New Hampshire Citizens Commission on the State Courts 
Commission Meeting Transcript 
Representative’s Hall 
Capitol Building, Concord 
March 20, 2006 
Will Abbott: -amendments today, you’re going to need to be able to read the screen up 
here so if you’re sitting in a seat where you can’t read the screen, I strongly suggest you 
consider relocating to a seat where you can read the screen. 
Kathy Eneguess: So everybody’s done their homework? Everybody’s ready to go? Come 
on, hello. (laughs) As we begin today, first of all I want to thank you very much, last 
week I think we made our way very well through each of the recommendations. We 
wanted to just double check that everybody is comfortable, that the recommendations that 
moved to the consent bucket are the ones in the consent bucket. So we wanted to just get 
those up and make sure as we go through today, if there’s any you want to pull out of the 
consent bucket, that you do so today. I have also been asked, if in fact you start feeling 
like the process is, needs to continue, we still have the availability of our April meeting. 
So, we want thorough discussion, we want discussion so that we all, all ninety nine of us 
are very comfortable with the outcome of this report. So as we continue to move forward 
today, think about that. If you need to do something else, if you need to bring an 
amendment, we do have a scanner available today. If you have other discussion items, 
make sure you speak about those today, so as we continue to proceed today, we want 
everybody to walk out of there today feeling comfortable and not a flurry of e-mails to 
end the day. Now we don't have our clock available, so I can’t time you right up front and 
in public, it’s going to stay right there at twelve thirty all morning long. (laughs) So, first 
of all, everybody ready now? Since we’ve got a few lobbyists that are showing up, we 
know we’re doing a good job. Item number one, further discussion. You all can read this 
as well as I can. Item number two, fine for consent? I’m just going to do the consent 
ones. Item number five. Do you want to take time to flip through? Item number six. Ok. 
Item number eleven. Item number twelve. Number thirteen. Fourteen. Seventeen. Yes? 
Yup. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: Twelve is in the packet, as a combined recommendation so that the language 
which would then be transferred and merged with another recommendation. Ok? Number 
seventeen. Number eighteen. Number twenty two. Number twenty five. Number twenty 
nine. Item number thirty. Item number thirty one. Number thirty two. Number thirty 
three. And number thirty four. So unless these are in today’s agenda as a combined 
document, these have moved to the consent and we will be working those for the final 
report. Everybody comfortable with that? Questions? Go ahead. 
(unknown): (inaudible) combined. 
Kathy: They can be combined if in fact there’s a piece of it that’s missing, I would 
suggest making sure that that does get combined and you do comment on that. Any other 
questions? Ok. Then we will proceed. What we thought we’d do today, since Will was 
the author of trying to combine these and he is going to speak to the categories. The first 
category is our quick fix category. Individuals had offered an amendment on the floor at 

our meeting last week or had a language change suggestion, so we put these into our 
quick fix category. So is everybody got their pieces of paper ready to go? Yup. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Will: They’re not in at all or they’re not in- 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Will: Oh, ok. I had, there were a couple of people who contacted me about what, what 
process was used to get into the quick fix versus further discussion, it was totally 
arbitrary. You know, as long as it wasn’t eliminated from consideration on our agenda 
then I think we’ll just do it in the order we’ve got them, if that’s ok? 
Kathy: Ok, recommendation number one, I’m sorry, Sally. 
Will: Sally Davis has a… 
Kathy: Sally? 
Sally Davis: (inaudible) 
Kathy: Sure. 
Sally: (inaudible) 
Will: Well, fortunately, we did not send out on the agenda the changes. We just sent out 
the recommendations that were determined, so what we’re going to do is flash on the 
screen here your draft amendment and if you’d like to come up and talk to it, you’re up 
first. 
Kathy: Claudia? 
(Claudia Nixon: (inaudible) 
Kathy; Yes, we will restate the question. Sally had offered an amendment to us by, and 
Julie has that so all amendments that had come in either by email or snail mail or handed 
to us will be put up, so Sally wins the first detail. Come on up to the podium right now, 
Sally and speak to your amendment, please. 
Sally: Is it up for people to read? (pause) Well. 
Kathy: Everything in caps, Sally. 
Sally: Ok. What I tried to do in general was to clarify what I thought was a problem last 
week and that was that it seemed to me that we were only going to look at existing 
programs in ADR and I wanted us to be clear that we wanted the court to look at, well I 
should say existing formally existing, ones that are actually approved or a part of the 
court system, where there are some of them being tried independently, at least they 
haven’t been formally put into the system. My particular one of interest was in the 
juvenile area we don’t even have a committee addressing juvenile court issues. It’s a 
program in Belknap County that has successfully, and I’ve got it in here somewhere in 
the rationale, has successfully adjudicated with victim and put in community support. A 
large percentage of the cases that have come before it in the three years its existed, so I 
wanted and thought we should address, I wouldn’t say experimental, but at least models 
that are working that haven’t become an official part of the system yet but could be. 
That’s basically the thoughts behind what I proposed. So, you have to read it and see if it 
makes sense. 
Will: Can I just see a show of hands of everybody that’s read this prior to coming here 
today? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Sally: They didn’t have it, that’s why. 
Will: I thought this was emailed out to everybody. 

(unknown): (inaudible). 
Will: No? Ok, well this is the time to, do you want me to read the recommendation as its 
been amended? Ok. If everybody ahs their original number one, I don’t know if this is a 
workable way, but you might get that out and you can compare as I read the amendment. 
That the court recognize the effectiveness of the limited ADR programs presently in 
existence and recognize further the potential for further improvement. That the court 
review the existing ADR programs at every court level and dedicate the leadership, 
energy and resources to the construction, operation and review of successful ADR system 
s so they will have well established lines of authority and accountability designed to 
increase the efficiency of the judicial system to serve the needs of the public. Is there- 
Kathy: Is there a question? 
Nina Gardner: Well, I was just wondering how supportive is our review of the rationale, 
is it (inaudible)? 
Will: The question is, how important is it that we review the rationale. The rationale on 
this has changed as well as the recommendation. Would you like me to read the 
rationale? 
Kathy: So your question, Nina, if I understand you appropriately is that will the rationale 
go into the final report as amended, also, as well as the recommendation. So that, does 
everyone understand the question? So you are approving both the recommendation new 
language as well as the rationale new language. Is everyone comfortable with the 
recommendation new language? Further question on the rationale, excuse me, 
recommendation new language? So, the clarifying- 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Will: Can you put all the rationale up there? 
Kathy: Well, let’s do the recommendation first. People are comfortable with everything 
outlined in caps? Yes? 
(unknown): Yes. 
Kathy: Ok, now we’ll do the rationale? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: The items in parentheses Sally had requested of Julie to have removed. 
(pause) 
Kathy: Question? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: Yes. 
Byron Champlin: Byron Champlin, Concord. I’m confused, Kathy because, can you 
scroll it down a little bit, Julie? You said that what was in parentheses was requested to 
be removed, however in the original document, right there, Rule 170 was in parentheses. 
That is not intended to be- 
Kathy: That is not intended to be removed, is that correct, Sally? Yup, ok. 
Byron: Ok, thank you. 
Kathy: Further clarification? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: I have a motion to move to consent. 
Unknown): Second. 
Kathy: Further discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Moved to consent. Thank you, 
Sally for your assistance. 

