks who work in the courthouse, but not the 
police, the prosecutors or lawyers in court.” So, we are getting a sense of the courts themselves here. 
C. Green: Right. But, the huge bulk of the cases are criminal cases. So, do you have any questions 
designed to give a public view of the way the courts deal with criminal cases? 
A. Smith: There are questions that ask not only about criminal cases, but specifically violent criminal 
cases, juvenile cases, etc. Yes. 
C. Green: How about substance abuse issues. 
A. Smith: Substance abuse is in there as well. Again, many of these questions are not going to be able 
to be explored in the kind of real depth you might want them to be, but comparing them to other types of cases 
is what we have got in there. 
Lew Felstein: I am going to use your time to address a question to your Co-Chair. I will remind you that the 
survey has only modest impact. First, I need to think twice because “what we measure is what we do.” This 
becomes the one piece of data that comes before us in August from the Research Committee. And the 
Research Committee helps drive what the reports will look at, even though we will have listening sessions as 
part of the framework. So, I am eager to think about what other ideas we will have in August in order to think 
about the choices of the Research Committee suggestions. I think we will have a long downstream impact on 
the final report. So, it is important to get in front of that and try to have something that balances the impact of 
the report. 
K. Eneguess: It’s not a short answer. Did everyone here hear the questions? A couple of other input pieces 
that you have for your research; all the background information that I know you have all read and all the 
informational interview documents will also be collated, so those are two other sets of data that we will be able 
to tie together. Again, that’s why we changed the agenda this afternoon. There are other issues that… 

A. McArdle: …she says afternoon, but it’s still morning… 
E. Eneguess: I’m sorry! So, we are trying to add to those other buckets of knowledge, so that this is not just 
a survey. It is an absolutely appropriate thing to ask, and if you have another technique or other additional way, 
we are wide open to that! 
A. Smith: I do want to emphasize that whole issue of non-attitudes; the reason I started off with that is 
that the other sources of information are probably more important than the survey data. 
L. Felstein: This goes, in part, with the Research Committee work and the degree to which that will have a 
data stream impact. And I just do not know how much time or what the August meeting will feel like to have all 
this survey data to look at and, presumably, you will expect us to read on our own and absorb all that other 
material and form our own opinions without any discussion on that; there will be no briefing on that. So, when 
we gather to look at the Research Committee work, we will be informed only by our own reading. 
W. Abbott: I think the intention is that it is the starting point. But, as you go through these public listening 
sessions, I think there probably will be issues that this…if we start out with eight or ten Research Committees 
as result of our next Commission meeting, my guess is there will be a couple more that will be added as a 
result of the public listening sessions. So, it is not like the die is going to be cast on August 22nd. My point on 
the survey is that I do not want the Commission to put an inordinate amount of weight into the findings of these 
questions. As Andy already has said, this is a very…you are looking at only the top inch of the ocean here. We 
need to get below the surface a little bit. 
A. Smith: Looking down the road, one of the things this kind of survey will provide is a valuable tool. 
Just to see, once the Commission has identified things and changes have been implemented in the court 
system, to re-do this questionnaire five years, seven years, ten years down the road, and see if things have 
changed in the direction hoped. 
Thank you again! I will stick around after the meeting today, and I encourage anybody who has some insight 
and wants to get things to look at in more detail, to come up to me and we can arrange to get that for you. 
Thank you! 
K. Eneguess: Lauren, do you want to talk what is available on the web site? 
Lauren Kiernan: Thanks, Kathy! I am Laura Kiernan, the Communications Director for the Judicial 
Branch. And I have passed around a summary list of all the different documents a lot of which you got at the 
first meeting in hard copy. They are also available on various web sites. I will go through it very quickly and, if 
anyone has any questions, I will be around afterwards, as well. 
Starting at the top is “Reinventing Our State Courts, New Hampshire Bar Journal.” The bar journal has 
summarized in its major edition the Chief Justice and judiciary comments, so this is a really nice summary 
document and comes from the NH Bar Association web site. What I am going to do later today is send 
everybody all these links as email, so you can easily click on them. I just wanted something in hand to talk 
about today. 
