New Hampshire Citizens Commission on the State Courts 
Nov 14, 2005 Commission Meeting Minutes 
Administrative Office of the Courts 
One Noble Drive, 
Concord, NH 
Overview of Listening Sessions: 
The last of the eleven public listening sessions to be held in Salem on Nov 14 from 3-5 
pm and 6-8pm. It seems there were not a lot of deep concerns with the court system with 
one or two exceptions, which is the same response received from Andy Smith’s survey. 
There was a wide group of interest among those that participated in the sessions, from 
boundary line disputes to children in prison. One group in particular was very well 
represented and this was the fathers who had concerns over unfairly denied access to their 
children as a result of a divorce hearing. 
Other information includes customer service issues, the workload at the courts and the 
guardians ad litem requirements and training. In the north country there were concerns of 
distance and part time judges. 
Larry Gilpin, who has been at every public listening session commented on the fact that 
there was not quantity at these sessions, but quality of what was presented. One 
presentation that stands out in his mind is the woman who heard the 13 undocumented 
words from the prosecutor in her husband’s trial. He also mentioned concerns with 
people feeling unwelcome in court and the presumption by some of these defendants that 
they feel they are already being perceived as guilty when they enter the courtroom. 
Cheryl Killam mentioned the contractor in at the Manchester session who felt that in 
small claims court the limits should be raised. 
Nina Gardner commented on the Tamworth session where the value of the issue was 
not worth the attorney’s cost in district court cases. There were also community concerns 
regarding the perceptive of fairness. 
Sally Davis commented on a presenter at the Plymouth session mentioning the 
difficulty in hearing what is being said by people in the courtroom and wondered if this 
was the only comment on hearing issues the commission has heard. To date it is. 
Kathy Eneguess mentioned the software package that is in the works for the court 
system enabling them to have internet access was brought up a few times in different 
sessions. Also, for pro se litigants to have the same access in every court and how 
different courts operate in different ways. 
Paul Clements noted that he took objection to the fact that the fathers were very 
organized. He said that the fathers that took the time off from work to present information 
were not organized by him, but concerned as individuals. He got the word out to people, 
but never told them what to say. Paul stated that in his research, he found that complaints 
against the family courts are 5 to 1 over other courts. 
Kathy Eneguess mentioned the press releases for advertising of these listening sessions. 
The commissions PR firm, Louis Karno and Company has submitted info to each local 
newspaper prior to the sessions. 
Harriet Cady stated that as a commissioner, even she was confused by a radio ad she 
heard and perhaps people were not sure what the commission was looking for at these 
sessions. She also mentioned the right to know law, which is a personal concern of hers 

and how there is no uniformity in the clerk’s knowledge from court to court. The waiting 
period is too long for these right to know cases to be heard. 
Peter Heed witnessed that the comments from the public are not in regard to juries and 
that this can be a life changing process for jurors. The major issues instead were family 
court and custody issues. He commented on how the District Courts are the most 
common court used by the public and there is a high volume of people waiting for their 
case to be heard. Court personnel are often overwhelmed by the volume of cases in these 
courts. 
Judge Ed Kelly commented on the court filings statewide. He said 82% of court cases 
are district or family court cases. 
Terri Peterson commented on her scheduling issues in Coos County, how the courts 
overlap. Each court has certain days of the week but 1-2 courts overlap every day and this 
is difficult on everyone involved. 
Paul Clements mentioned that in the Unh survey, 61% of respondents had no 
experience with the courts and this should invalidate the survey results. Kathy Eneguess 
suggested that Paul call Dr. Andy Smith at UNH to get clarification on these concerns. 
Schedule: 
Research committees will decide on own where and when to meet. Schedules will need 
to be sent to Julie Morris for posting on the web. The overall work will be managed by 
the Steering Committee, each chairperson should be on the Steering Committee and 
attend those meetings as well. November and December will be dedicated to the research 
committees beginning to pool resources and knowledge, organizing and researching. 
Monday Meetings: 
It was discussed whether Monday’s were good days for meetings and the general 
consensus was to leave the commission meetings on Mondays. 
Research Committees Charges and Protocol: 
The goal is to report back to the full commission in March. Commissioners should be 
thinking outside the box. For each report there should not be a lot of words on paper, but 
a presentation. The objection to follow is: 
For every recommendation there should be only two paragraphs. The first paragraph will 
describe the recommendation and the second paragraph will describe its foundation, why 
is it necessary? 
After the March meeting the whole commission will see these reports and review them. 
Research Committees meeting face-to-face versus electronically was discussed and due 
to the right to know laws, Kelly Ayotte will be contacted to get the answer. 
Minutes will need to be posted on the web after each committee meets. These need to 
be sent to Julie for posting. 
Minority Reports should be presented for each recommendation if needed. They should 
explain who voted for and against each recommendation. 
The reading material that had been handed out previously should be gone through and 
also any resources available on the web site. 
Laura Kiernan is the contact person for each committees starting point. She should be 
contacted first as to the first step of each initial committee meeting. The National Center 

for State Courts has assigned a person to assist in researching topics. Each research 
committee should have one designated person to contact the center. 
Research Committee Meetings need to be accessible to the public for them to observe 
but not participate. 
Andy Peterson made the comment that at each and every meeting held each 
commissioner should stand up and introduce him or herself first so the public knows who 
is speaking. 
If any commissioner is not happy with their placement on a research committee, see 
Will or Kathy by the end of the week if possible. 
John Hutson, Dean and President of Franklin Pierce Law School spoke regarding the 
commission he is co-chairing with retired Supremem Court Justice Bill Batchelder 
regarding the delivery of legal services. It was appointed by the Chief Justice to look at 
the status of the legal profession and identify trends and challenges of it. They are 
looking at services that are offered and whether they are accessible and affordable. The 
30 attorneys from across the state have split into focus groups and have pushed back their 
end date to coincide with the New Hampshire Citizens Commission on the State Courts 
end date in order for the 2 commissions to work together and possibly avoid double work. 
These are 2 independent commissions but they should be able to assist each other in their 
findings. 
Research Committees broke up into their groups and discussed schedules and topics of 
research. 
Meeting adjourned at 11:45 am. 
Respectfully submitted, 
Julie Morris 
Administrative Support 
NH Citizens Commission on the State Courts