Will: Recommendation number three. I believe Peter Wolfe has an amendment, oh 
Cheryl? 
Kathy: Cheryl? 
Cheryl Killam: (inaudible) close the blinds? 
Kathy: We’ll work on that. 
Will: Ok, we do have hard copies for Peter’s amendment. Peter, would you like to come 
up and speak to this? 
Peter Wolfe: Good morning. I tried to redraft number three. There were two questions, if 
you remember from last Monday. One, the original referred to Rule 170 and somebody 
had a question, what is Rule 170. So the first change I made was talk about the Superior 
Court civil mediation program instead of Rule 170, so we all know what we’re talking 
about. And the second recommendation, Ginnie Martin had a comment about the 
language and how we referred to the use of neutrals who were volunteers. I made it a 
positive statement saying that the court should consider the transition to paid mediators 
who see themselves as dispute resolution professionals, trying to take what was said 
before and put it in a positive framework. If you want I can give some of the reasons 
behind this. When we had our committee discussions. 
Kathy: Peter, talk straight into the mike, please, so everybody can hear you. 
Peter: Oh, I’m sorry. Some of the rationale behind this is that we in our committee 
discussed how Rule 170 had really been in the forefront back in nineteen ninety two 
(1992) when it was first implemented in the court and its success rates were extremely 
high, in the sixty to seventy five percent rate. We had a meeting recently with some of the 
court people and they were saying that right now on a given day, we’re probably settling 
forty percent of the cases at the mediations that we are not achieving the success that we 
used to achieve with this program. There were some reasons we discussed including the 
management of the program which we did address to a limited extent in the first 
recommendation and the other was the transition to paid mediators. This is the only, the 
Rule 170 or the civil mediation program is the only program left in the court where the 
mediators are not paid. Using volunteers has restricted the program to the five counties 
where it is currently in existence, we cannot expand it statewide. We are having difficulty 
getting new people to volunteer for the program, people who have volunteered in the past 
are unwilling to commit the number of days or unwilling period to commit to the 
program and we are getting successively higher complaints about the process which we 
are delivering. I offer a comment in the rationale which was offered by one of the judges, 
he said the only growth they have seen in the mediators has been in their age, 
professionally they are not increasing their skills, in fact they’re getting worse. To change 
this trend and to move the program into a statewide capacity we need to overhaul the 
program and find a way to get better, more highly trained mediators and that is why the 
recommendation. 
Kathy: Questions? I have a motion to move to second. 
(unknown): Second. 
Kathy: Discussion? 
Bruce Felmly: Bruce Felmly, I practice in Manchester. I’m strongly in favor of this 
recommendation and I, my only concern and it’s difficult to sort of raise this because I 
don’t know all the details of what’s being done in the program. My only concern is this 
issue of moving the mediators to something described as dispute resolutions 

professionals. This has been a very successful program. When I was President of the New 
Hampshire Bar, it was something that I was very proud of, that New Hampshire lawyers 
were volunteering. I don’t think there’s any doubt that many of the best mediators in the 
state who participate in this program and then on their own time charge very high rates 
for mediation and private mediation services volunteers here. Peter has worked very hard 
in trying to figure out how to expand those ranks. I think that we lose an opportunity by 
phrasing it the way we do here, I really like humor and I think the comment the only 
growth we’ve seen in the mediators has been in their age and I suppose since I’ve done 
this for, I don’t know, fifteen or twenty years, I suppose I’m in that category and I should, 
I should bear up with it. But I think that this is a program that needs all the improvement, 
enhancement and updating that the recommendation describes, but I think a core of it 
ought to be to enhance the recruiting of both paid as well as volunteer mediators. One of 
the problems has been that mediators have to go through a training, it’s been difficult to 
get the funding for the training, bringing in new blood, younger blood if that’s what this 
describes has been a challenge. I’m not opposed to the idea of paying mediators but it is 
not the driving force that causes most people to participate. The Chief Justice had a 
meeting of the former presidents of the New Hampshire Bar the other day, maybe a week 
and a half ago in the Courthouse essentially saying, what can you do to help meet the 
needs of New Hampshire citizens? One of the things that I believe every one of those 
former Presidents said they would do would be to participate more aggressively as 
volunteer mediators in the court system, those are some of the best layers in the state. So, 
I’m concerned about the tone, here. It’s just really a question of language and emphasis, 
I’m really not opposed to paying some mediators, but I don’t think we’ve done enough to 
recruit the best and the brightest. It’s a great opportunity for lawyers to give something 
back. I would take out the comment about the one judge noting that the lawyers are 
aging, and I think this has been a program which has been very successful, so my 
suggestion would be to not suggest that our mediators are going to become, I’m not sure 
what a dispute resolution professional necessarily is. I don’t want to create a new class of 
people, I want people to act professionally in that role. So, while I appreciate the 
amendment, I think it goes a little bit in a different direction. I would have some language 
in there encouraging of the recruitment of highly trained mediators both volunteers and 
people who will serve for cash. 
Kathy: Further discussion? Further discussion? Come on down. 
Hon. Bob Lynn: Hi, I’m Bob Lynn. I’m the Chief Justice of the Superior Court and I 
guess I would like to support Peter’s proposed change to the recommendation itself, in 
fact I sent out an email maybe two or two and a half weeks ago and it’s not, from talking 
to Cathy Green, it’s not sure now, I guess there was some problems with the email. I’m 
not sure that everybody got it, but I had proposed at that time that rather than saying we 
should definitely go to paid mediators, that we say we should consider it and that’s what 
Peter’s proposal now says. So I support the recommendation, however I have the same 
concerns that Bruce Felmly has and I guess I’d put a little twist on it is this, I think the, 
the language in the rationale ought to be more neutral as Bruce suggests. And the other 
thing that I would say I think ought to be added to the rationale is this, I think one of the, 
one of the counter-veiling considerations, if you will, to the use of paid mediators and 
again, paid mediators may be the way to go, I’m not saying that I oppose that. But one of 
the counter-veiling considerations may be the costs that would be involved in that. As I 