The next is “A Vision of Justice: Report of the Committee on Justice Needs and Priorities.” You may recall that 
you got that in your first packet. I would say that this particular report (if you try to figure how all these things 

sort of stack up together), is a comprehensive look at the court system as a whole done by what we would 
characterize as “the insiders.” This sort of led to you all being here. It has four rather discrete sections that 
deal with access to justice, technology, court procedures, personnel, and staff; very detailed reports. It is, very 
definitely, worth looking at very carefully. Or you can see summaries in the Bar Journal Report. 
The “Judicial Branch Family Division Implementation Committee Report and Recommendations” is next. You 
also received this in hard copy and it is on the web. That’s very significant too because, and I think you will 
probably agree, it is probably the most significant change in the overall structure of the New Hampshire Judicial 
Branch since the organization was established many years ago. It is very significant and will have a ripple 
effect throughout the court system; changes in the Judicial Court, the Probate Court, and the Superior Court. It 
is an easy read and is very informative down to its proposed schedule of when the Family Division will go into 
effect. I am sure many of you know by know that the Superior Court does, I think, more than 40% of the work 
involving family-related issues and a very high percentage within the District Court as well. 
The “Challenge to Justice: A Report on Self-Represented Litigants in New Hampshire Courts” is very 
significant; it has to do with the pro se issue, the emerging number from the court system without ??blurbs? not 
just for New Hampshire, but nation wide. 
“Findings and Recommendations of the Family Law Task Force” is a very long, very dense, but a very 
informative report. Again, it is on very critical issues facing the court system and the state as a whole. A 
legislatively created committee did this research. 
“Justice Moving Forward” was our biannual report for 2003 and 2004. The other Annual Reports are all on our 
web site. Just type www.courts.state.nh.us in front of the various documents. 
The court rules are also on the Judicial Branch web site, state laws, and the New Hampshire State Constitution 
and, of course, the Constitution of the United States is available through the National Center for State Courts. 
Mr. Clements? 
P. Clements: Yes…you have listed here the report of the Recommendations of the Family Law Task Force. 
There was a temporary report issued by Task Force. Why is that report not listed? It’s a must.! 
L. Kiernan: We can add it on. We can add on anything you think is relevant for people to look at. Okay. I 
am sure I can find that, but why don’t we talk afterwards so I can add it on. 
K. Eneguess: This is a prime example of how we need to continue to have a bibliography available. Any 
documents that people feel the Commission should review….and, again, it goes back to that communication 
mechanism. Hopefully, the web site is going to assist us in that. 
P. Clements: The report was submitted and it should be appearing on the web site. 
A. Smith: You’ve got it! 
K. Eneguess: If, in fact, that’s the case, then it will be up! 
H. Cady: One of the questions asked of me that does not come to the Commission as much as it comes 
through the courts is: “Why does each court have rules that are all similar or the same, i.e. a motion must begin 

in so many days and must be answered in so many days?” Why can’t the courts have all those rules like that 
with the same number and, then, those individuals of the court come after, so a person does not have to look at 
three in the Superior Court and fifty-seven in the Probate Court and twenty in the…they are all saying the same 
thing! 
L. Kiernan: Yes. And, maybe I should talk with someone on the Research Committee. I know there are 
questions about rules all the time. For my constituents, that would certainly be something the Committee could 
talk about. 
K. Barnes: The Supreme Court Rules Committee is talking about that. 
L. Kiernan: Everybody knows where to reach me if you have questions related directly to the court system. 
Otherwise, once the web site is up, all questions related to the Commission, of course, should go through the 
Commission web site. 
K. Eneguess: Laura, do you want to talk about access again? If people want to go visit the courts and… 
L. Kiernan: Yes. As mentioned before, everybody is more than welcome to visit our courts around the 
state. We did send out an email out to all the folks around the state last time. I think we should just do it again 
to remind people that you might be visiting. It does not hurt to give them an early heads up, if you can do that. 
But, just go in and introduce yourself to the clerk and let them know that you are on the Commission. And, feel 
free to contact me if you would like some sort of introduction. You are more than welcome to come, and I know 
that many of you have already this spring. Is there anything else? Thank you and, if you do have other ideas 
about other documents that should be on the web, I can add them. We are still sending out the bulk emails 
from the court system only because we have the email lists. Once Ann’s is up and running, that whole list is 
going to go over to the Commission web site. 
S. Davis: I could not open my email documents on Friday, and wondered if you could send them out a 
little sooner in the future, so I could get back to you and tell you I could not open them. Maybe that’s useless, 
but… 
L. Kiernan: No. That’s a good plan! Is there anyone else who could not open up those word documents? 
K. Eneguess: We are going to try to assist with that and figure out if, in fact, we need to put it in a different file 
or… 
L. Kiernan: We have groomed through this email list very carefully to make sure we are accounting for 
everything. One or two people…Mr. Gendron, are you here? He called to me about his email address, and we 
made accommodations for him and for some others. So, if you did not get what we sent out, let me know after 
the meeting so we can continue to polish that list. We do not want anyone to be left out, of course! 
K. Eneguess: As the Steering Committee continues to think about how to design (not just the research 
packages, but address the topics and input), Eric volunteered to begin this by outlining what the current audit 
looks like for the court. And Eric has a Power Point presentation that he is going to share with us. This is, yet, 
another example of the type of research that we have the possibility of doing. So, when Eric volunteered to do 
that, we certainly were not going to turn him down! It certainly will assist you in understanding the breadth of 
opportunity that we have to review, pretty much, the whole system through whichever lens. So, once again, as 
we think about what those research topics are, it is not limited. Again, the questions that Will raises are very 

appropriate. We will continue to offer as much input as you all feel is necessary. We just have to be thoughtful 
about design of the process. That is why we wanted to have today’s meeting to hear any other feedback you 
have on other ideas that aid the process in any way possible. So, I will turn it over to Eric! 
L Kiernan: This is another report that is also available on the web. And I will be sure to add this to the list. 
It comes out of the Legislative Budget System office. It is a very long and dense document. As you will see, it 
is very interesting. 
Eric Herr: Yes. This is based on a report done by the Office of Legislative Budget Assistant. It is called 
the Performance Audit Report of November 2003. It’s a pretty short data set. In particular, what I did was ask 
a simple question: “What’s the business model for the Judicial Branch of government?” And, by business 
model, I mean: “What is the relationship between the demand for judiciary services, the activities of the 
judiciary, and the expenses incurred on behalf of the state of New Hampshire?” And, we looked at that for a 
six-year period from 1997 to 2002 (the period covered by the Performance Audit). Now, I did that from the point 
of view of an agnostic. Fortunately, with one exception, I do not know anything about the judicial system in 
New Hampshire and way too much about it in Italy, in California, in New York, and other places! And, I’ll look at 
this from the perspective of an economist (early in my career) who went straight and a businessman later. So, I 
will be looking at the economics of the judiciary. I suggest that the results are suggestive and, maybe, even 
indicative, but certainly do not provide any strong conclusions. 
So, again, it’s about the business model implications of the Performance Audit from 1997 to 2002. What we 
have here is an institution that, in 2002, cost the state of New Hampshire $55.8 million. Over the period from 
1997 to 2002, expenses in the Judicial Branch of government climbed at a 3.7% annual rate. That is year after 
year 3.7%. 
Here’s a look at the expenses broken down in two ways. First by court. Roughly 80% of the expenses of the 
judicial system are born in the Superior Court and the District Court. Most of the rest all fall into somewhat 
equal sizes within the Supreme Court, Probate and Family Court. AOC is the Administrative Office of the 
Courts. 
It is also important to look at it by what I call natural expenses. Of the $55.8 million, personnel expense in 2002 
was $41.1 million. Of that, $9 million was accounted for by the salaries of Justices and Masters, interestingly. 
And this goes back to the same problem that every other institution in the United States is dealing with. The 
cost of retirement benefits and benefits in general for all of the judiciary was $11.1 billion. That is larger than 
the cost of salaries of Justices and Marital Masters. Other personnel costs were $21 million and non-personnel 
costs were $14.6 million. 
Here is the activity presenting three measures of a number of cases filed in every court (except the Supreme 
Court), it is either “filed” or “disposed”. In the Supreme Court, there is another measure which is “accepted.” 
But, here is the total number of disposed cases, roughly 237,000 in 1997. You see a huge dip. I learned this 
morning (demonstrating that I really am an agnostic…) that the reason for that is that in 1998 we shifted District 
Court cases to DMV. So, there is a big drop in 1997 to 1998. And, over this entire period, the total number of 
cases declined, driven by the 15% decline in District Court cases. 
Excluding that, if you look at 1998 to 2002, you see something that looks pretty normal, fairly steady increases 
which is not a big surprise. And you will see that related to some other data later on. 