understand it, and Peter may be able to better speak to this than I am, unlike the situation 
in the District Courts and with the probate mediation, there, there apparently will be a 
real difficulty in providing low cost paid mediators. In other words it may be that, that 
one of the, it may be that the only way that you can have paid mediators in Rule 170 
mediation, because one of the problems right now with the Rule 170 system is that we 
typically only allocate two hours per case. And that is generally, or at least in many cases 
is not enough. So if you’re going to have Rule 170 mediation, it’s going to involve longer 
mediation sessions. My understanding is that the economics may be such that if you are, 
if you are going to use only paid mediators it would be very expensive, the parties would 
be told, you know, ok, you’re required to go, mandatorally to go to mediation and you’re 
going to have to pay the mediators at the going rate. If that’s the case, that may have the 
effect of excluding a large percentage of people from participating. That’s why it seems 
to me that there probably needs to be some role for volunteer mediators to continue and I 
guess that I would just suggest that the language A as Bruce Felmly suggested ought to 
be more balanced and secondly it seems to me it ought to say something about the, the 
concern that a, if it’s all paid mediators that there’s going to be some economic 
considerations that may tend to exclude people. And so that, that would be a reason for at 
maintaining at least some role for voluntary mediators. Thank you. 
Kathy: Further discussion? Peter? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: We have two people that are offering amendments with no language attached, if 
both of you would like to get together and offer those amendments in writing, we can 
have Julie type those in if you have some suggestions for softening the language to the 
Chair of this Committee. 
Peter: Truly I would love to keep this program with volunteers, but we just cannot move 
it beyond the counties where it is going, in fact we won’t be able to keep it going in the 
counties where it’s currently in existence. People are not volunteering, I have over three 
hundred people, three hundred and fifty people on the list. Rockingham County has 
difficulty finding people, other counties have difficulty finding people. The program is 
not the same program that it was in nineteen ninety two (1992). It’s not the same program 
when Bruce Felmly was Bar President. At that time we were achieving the results that we 
talked about at that program with, at that time the program was probably one of the best 
in the country. People get older and people have other things to do. For whatever reason I 
cannot get new people to come into trainings. I cannot get new people to volunteer. I 
cannot expand the program on the same basis to the other counties. The program needs to 
find a way and the only way that we have seen has been what we have done with the 
Family Court, the Probate Court and the small claims and the District Court. The quality 
of the mediators, we have required that they have so many hours of continuing education, 
they are doing that and the people who are mediating in these programs are showing that 
when you say that I am a mediator I’m going to try and make myself better because 
there’s an economic incentive associated with that. They become better mediators. The 
people in the state of New Hampshire deserve a better program than the one we’re 
currently providing. 
Kathy: Further discussion? 
Will: I have a question, if I could. Do any of you who spoke or any of you who haven’t, 
have any awareness of what is working with ADR in other states? Are there states for 

example that have made it a successful ongoing program with volunteers, are there states 
that have determined that the only way to run the program successfully is to pay 
mediators? I’m curious. 
Peter: There’s an ongoing committee that Chief Justice Broderick has established to look 
at this issue and I’m primarily the person that’s doing the research in that area. There are 
about twenty eight states that in the last four or five years have made this change. We all 
started in the nineties using volunteers. I can’t think of a court program that started using 
anything other than volunteers. We’re finding that this doesn’t work. Maine, two years 
ago made the change. There are twenty eight other states that have made the change and 
other states are talking about this type of change. 
Kathy: Thank you. 
Cathy Green: Cathy Green. I would propose eliminating the last sentence of the first 
paragraph of the rationale in deference to Bruce’s age. And I would also propose 
eliminating the last sentence of the second paragraph and substituting the language “the 
court needs to explore methods to revitalize Rule 170 volunteerism and should explore 
the use of paid mediators, maintaining the availability of low-cost mediation.” 
Peter: Thank you. That sounds acceptable. 
Kathy: Would those that have moved and seconded, agree to a friendly amendment? 
Thank you. We’ll get that up on the screen. John would you like to go to the podium? 
John Crosier: John Crosier from Concord. Just a general comment because it’s beginning 
to surface on the matter of resource. I think when the Chief Justice asked us to do this 
assignment, was to make suggestions for ways to improve the court systems of New 
Hampshire and I took that charge to be without regard to cost and that the duty of the 
legislature and the courts are to work together to try and improve - and this might be one 
of the examples – that resources are available when they need to be and that we will have 
an opportunity as individuals to testify when these matters come from the court to the 
legislature and to the Governor and the budget process. And I hope we don’t avoid 
making a recommendation that is really a significant improvement, and I can think of 
several particularly in the drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs where the evidence is 
so very clear that that’s a better way to treat people with substance abuse problems than 
to lock them up and let them get out and it increases the rate of return to prison. So, that’s 
just a general comment that I wanted to make in terms of how I’m approaching this 
assignment. Thank you. 
(Applause) 
Kathy: Thank you. Methods. Julie’s trying to get this up on. Cathy, can you come and 
assist please? (laughs) 
Julie: I thought I could read it. 
Cathy Green: Mandating. 
Ken Barnes: While we’re waiting, Ken Barnes. While we’re waiting for her to get that 
up, can I just ask a procedural question. I thought that we weren’t going to be word-
smithing each of the recommendations today and to the extent, I mean this is one of the 
quick fixes, this isn’t even one of the recommendations that we were supposed to spend 
ten minutes discussing and by the way it’s been a lot more than ten minutes. So, I’m just 
wondering how the group thinks it’s best to proceed, because if we keep word-smithing 
like this on each of the quick fixes and each of the other ones, we’re never going to get 
through this agenda. Thanks. 

Kathy: You’re welcome and we had chosen to stretch the ten minutes, if we could 
finalize some of these recommendations and, and as we talked earlier, to get them 
finalized and everybody is comfortable, otherwise we will, we meaning Will and I, will 
do the rationale for all of them and get them back to you at the next meeting. The word-
smithing and amendments need to clearly come in today. If we can make people 
comfortable today, we’d like to try and clear the table with as many of these as possible. 
Is everybody comfortable with that, we’ll try to keep it fairly short, but again, we want 
you to be very, very comfortable with the way these come out, so we’d like to stretch the 
process a little bit in the ten minute theory to make that occur. Byron, do you have a 
suggestion? 
Byron Champlin: Byron Champlin, Concord. My first suggestion is to myself is that if 
I’m going to keep getting up, to sit at the end of the aisle. Could I suggest that where we 
have amendments to be made we try to charge representatives, individuals who are 
suggesting changes and members of the committee to step aside and to come up with 
wording that they could then bring back to the body- 
Kathy: Bring them back. 
Byron: - and then we can move on to another issue? 
Kathy: Yes. 
Byron: And then take that up later? 
Kathy: Are people comfortable doing it that way, so, ok, then we’ll continue to proceed 
and if there’s an amendment offered that you as a whole body wish to consider, then 
we’ll have Julie work on that and then we’ll keep proceeding. I don’t want to lose people, 
that’s my only concern is we start getting too confused. Thank you. Final language? 
Would you like to review the final language? Nina, you have a suggestion? 
Nina Gardner: (inaudible) 
Kathy: We have another motion to approve, with the amendment with a second. Further 
discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Number two, second one today. 
Will: Next is recommendation number seven and I took, I don’t know whether anybody 
else has an amendment to offer on this. And I took from the discussion that there was 
minor word-smithing needed to move some of the language in the rationale into the 
recommendation. And so I’ve done that and Julie if you can call up amendment number 
seven, number seven. I don’t think there was any substantive discussion about this, so in 
the interest of time if you want to take a minute or two to read this and if you’re okay 
with it, we can move ahead. 
(pause) 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Will: I’m sorry, I don’t have hard copies of this amendment. If you like I can read it? 
Kathy: Would you like us to read it? 
(Unknown): (inaudible) 
Will: Ok, the amendment reads as follows: “The Commission recommends that the Chief 
Justice initiate an aggressive education outreach campaign on multiple fronts to 
overcome the ignorance, mystery and misapprehension concerning the state courts that 
exists among a significant portion of New Hampshire citizens. The audience must be 
thoughtfully identified and selected so that key messages may be developed. The 
Commission recommends that one staff position be created to establish and administer 
this outreach program targeting internal and external audiences. Linkage with We The 