This is a chart. The colors do not show up very well. The big spike is, basically, district cases. By comparison, 

all the other cases are small…all the courts handle a small number of cases by comparison, and it’s a fairly 
steady number of cases. Although in each case, there were increases over time. There are also significant 
variations in the cost of handling a case across the various courts. Now, I did not show the cost of handling a 
Supreme Court case because it would have made the chart, basically, not very useful. The average cost in 
2002 of a Supreme Court case was $8,829 from the perspective of the Judicial Branch. By comparison, 
Superior Court was $776 per case. This is per case disposed. District Court was $109 per case. Probate 
Court was $514 per case. Family Division was $429 per case. So the average across all courts was $244 per 
case. And, if you look at the AOC, it sort of backs off its administration, which is not totally accurate. But, at 
least, in my way of thinking, it is not a bad proxy. It basically costs $15 per case, which is not a very big 
number. 
And you can see that the average cost per case rises over the time period from 1997 to 2002. And, here, are 
those increases. The exception is the Supreme Court where costs actually fell over the period. In all other 
instances, costs rose and most sharply rose in the District Courts not surprisingly because we took the cheap 
cases out the Districts Court and shifted those cases to DMV. And, the Family Division which is nascent and 
sort of getting its sea legs, showed a fairly large increase, actually about 8.9% per year over this five-year 
period. 
Now, let’s look at it in a slightly different way. From 1997 to 2002, total operating expenses of the judiciary rose 
by $9.4 million. Of that increase, one part is 3.7% at an annual rate. Of that increase, $1.5 million of it was 
accounted for by increases in the salaries of Justices and Marital Masters, which grew at a 3.6% annual rate. 
Over that period, benefits and retiree expenses increased by $3.4 million. That is twice the increase of the 
salaries of Justices and Masters or a 7.4% annual rate. Other personnel costs rose $4 million at a 4.3% annual 
rate and non-personnel expenses rose by only $.5 million or less than 1% per annum. 
M. Gross: I have a question about non-personnel expenses. Does that include operating the facility? 
E. Herr: Its facilities…its computers…its light, heat, paper…all of that. But it is not training, although 
like most of state government, we spend almost none on that in the state of New Hampshire…deep pockets; 
short arms! 
Here is one way of thinking about the shift in expenses toward benefits and retirement. In 1997, expense 
dollars spent on retirement expense and benefits was basically $1 for every dollar of salary for Justices and 
Masters. By 2002, for every dollar in salary of Justices and Masters, we were spending $1.25 on benefits and 
retirement expenses. I am not saying it is good, bad or indifferent. It just is what it is. 
Tricia Lucas: Does it make sense to try to divide that further to get a sense of how much is benefit and how 
much is retirement stuff? 
E. Herr: Yes. In fact, I have that data. My recollection is that it is fairly evenly split. But, I will elaborate 
on that when I send this report in, because it’s in a spreadsheet I’ve got. 
T. Lucas: The reason I ask the question, and I would rely on one of the members of the judiciary here, is 
whether or not it is true that, during that period of time, there was a change in the funding structure for judicial 
retirement. It was non-contributory for a period of time then I think it became contributory. Did it not? 
Edwin Kelly: That just occurred this year. 

T. Lucas: This year. Thanks. 
E. Herr: Is there another question? 
Stephanie Nute: The retirement is just for the Justices because Masters are now and always have been 
in state employee retirement in New Hampshire. 
E. Herr: I do not actually know the data set well enough to know what’s actually in all the buckets right 
now. It is one of the things I have to go back and do and, also, extend the data set. 
S. Nute: There is a judicial retirement component. The salary includes the Masters, but retirement does 
not include the Masters. 
E. Herr: Okay. We can go back and correct it if that’s the case. But, actually, if you did not look at the 
judicial branch data and you tried to anticipate where the cost increases would be, just having read a 
newspaper or watched the news report in the last five years, you would say, “Well, part of it has got to be 
benefits and retirement.” And, it is. A big chunk of it. 
Here is another way to look at change in operating expenses. Remember operating expenses from 1997 to 
2002 rose by $9.4 million. So, the first question is, “Well, if the cost per case stayed the same and we had a 
decline in the number of cases, what would have happened to expenses assuming constant productivity and 
cost per case?” The answer is that expenses would have been lowered by $3.5 million, given the 28,000 or 
26,000 case decline in the District Courts. Then, there are two other possibilities. What has been the change 
in the average cost per case? The first thing to recognize is that, because we had a big decline in the 
cheapest…least expensive…court (that is the District Court), the number of cases tended to shift toward the 
more expensive courts in the state. That shift in mix actually added $600,000 to the total expense. That means 
that, in terms of cost and productivity changes, the court system cost $12.3 million more in 2002 than it did in 
1997. 