People, Kids Voting New Hampshire and other public school programs should be 
employed to explain the court system and make it more relevant to this group of soon-to-
be-served citizens. The state web pages, web page should be, or the state courts web page 
should be, should provide information on the campaign and should be used in the 
campaign’s delivery. When the campaign is unveiled, key leaders of the judiciary should 
be its face and should explain their own efforts to make the courts more user friendly. 
Each judge should be engaged in this campaign either as a member of the speaker’s 
bureau to present speeches to strategically selected audiences or as a writer of materials 
to facilitate the campaign. Articles and speaking engagements on private and public 
broadcasting facility should explain the history of the courts, why they are what they are 
and how they are changing to better serve the public.” 
Kathy: I have a motion, is there a second? 
(unknown): Second. 
Kathy: Question? Further discussion? 
(unknown): I don’t want to go to the mike, just the question is, do we really want to call, 
could we take out the word ignorance (inaudible) mystery and misapprehension and 
things like that (inaudible) 
Will: I didn’t want to go too far here, I had the same reaction. In fact generally, as a 
word-smithing instruction from you all to Kathy and me, I would like to suggest that we 
go through this in writing the final report and use positive language instead of negative 
language and if everybody’s comfortable with that, we will take the liberty of going 
through and making those kinds of changes, but I think, Andy, you raise a very good 
point. 
Kathy: Further question? 
Byron Champlin: Byron Champlin, Concord. As a comment on language, to call 
someone ignorant is not an insult. I’m ignorant of how to repair my car. It doesn’t mean 
I’m stupid, it means that I’m ignorant, I’m ignorant of the way to write a legal document 
because I’m not an attorney and I’m not trained. To say that some people are ignorant of 
something, means that they don’t know about it. They don’t understand it. Unfortunately 
it seems that ignorance and stupidity have become synonymous or people seem to think 
that they are but they’re not. I don’t think we have a problem with excluding or deleting 
ignorance as on the part of the committee, but ignorance is not something to be ashamed 
of, particularly. 
(unknown):: I agree with that but I also think that misapprehension (inaudible) 
Will: Ok. 
Kathy: Further? Further discussion? Come on down. 
Laurie Morrow: Laurie Morrow, Freedom. I would urge you not to change to positive 
language throughout this report. I happen to agree with Byron on the word ignorance. I 
think if you go through our recommendations and change the language to read in a 
positive way, you are at risk of watering down the impact of the recommendations that 
you wish to make. I’m speaking only from the standpoint of being a professional writer. 
But I think that there’s truth and honesty in the right word. In this case, not using this as a 
point but as an example, ignorance is appropriate. Many of us are ignorant, it does not 
mean we’re stupid but we are ignorant of the judiciary’s role in the state and how we can 
take advantage of it. That’s all I wanted to say, I suppose, but please when we do go 
through the final recommendations, if you go ahead across the board and make this 

positive and upbeat language, you really do run the risk of watering down the message 
and that’s what I warn you against. 
Kathy: Thank you. Further discussion? All in favor? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: (laughs) Hand up quick. Would you like to come to the mike, please? Thanks, 
Chris. 
Chris Keating: Chris Keating. I, is the motion to approve this with the thoughtful I think 
exclusion of the word ignorance? 
Kathy: Yes. Further question? Yes, Nina? 
Nina Gardner: (inaudible) 
Kathy: (laughs) No apology necessary. 
Nina: My name is Nina Gardner. I’m a little concerned about the “soon-to-be-served 
citizens.” It would be my hope that most citizens in the state would have no contact with 
the court system and so to suggest that they are all going to be at some point inevitably, is 
a sad commentary to make. And I’d just like to say soon-to-be-adults rather than soon-to-
be-served citizens. If that, I’m concerned that we’re posturing that all will be going to 
court and personally I can’t afford for that to happen to the state of New Hampshire. 
(laughter) 
Kathy: (laughing. Thank you, for saving New Hampshire money. 
Will: No disrespect intended, Nina, but I think we’re getting into the word-smithing that 
we want to avoid. 
Kathy: All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Next? 
Will: Ok, recommendation number eight. Does anybody have an amendment to offer? 
Kathy: Yes, there’s an amendment ready to go up on the board. Andy? 
Andy Peterson: I tried to put them on small pieces of paper to try to save a tree. 
(laughter) 
Andy: But at any rate, those that were here last week, this was discussed at some length 
and I believe the amendment is self explanatory. It is simply to have an interim report 
probably sometime around November before the legislative session and then after the 
legislative session, have a final report in order to affect change as a result of or 
recommendations or maximize the opportunity to do so. I’d be glad to have any 
questions. Thank you. 
Kathy: Questions? Do you want to take a moment to read the amendment. 
(unknown): Move it. 
Kathy: I have a motion. I have a second. Further question? All in favor? Any opposed? 
Moved as amended. 
Will: Ok, now we’re moving into category two, overlapping recommendations. The, does 
anybody have an amendment to offer on any of these? I did prepare one and would like to 
briefly explain what we’re after here. Recommendation, all three of these 
recommendations, I believe, were moved to the consent calendar last time and 
recommendation number twenty two which comes from the Public Access Committee 
suggested that the recommendation is streamlining court scheduling and promoting 
greater use of technology and communication access services for court conferences and 
hearings. I’m suggesting that we integrate this with recommendation number eleven 
which was, the Courts as a Business recommendation for, regarding information 
technology. I wouldn’t suggest changing any of the language, just merging the two. And 