Now, of course, it’s nice to look back even at a brief period of history. The question is what it says looking 
forward about the cost structure, the demand for services, and what we might anticipate over any reasonable 
period of time. 
And, here is the first thing I looked at: What can we assert will happen to the demand for judicial services? 
And, excluding 1997 and the big shift because of the movement of cases to DMV. What you will see here is 
that the demand for cases (and, if you need to have a naive hypothesis…), is driven largely by population 
levels. For every person in the state of New Hampshire, over the last five years of this period, between .174 
and 177 cases were disposed of each year. So, you know a population increase is not a bad sort of simple 
minded predictor of the number of cases that the court will have to deal with over this period. Over the period 
1997 to 2002, the population grew at, I think, it was a 1.3% or 1.6% annual rate in the state on a compound 
basis. So, you would expect some increase in the number of cases with which the court would have to deal 
over this period. And that is demand filled by population growth. Then the question becomes, “Well what do 
we expect this inflation to do to wages?” That is the wage component of personnel costs. Secondly, “What do 
we expect to occur given retiree costs and benefits in the system and non-personnel costs?” And, that would 
imply (at least in my simple mind of the world), “What would be required in terms of productivity increases and 
shifting demand either out of the court system to an alternative dispute resolution or, possibly, to less expensive 
versions of the courts to make resources (that is the availability of operating expense dollars and the demands 

given by the population on the judiciary) actually match in the future?” And that’s it! That’s it! 
??John Crosier: Do you have any data on the income of the courts? 
E. Herr: No. There was nothing…at least I did not see anything…although maybe I missed it…in the 
Audit Report or the Income Report. Well, all the operating expenses come out of the General Fund. 
?? There is $2 million a year…..???? I wondered if there are any other ??? 
E. Herr: Well, I will look into that. Are there any other questions or comments? 
?? ?: ???my understanding…disposed of…motion of the court or???? 
E. Herr: Well, I should answer that question. 
?woman?: At this point in time, the case is closed???? …involved…the court…citizens… 
??a male??: …Family Court…divorced…ongoing… 
E. Herr: Well, the case is closed; the problem isn’t! By the way, I also looked at whether the data would 
change remarkably if you looked at cases filed as opposed to cases disposed on a cost-per-case basis. The 
answer is that it doesn’t change things much over time. 
S. Davis: I think one interesting thing to break out would be how many cases involve citizens against 
citizens and how many involve legislative decisions that are challenged, i.e. government actions that bring on 
cases. Because sometimes I wonder if the legislature passes legislation knowing there will be challenges. 
E. Herr: I will build on that in the following way. One of the data sets I’d like to develop (at least on a 
sample basis because I think it would be very enlightening in terms of how to attack the cost problem), is to get 
data on how long cases are open. First, I suspect that the length of time it takes to try a case impacts people’s 
perception of the quality of justice. Second, it almost certainly ?maps? the resources required in expense. We 
could use that data and drill down a bit to understand what makes some cases remarkably long; and what’s 
true of those cases versus those which are very short. Now (having said that), it is not clear to me that you 
attack the cases that are very long in terms of expense management. I suspect those tend to be complex and 
very difficult to have the courts actually deal justice. It may be which is counter to the way I would usually 
operate. But, the way to attack it is to actually focus on the large number of what must be very inexpensive 
cases to deal with and just drive that number down to remarkably low numbers. But, that’s what research has 
to show. 
S. Davis: One of the things I would like to know is how often the cost is decreased by the number of 
postponements. For instance, citizens do not always know that their lawyer asked for a postponement because 
of a conflict in their schedule. Yet, there is cost attributed to the citizen when the lawyer files that motion 
because they then send a bill to the citizen. That is, naturally, a cost (in my opinion) the citizen should not have 
to bear because they didn’t have the conflict; it was their attorney’s conflict. The judges look at the constant 
postponements and it takes very little time in the court but, obviously, it takes a lot of paperwork because the 
court has to send out notices to all the involved parties. It would be interesting to see how much of the court’s 
time (clerical / clerk) probably is involved in the cost of notification. 