the second thing is referencing recommendation number twelve so when we recommend 
what recommendation number twelve from the family Court Committee suggests for 
serving pro se litigants so we tie that into the IT end of things so that part of the 
improvement of services to pro se litigants is considered by the information technology 
plan. Is everybody comfortable with that? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: I have a motion. Is there a second? 
(unknown): Second. 
Kathy: Second. Discussion? Ken? 
Ken Barnes: Ken Barnes. I’m a hundred percent in favor of integrating the things that are 
similar but I hope that we’re not being asked to vote on something that we don’t know 
what it is. To vote yes only means that somebody should work on language that integrates 
these components the streamlining with the IT and the pro se stuff with the other pro se 
stuff, but we’re not voting on, we’re going to give somebody carte blanche to write 
whatever way they want to integrate it, right? We’re going to see what the integration is 
before we vote, right? 
Kathy: Will? 
Will: If you want to take the time to read it on the screen, it’s on the screen. If you can 
start, Julie, from the top of the recommendation. 
Ken: Can I just ask that maybe it would be a good idea to distribute all of the written 
copies that you have of things because some people in the room didn’t even get a copy of 
that number eight revised when Kathy was asking all in favor and it takes a long time to 
distribute each one, so let’s at least have them in our hands, we can you know, try to do 
as best as we can. I didn’t know that there was written out. 
Kathy: Was this merged earlier? 
Will: Nobody has a written copy of this amendment, ok? And if you want to not vote on 
this and- 
END OF SIDE A OF TAPE 1, SIDE B AS FOLLOWS: 
Will: -technology. 
Ken: And again, I agree with that. I suggest that we follow the proposal that somebody 
made before that you know, the writers of these various integrations or other amendments 
give us other language, we’ll put them at the back of the list and we’ll get through some 
of these other proposals some of which already have language and we can actually vote 
on it. Yeah, table it. Thank you. That’s the word. 
Will: Ok, so there’s been a motion to table this. I don’t want to take Kathy’s job away 
from her, so. 
Kathy: We’ve just had a request to table it so that we can get copies to everybody 
somehow. We’ll have to figure that out. 
Will: Ok, next item, recommendation number sixteen for further discussion. In my 
arbitrary process of trying to package this agenda with Kathy, I suggested that these two, 
the recommendations number sixteen and twenty eight might want to be merged. Cathy 
Green has convinced me that they should remain separate, so does anybody, we’re going 
to treat them separately, there’s not an emerging amendment here. So, does anybody have 
an amendment to offer on item number sixteen? Recommendation number sixteen? 
Kathy: Kelly? 

Will: Was Kelly’s amendment circulated electronically to everybody? 
Julie Morris: No, it just came in last night. 
Kathy: No, it just came in last night. 
Will: Ok. Do we want, in the interest of following the procedure we just laid out, do we 
want to distribute copies to everybody before we consider it? 
Kathy: It’s three lines. 
Will: Ok. 
Kathy: Would the group as a whole consider three lines versus handing it all out? Ken? 
Would you consider three lines on an amendment instead of handing it out by piece of 
paper? 
Ken: (inaudible) 
Kathy: Ok, thank you. 
Kelly Ayotte: In the version I sent last night I double underlined the changes. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kelly Ayotte: I’ll summarize what you’re going to see, essentially what I’ve added to 
recommendation, it’s Kelly Ayotte, recommendation number sixteen is a couple of lines 
reflecting that therapeutic justice should be applied when the court system can do so 
consistent with public safety. And that was the only thought that I added to it, the other 
line says, adds that that’s particularly, therapeutic justice may be appropriate in those 
matters involving non-violent first time offenders. So those are the two sentences that are 
added and the rest of this essentially remains the same, I just wanted to add that 
component to it. And there you see at the top, the court system when it can do so 
consistent with public safety and then I added to carefully, to certain carefully defined 
matters which can come before the judiciary particularly those matters involving non-
violent first offenders and if you move down to the end of the rationale, I just added when 
they can do so while maintaining public safety. And that’s the additions that I added, I 
just wanted to reflect the balance of using therapeutic justice in those types of cases. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: Scroll back up to the recommendation? I have a motion and I have a second. 
Will: Any questions? 
Kathy; Is everyone comfortable? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: Cheryl, have you got the language? Further discussion? All in favor? Any 
opposed? Thank you. 
Will: Ok, moving right along. Recommendation number twenty two. Sorry. I’m getting 
confused here. Recommendation number twenty eight. Does anybody have an 
amendment? And I think Cathy you had hard copies and you distributed them? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Cathy Green: Cathy Green. I do have hard copies, but it’s a really very brief amendment, 
so if anybody wants the hard copy, let me know. (pause) I do, but I don’t think we need 
them. To pass them out. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy Eneguess: Does anybody else have an amendment that needs to be copied? No? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: All previous amendments have copies. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 

Kathy: Ok. Who has further amendments? What we’re going to do is we’re going to get 
them copied so that everybody’s got a hand, in their hand what it is. 
Will: Ken, I have yours up here. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Laura Kiernan: If anybody has anything that they need to be copied, should give them to 
me. 
Kathy: If you’ve got a hundred copies with you, we don’t need to make more. Number 
nine needs to be copied. 
Julie Morris: Laurie Morrow has it. 
Kathy: Ok, Laurie, you have it? Laurie Morrow, you have it? Mary Krueger, you have it? 
Right behind you, Laura. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: Thank you for your patience. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: Ok, we’re not going to save any more paper. Are we all set? Any further 
amendments that you don’t have enough copies for? We thought we’d go techo but it 
clearly isn’t working for everybody. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Julie: Twenty eight’s up on the screen. 
Kathy: Twenty eight’s on the screen. Cheryl, you have a question? 
Cheryl Killam: Yeah, just a process question. We were told to bring ninety nine copies- 
Kathy: Yes. 
Cheryl: - (inaudible) 
Will: Well, actually what you were told is if you didn’t trust technology, you should 
bring ninety nine copies which probably would have been the right thing to do and I 
apologize for not doing it. 
Kathy: (laughing) Ok, nobody else has any amendments, we’re going to get these copied 
and hopefully we’ll be able to keep going today. Very good, thank you. 
Cathy Green: Twenty eight. I do have hard copies for everybody, but the only change, it 
was suggested that instead of the original recommendation which was that we should 
instead of building a prison for maximum security inmates, we should instead build a 
substance abuse facility. We’ve changed it to state that we believe the state should 
consider instead investing in the establishment of a substance abuse program. Everything 
else is exactly the same. 
Kathy: Questions? Andy? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: I have a motion, I have a second. Further question? Paul? Further question? 
Paul Clements: I know I sound like a one trick pony but I make no apologies for that. 
Kathy: Please pull your mike down, Paul. 
Paul: The rationale begins by saying substance abuse is present in seventy five to eighty 
five percent of New Hampshire offenders and is a contributing factor in a variety of 
crime. In 2000 alone, the cost of that crime in New Hampshire was a hundred and forty 
four million dollars ($144 million). It’s a pretty expensive proposition but what I’d like to 
inform you of right now is that sixty five percent of the perpetrators of that drug and 
alcohol abuse and that related crime come from father-less homes. You can make a hell 
of an impact on these statistics, the rate of offenders, the cost to the state by instituting a 