E. Herr: That kind of information could, clearly, be obtained. But, it would require primary research. 
There is no data that exists that would allow us to get that out of the record. There is data that exists that says, 
“Here is when a case opened and here is when it closed.” But to understand in great and gory detail what 
contributes to the actual cost of the case might be worthwhile, but it would be a very expensive undertaking. 
W. Abbott: Thank you, Eric! Since we covered the other items on the agenda, Kathy and I thought we 
would take the last ten minutes and try to get back to the question that is probably on several people’s minds 
that Marty Gross raised originally. It is, “What are the topic areas that we ought to start thinking about for the 
Research Committee?” Now, we intend to discuss this as a group on August 22nd, but we thought we’d get a 
head start on this in terms of process: “What is the most effective way we as a group can get this done in two 
hours?” And, if we go around the room right now, for example, we can build a list. We started with the 
discussion at the Steering Committee level. Kathy, do you want to talk about some of the topics that came up 
then? 
K. Eneguess: In the Steering Committee minutes, some suggestions that came up included mental health, 
substance abuse, criminal law, civil law, small claims court and pro se. These are the initial pieces, then Eric 
volunteered to do this through the economic model lens. Other topics that might fall into a research area such 
as the time and date conversation that Harriet was just talking about would be a primary research item if, in 
fact, that is something that a group wanted to tackle. Are there any other ideas? 
W. Abbott: How about the process? How do we make this group get to the point you were trying to get 
to? 
M. Gross: I think you are on the right track by doing it Quaker meeting style because people have ideas 
that, perhaps, the Committee has not thought of. I venture to make a suggestion. I do not want to knock any of 
the items you listed. There is one that came to me that seems to be outside the mindset that these should be 
represented in the paperwork. It is not just how the courts deal with its customers to use as an approach to 
this. But, also, there are interactions by the court system with other branches of government which very 
substantially influence the court system. We read about it in the paper, i.e. about how the court interacts with 
the Legislative Branch and how the court interacts with the Executive Branch. So, I thought that might be an 
idea for the Research Committee. What the exercise would be to come up with some good information about 
how the court interacts and some suggestions for how it might be more effective in that interaction and, 
perhaps, provide some basis for general public acceptance of what is appropriate for the courts to do when it 
interacts with other branches of government. 
W. Abbott: Others? Paul? 
P. Clements: A concern for me is gender bias in the Family Court. Secondary to me would be the 
unaccountability of the Judicial Branch and judicial conduct. 
W. Abbott: Others? David? 
David Kidder: Sentencing flexibility. 
Elizabeth Lown: I was concerned about the last proposed constitutional amendment and the voter 
guide. Who writes the voter guide and how they are put together and so on. Who are the advocates for the 
courts? Can they be, so called, non-partisan? 

H. Cady: I think that most important to the citizens is they hear a report or see a report listed in the 
newspapers from the courts, and they want to know how the people on that commission got appointed and why 
they did not know about it. So, the citizen’s ability to access when commissions are going to be set up, so they 
can volunteer and whether or not the court is going to pick people from the general population or use those they 
know within the system. 
K. Eneguess: Can you give me a shorter description of that?!? 
H. Cady: Court accessibility. If you look at the Commission’s report (I hate to take on a single person) 
but how many times have I seen Nina Gardner’s name on it? And, yet, there are citizens out there who belong 
to clubs or groups and say, “Well, I would have liked to have been on that!” So, knowing that there is going to 
be a Commission appointed or set up would help citizens to be able to volunteer. So, if there was a court web 
site indicating plans to establish a citizens’ commission. People could put their name there. It’s accessibility. 
K. Eneguess: Commission accessibility. 
W. Abbott: Mr. Shattuck? 
Gilman Shattuck: In the beginning, you spoke about citizens’ perception in general of the court system 
and how there is a lack of understanding of the system and access to it. For a lot of people, I think one of the 
problems is that we have talked here about the principle of access to the court system. If I do certain things, I 
am going to wind up in District Court or Superior Court or Probate Court. But, there are other things that will 
turn up. If I have a question about my property assessment, I will deal with my selectmen. But, I have various 
options about getting into the court system, and that’s also true regarding environmental issues. In some 
cases, what’s happened is that, perhaps at one time something dealt with in the court system is now delegated 
out to various governmental agencies, acting like the courts. But, at some point, it may get into the mainline of 
the court system. I think there is an element of confusion and this is also something we have to think a little bit 
about. It may not be the most important issue, but I think it certainly is confusing to the average citizen. How 
do you deal with this? 