rebuttable presumption of shared physical custody within the Family Courts. Instead of 
asking for more police officers, more courts, more prisons, more judges. Give the kids 
back their fathers. It will go a long way toward solving this type of problem. Thank you. 
Kathy: Further discussion? Question? All in favor? Opposed? Thank you. 
Will: Ok, now we’re moving on to category three, the extended discussion category. 
Kathy: (Laughs) 
Will: Actually a couple of people have assured me that I misappropriated a couple into 
this category that won’t require a lot of further discussion, so we’ll see. Recommendation 
number four from Communication and Customer Service. Does anybody have an 
amendment to offer on this? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Will: Somebody moved it for further discussion, so. 
Kathy: Yup, Cheryl, do you have a further amendment? Thank you. 
Cheryl Killam: The only change in this, this is Cheryl Killam, is the rationale. We added 
for many of our courthouses, many individuals with walking disabilities, in parentheses 
visitors, plaintiffs, defendants, attorneys, juries, judges and staff, close parentheses, must 
enter through a locked door in the rear which requires in quotes “ringing” a door bell and 
speaking over an intercom to security officers. This in quotes “back-door” treatment is 
often interpreted as being less equal to those who are able to enter the courthouse through 
the main entrance. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: I have a motion. 
(unknown): Second. 
Kathy: I have a second. Further discussion? Further question? All in favor? Any 
opposed? Thank you. 
Will: Recommendation number nine. I believe we have, that’s being copied right now, 
right? Can we defer that until we get the copies? Recommendation number ten. Any 
amendments on number ten? 
Kathy: Do you have an amendment, Ken or a question? 
Ken Barnes: A one word amendment. 
Kathy: (laughing) Ok. 
Ken; In the rationale we were listing the various outcome measurements, it seems to me 
that yes we should be concerned about timely justice, equal access and customer service 
and cost, but I think the quality of the decisions and of the proceedings is also worth 
mentioning. We don’t just want it to be fast and get everybody through there, but we 
want to make that sure we do that without compromising quality, so I would just add the 
word quality somewhere after the e.g. on line three of the rationale. Maybe after equal 
access. 
Kathy: Do I hear a motion? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: Do I hear a second? With that added language. Further discussion? All in favor? 
Any opposed? Thank you. 
Will: Recommendation number fifteen from the Family Court Research Committee. Does 
anybody have an amendment on this? Kelly? 
Kathy: Kelly, yours is coming? 

Will: Is it being copied? 
Kathy: It’s being copied. 
Will: Ok. 
Kathy: Thank you. 
Will: So we’ll defer that until the copies come back. Number nineteen, we have an 
amendment which I’ll circulate. Ok. 
Kathy: Will, she needs one. 
(pause-handing out copies) 
Will: Everybody have one? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: Does everybody have a copy of the amendment? Go ahead, Clyde. 
Clyde Terry: Good morning. My name is Clyde Terry and my role in life generally is the 
Chief Executive Officer of Granite State Independent Living. We’re a statewide 
advocacy and provider for services of people with disabilities and the elderly, offices 
throughout the state. The reason I say that is because for people with disabilities, the idea 
of vision and this idea of access in all aspects of life, whether it’s justice, whether it’s 
jobs, whether it’s healthcare is a fight that this community has been engaged in for some 
time. So being part of this Commission really puts us in a position to really start thinking 
broadly and thinking big in terms of exactly what our role is and how do we advocate for 
a society of what could be. And so we, in our role as our committee of this Commission, 
we really thought hard. We wanted to do more than talk about let’s fix a form. We 
wanted to do more than simply make sure there was a Wal-Mart greeter in the 
courthouse. We wanted to say that there are problems with justice and how are we going 
to identify them. And this is the beginning of trying to accomplish that goal when we put 
out this idea for you today, the idea of New Hampshire creating a civil Gideon. For 
people with disabilities, this idea of access is over thirty five years old. It’s not a new idea 
for us that people with disabilities should be able to get into courthouses. It was a 
conversation that occurred in the sixties and back then we were told it was too expensive, 
it can’t be done. It wouldn’t be accepted, it’s not a part of public policy. But thirty six 
years later, this Commission adopted that very principle just last week, that all citizens 
have a right to physically get into the courthouse. The same Commission thought big last 
week when it endorsed the principle of full funding for legal assistance because all of this 
society recognized that there are people that are indigent that needed access to attorneys. 
And we had to start the conversation to ensure there was adequate financial resources. So 
that representation and justice occurred to all of our citizens. And just this morning, ADR 
was adopted by this Commission which merely sixteen years ago was just a concept and 
a dream but we realized that it improved access to justice for all our citizens. This idea of 
incorporating a civil Gideon is like those ideas. The beginning of a conversation and I 
urge you to support this recommendation so we can start this conversation so that 
somewhere down the road indeed citizens who have specific interests, specific civil rights 
at stake have a guarantee of some protection. There will be others after me that are going 
to give you the details of this limited exercise, but I urge you to think big, to set a stake in 
the ground that’s high so that we can be proud of what we do here today. Thank you. 
Ginnie Martin: My name is Ginnie Martin and I direct the Bar’s Legal Services 
Programs. And every day we are faced with decisions, we have limited resources, we rely 
on volunteers. Every day we have to turn down people who need attorneys, want 

attorneys, there aren’t the resources available. We do the best with what we have and in 
many instances there’s a lot at stake, a tremendous amount at stake. We’re not talking 
about name changes, we’re not talking about boundary disputes, we’re not talking about 
drafting wills, we’re talking about essential rights important to all of us, family and 
home, basic American values. Because this is very short, I just want to read these words 
about committing New Hampshire to a civil Gideon and I really recommend to any of 
you if you’ve not had the opportunity, read the book by I think it’s Anthony Lewis, 
Gideon’s Trumpet, also a movie starring Henry Fonda which is very good. This case is 
from 1963, by the way. In the Landmark case of Gideon versus Wainwright, The U.S. 
Supreme Court found that people cannot adequately navigate the legal system on their 
own and that going to jail is too high a price to pay for one’s inability to afford legal 
counsel. And the person in this situation tried his very best, cross-examined witnesses all 
to no avail. The concept of a civil Gideon extends the premise of right to counsel to 
certain limited and I think this is where, you know, we really tried to be more focused 
this time, to certain limited and specific non-criminal cases in which essential rights are 
at stake. Essential rights contemplated by a civil Gideon can include the loss of custody 
of a child, the loss of shelter, housing. As we, just to follow up on what Clyde said, we 
really do pride ourselves in aspiring to be the best we can, do be a fair and just society 
and that requires certain things of us and it requires the protection of essential rights. A 
fair hearing when essential rights are at stake is premised on having legal counsel as the 
Gideon case states. The right to be heard would be in many cases, of little avail, if it did 
not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Inability to afford representation should 
not mean having to surrender vital legal rights. Just as going to jail is too high a price to 
pay for an inability to afford counsel, the cost to both individuals and society is far too 
great to allow those facing loss of a child or home to proceed without legal counsel due to 
their indigence. Thank you. 
Kathy: Question? 
Harland Eaton: My name is Harland Eaton. I have been, I’m not an attorney but I have 
been involved with the court system some twelve years. The disturbing part of all of this 
is I see more pro se litigants trying to come in, represent themselves because they can’t 
afford it. I think this is one of the outstanding issues before us in the whole system today. 
And I think unless we address it carefully, and I don’t know what the answer is, but 
justice should not be for sale to the highest bidder to the people that can afford it. 
Because the people that can afford it don’t have the problems. The people that cannot 
afford it, that'’ where the problem lies and I think it's our responsibility here as a group to 
look at something out here, recommendations, some method, however (inaudible) it 
might be, however financial it must be, I think it’s something that ought to be addressed. 
Because in the last twelve years I’ve seen an increase continually, I think it’s not, I 
believe I’m correct, I may not be, but I think it’s around sixty percent of people that come 
before the courts now are pro se people and if we don’t address it here, it’s never going to 
get addressed. 
Kathy: Further question? Do I hear a motion? Andy? 
Andy Peterson: I’m Andy Peterson and perhaps, you know, could be accused of being 
certifiable to stand up after those, that testimony and speak against this, but I find that I 
must. For the reason that follows, I think we spend, and is Nina here, how much on 