W. Abbott: Public education. 
K. Eneguess: It is public education in a civics lesson of where a decision needs to go. Correct? 
W. Abbott: Vera? 
Vera Peaslee Haus: I have questions about the cost issue with use of paralegals. Use of paralegals has 
grown in this state and cost is a huge issue. I do not know what their role is; there are different roles of 
paralegals. What has the impact been with leveraging of paralegals. I would be very interested in that. It is a 
huge growth area. 
W. Abbott: Cheryl? 
C. Killam: My concern is about people with disabilities on both sides of the courts: Staff and those who 
access the courts. 
W. Abbott: Accessibility. Any others? 

A. Smith: This is something we have already talked about but I think it is important to get on this list. It 
is, again, pro se issues. 
W. Abbott: Pro se litigation? 
A. Smith: Yes. 
A. McArdle: For purposes of the minutes of this meeting, we will give you a list that represents what you 
said here, plus the discussions that have come up in the Steering Committee meeting and that are listed on the 
web site. So, right now you have this in three different places. We will summarize all of that in the minutes of 
this meeting. 
M. Gross: Maybe this is very obvious, but another thing that interests me is how Research Committees 
are going to gather their information? Also, what arrangements will be made by the Search Committee to get 
that information from the court system itself? 
K. Eneguess: A protocol by which to gather further information? 
M. Gross: Yes. Who to ask. 
K. Eneguess: Yes. 
W. Abbott: Marty raised a good point. We talked a little about structuring these Research Committees so 
that there is a chairman, a clerk and, maybe, a research coordinator. There will be needs for information 
among those of you serving on committees that you will not immediately have at your disposal. It will be our job 
to make sure you get what you want, assuming that it’s available. It may not always be available, however. 
K. Eneguess: One of the reasons we asked Laura to go through the bibliography is that we know there has 
been an awful lot of work done, and there be some other reports that we just have not found or someone has 
not brought to light. Again, maybe to piggyback some of this work on some of the work that has already been 
done. I know Ann has been working with the legislative side of the House to see what has already been done 
in the House and the Senate and tried to gather some of that research in terms of what’s already underway. 
We will try to put together some kind of matrix that will show you what some of the topics in progress are, ones 
being considered by other groups; we are slowly working on that. As you can imagine, that is primary research 
and it’s rather substantial. We are trying to wade through that while using resources such as the National 
Center. Tricia, I think you had your hand up again? 
T. Lucas: Yes. I would like to add some alternative _______ resolutions to the research _________. 
K. Eneguess: Jim? 
J. Squires: I am curious as to how the agenda is set in the court system. ___________________ 
________________ the practitioners who come before it and, basically, drive the agenda to some extent. And, 
____________________ citizens __________________ left out in the cold. That does not seem right to me. 
K. Eneguess: Jon? 
?Jonathan Baird?: ?I am curious about how people with English proficiency are interacting in the 

court. ? 
L. Morrow: Could we have a public relations committee that deal with the findings of the Commission and 
how we are going to reach out, but go beyond that to make it not just today or tomorrow, but always so people 
know what is available to them. Also, perhaps, educate the next generation so they know through the 
classroom what is available to them. 
W. Abbott: Clyde? 
Clyde Terry: Let’s see if I can get this into a blurb…the cost versus expense. Reports talk about the 
expense of the court system, but not necessarily cost. Often the expense is a negotiated number with a 
legislative finance committee but not necessarily a true reflection of the costs of the justice system. 
W. Abbott: Are there any others? Well, we will call it a day then! Thank you very much… 
K. Green: It would be really helpful going out to have dates of meetings to enter on our calendars. Do 
you plan to meet the fourth Monday of every month. 
K. Eneguess: Hopefully, we will have that outlined on a calendar in August. We will do as much as we can 
predict at this point in time. So, we all find ourselves in exactly the same situation! Gail? 
G. Barba: We need your contact information. 
K. Eneguess: Okay. Will’s direct email is: wabbott@mountwashington.org 
Telephone #: 356-21378 X 220 
Mine: keneguess@nhttc.edu 
Telephone: 752-1113