indigent defense now? 
Nina Gardner: About fifteen million. 
Andy: About fifteen million dollars a year, is that correct? 
Nina: Yes, we’re spending about nine hundred and forty thousand or so for civil legal 
services. 
Andy: I just don’t think- 
Kathy: Would you please repeat that for the record, Andy? 
Andy: Pardon me? 
Kathy: Would you repeat everything for the record so it gets into the record? 
Andy: Ok. 
Kathy: Thank you. 
Andy: I think we spend about fifteen million dollars a year for indigent defense which 
has been identified as a Constitutional right which isn’t at issue here. What we’re talking 
about here, was there something else? 
Nina: I also said that (inaudible) currently spends about nine hundred and forty thousand 
dollars on civil legal services. 
Andy: In addition, we now spend nine hundred and forty (thousand dollars) on civil legal 
services, ok. Two instances, one, landlord-tenant. I own a duplex, I do not have extra 
money to pay the mortgage each month. The tenant on one side is poor and is not paying 
their rent, does the state defend both? I think so under this because they’re both going to 
lose the home, right? One of them isn’t paying and the other one can’t pay the mortgage. 
I think that that’s certainly arguable. Then you have the situation of, I think it’s twenty 
one thousand, it’s over twenty thousand divorce cases that are either brought to court or 
are re-opened each year of which I believe it’s over seventy five percent at least one 
person’s pro se. People know the numbers better than I do that are involved in the legal 
business. Many of those involve child custody. Are we going to have attorneys go down 
for all of these cases? If so, what does that mean in terms of expense? I think it’s fine, if 
you want to vote a number of things as aspirational language, but I don’t think this is 
practical, I don’t think it’ll happen. And I don’t think therefore it’s a real answer to the 
questions that have been forwarded. If we wanted to look at some other solutions, like 
having fees on certain, you know, trusts and having that create insurance that would pay 
for cases where hardship is, you know, identified. For example, that might be a more 
practical solution, I don’t know. But I think simply stating this as something that we’re 
going to go into is something that will remain aspirational for some of the reasons I’ve 
identified. And those that know the subject better could probably find a few more. Thank 
you. 
Kathy: Further question? Bruce? Then Phil. 
Bruce Felmly: I’m Bruce Felmly. I think if I were on the U.S. Supreme Court or the New 
Hampshire Supreme Court for that matter, I would find a way as the court did in Gideon 
to expand Constitutional rights to include representational rights for these critical legal 
services. I am emotionally and I think constitutionally of a mind that this amendment 
goes in the right direction. I have one problem with the materials that are in front of you 
and it’s one word. One, because I don’t fully understand what it is and number two, I 
want this Commission to approach things and make a difference and have a positive 
impact. And the word is commit. If we were phrasing this and I suppose when I finish my 
comments I’ll frame this in the form of an amendment. If we were framing this to 

something like examine the enhancement of critical legal services to civil litigants by 
studying the implication of a civil Gideon in New Hampshire, I’d be all over it. I think 
it’s a great idea, I think that the speakers in favor of it want that kind of dialogue to go 
forward, I think this Commission can push that, but make no mistake about it, you’re 
talking about amending, either amending or expanding Constitutional rights since the 
U.S. Supreme Court nor our New Hampshire Constitution has been construed to provide 
this. You’re talking about a sea change in terms of the kinds of funding that’s involved 
and I’m in favor of that but I recognize the implications of that. So, my concern is that if 
we don’t change that then one, the first thing will happen that I’m concerned about is that 
this might get voted down here today. Because I think this is as far-reaching of a 
proposal. I like that, I like far-reaching things. But I’d like to start that dialogue and start 
that inquiry and have New Hampshire take, you know, a first lead if you will. No other 
state, I don’t think has done this but I would encourage them all to get on board. The 
federal government has a role in this, I would think, I really think we’re talking about a 
federal Constitutional right if anything at all. And I think there’s lots of other ways we 
can change it but I would suggest the amendment of the first word and I’m mindful that 
in certain circles here we be perceived as watering down the level of commitment to it 
but I, I’d like to, as they said, start the dialogue and I would suggest that we frame this in 
terms of expansion and examine the expansion of critical legal services to civil litigants 
by studying the limitation of the civil Gideon in New Hampshire. I’d like it to be 
aspirational and I’m afraid that if we go in the direction that this is framed it will not go 
anywhere. 
Kathy: Thank you. Further discussion, Phil? 
Hon. Phil Runyon: Good morning. I’m Phil Runyon, the Justice of the Jaffrey-
Peterborough District Court and as many of you know, the District Court is a place where 
many parties on both sides appear pro se and I’d like to echo, I think, Andy’s and Bruce’s 
comments there. I think we’re assuming the way this is worded here that if you are about 
to lose custody or if you’re about to lose your home, that means that you’re the 
meritorious person in that case and that’s not always the case. There are certainly 
situations where perhaps someone should lose custody and there are certainly 
circumstances where people should lose their house because of the way they’re behaving 
in the premises for example. And I think to assume that the person who is about to lose 
these things is the only meritorious person in the case who should be considered in 
awarding counsel is the wrong way to look at it. I’d have no problem with considering 
whether there are cases where both parties in these kinds of cases ought to be provided 
with counsel but I think to assume that loss of custody and loss of housing means that 
that’s the meritorious person who should be given the availability of public counsel I 
think is the wrong way to go into this. So, I would support both Andy’s and Bruce’s 
suggestions about how to deal with this. Consider the issue but not necessarily commit to 
this being the only way to resolve this problem. 
Kathy: Bob, then Ken, then John. 
Hon. Bob Lynn: Again, I made a comment on this- 
Kathy: Please state who you are please. 
Hon. Bob Lynn: Oh, I’m sorry, Bob Lynn from the Superior Court. I made a comment on 
this which I circulated generally, but again it may be that people just didn’t, because of 
some problem with the email, people just didn’t get this, get the comment. I guess I 

would, I have the same, I again would echo Bruce Felmly, my problem with this is the 
word commit. And I think the difficulty we have here is what does this mean, commit 
who? I mean as I think Bruce pointed out there are two ways it seems to me this could 
happen. One, the legislature could decide that there should be a civil Gideon and various 
classes of people in civil litigation ought to have and if you want to say that, you know, 
fine, say the legislature should be committed to do this or the Governor, or the legislature 
and the Governor should be committed to do this. The other way I suppose would be to 
say that the Constitution should be amended in New Hampshire or maybe at the national 
level and again, I suppose if you want to say that, you could change the wording to say 
that. The third way, I suppose would be to say that, and what we’re really saying is the 
New Hampshire Supreme Court should without a formal amendment to the Constitution 
should adopt a civil Gideon as a matter of constitutional law. Say that the Constitution as 
it now exists means that. I have a real question about the appropriateness, there’s no case 
or controversy pending in the New Hampshire Supreme Court right now or addressing 
this. So what are we saying? Are we saying, you know, are we sort of urging the New 
Hampshire Supreme Court the next time this comes up to do this? I have some real 
question about the appropriateness and I frankly think that this, this is not something, 
unless the court is prepared, unless that’s what we’re doing is urging the court sort of on 
its own to do this, which I think is inappropriate for this Commission to be doing, I really 
have a feeling that this will be viewed as I said in my comment as a sort of political issue. 
This may or may not be a good social policy, but I’m not quite sure that this, that this is 
something that this Commission should be doing. I think it would be really beyond the 
scope of the, of this Commission’s work and I share the same view, the same concerns 
that Judge Runyon mentioned that this, the implications of this, it seems to me are 
broader than one might think of at first blush. I know that one of the, well, I guess I’ll 
save my comment for question, for issue twenty one because it, I sort of lumped 
recommendations nineteen and twenty one together but since we’re doing them 
separately, I’ll save my, the rest of my comments for number twenty one. Thank you. 
Kathy: Thank you. Ken? 
Ken Barnes: Hi. Ken Barnes. Let me just start by addressing what judge Lynn just 
referenced and Judge Runyon had talked about about the assumption that anybody is who 
is facing a custody problem, the loss of custody of a child or the loss of a home is 
necessarily a meritorious person. Nobody is saying they’re meritorious any more than the 
right to council for criminal defendants is saying that somebody who’s accused of murder 
or rape is a meritorious person. The question is whether you have the right to a lawyer 
when you go in to defend yourself or to pursue affirmatively your rights in the child 
custody or the shelter areas. And I don’t think anybody who has ever been to court and 
watched pro se people put on their case can say that a lawyer is not important. Pro se 
people simply, what Bruce Felmly said last time, I didn’t like the way it came out 
sounding, but he said the first rule of pro se people is you’re going to lose. I don’t think 
that’s necessarily the case, but I think that if you do not have the assistance of a lawyer, 
who after all is, has spent three years of law school and a lifetime of experience learning 
the rules of evidence, the rules of procedure, how one argues, what hearsay means, all of 
these various things. People who don’t have lawyers are at a tremendous disadvantage in 
court. And what all this civil Gideon proposal says is that people who have essential 
issues like loss of a child or loss of their home, should at least have the right to defend 

themselves with a lawyer. And so what I would propose is an amendment to Bruce’s 
proposal and if Bruce is really only concerned about the word commit New Hampshire to 
a civil Gideon, I would move for amending his amendment to have the first sentence 
read, New Hampshire should move toward adoption of a civil Gideon. It doesn’t have to 
say commit, but move toward adoption and then further amendment would be at the end 
of the recommendation say as a first step toward moving in this direction a study 
committee should be appointed to look into these issues. So that takes away the 
commitment that Bruce and others were so concerned about and having a study 
committee but it still keeps the aspirational part about, as Clyde was talking about, there 
are so many things that we take for granted now in court. Including Gideon by the way. 
Prior to 1963, criminal defendants were getting sent away to jail without having a lawyer 
and you know, as hard as they might be, they went away for the rest of their lives without 
a lawyer. So, I really think that we should keep in mind Clyde’s admonition, we’ve got to 
take the first step. We’ve got to start the conversation. Whether it’s actually going to be 
adopted or how the state is going to adopt a civil Gideon in the next five, ten, twenty 
years is not what we have to be concerned about, but we have to think broadly about the 
problem of access to justice in New Hampshire for civil litigants with essential rights and 
I urge that amendment that I proposed. Thank you. 
Kathy: John? 
John Tobin: Hello, I’m John Tobin. I just wanted to make three quick points. The first is 
to echo what John Crosier said a little while ago is that our role here is not to be the 
House Finance Committee and look at the cost of things. Our role is to try to be bold and 
to think about the big directions that the court system needs to go in and there are a 
number of recommendations that we’ve already passed that are very aspirational, that 
will cost a lot of money, that will challenge a lot of things and we’ve done that because 
we’re trying to fill our role of stepping back, taking a fresh look and having a big picture 
view. And, I guess, the other thing I would say to you is to think about yourself, if you 
were in court and your home was at stake, your home was being foreclosed on or you 
were being evicted. And, would you think that would be important for you to have a 
lawyer or not? When these kinds of things are at stake, I can’t imagine someone, there are 
some people, there are some people who are pro se to the end, but most people as Bruce 
has recognized, recognize that a lawyer can make a difference. A lawyer can cross 
examine people, a lawyer an unearth evidence, a lawyer can frame the case, a lawyer 
knows the law and when something is important, I think all of us want to have that 
advocacy. The point of this is that when something is important, at stake in our court 
system, whether or not you have an advocate ought to not depend on how rich or poor 
you are. This, if we adopt this recommendation it will be the same as many others, the 
other recommendations we adopted, many of them require legislative enactment. Many 
of them require spending money. Many of them require court rules and legislative 
enactment. This is no different. This is simply us as a Commission saying that we’ve 
heard the pro se problem is one of the most fundamental problems in the court system 
and that beneath that is the inability of people to pay for lawyers. And we want to look at 
that, we want to address that fundamental. Thank you. 
Kathy: I have Martha and Ed Kelly. Ken, were you speaking on behalf of your 
Committee, offering that amendment to the discussion? 

Ken Barnes: (inaudible) But I haven’t polled the Committee. I’m speaking on behalf of 
myself. 
Kathy: Ok. Well, we can do two things here. Would the Committee like to take this into 
consideration and take it back before we hear from Martha and Ed and come back or 
what is the pleasure of this Committee? 
Ken: Well they were nodding that I was speaking for them, I guess but I really was 
speaking for myself. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Ken: They’re all ok. 
Kathy: Ok. So, what we are discussing at this point in time is a one word change to…the 
recommendation as you have it in front of you. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: From, I’m sorry, from the word commit and it, from what I understand it says 
New Hampshire should move toward adoption of, was that the recommendation? 
Ken: (inaudible) 
Kathy: Right, so- 
Will: Before- 
Kathy: We have, we’ve got a couple of amendments that are moving around, so I want to 
get clarified, do you all want to go caucus for a few minutes and try and figure this out? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: Thank you. 
Ken: Our Committee did not want to go caucus, we- 
Kathy: We have a table, it’s non-debatable. 
Ken: I understand that but you were sounding as if we wanted to go out and caucus, we 
don’t want to table it. 
Kathy: Ok. 
Ken: We urge rejection of the table motion. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: I did hear the second. Thank you. So the Committee does not wish- 
Will: What is the wish- 
Kathy: -The Committee does not wish to take this back, is that correct? You want to 
leave the language as you had proposed and you’re willing to have that go up or down? 
Right? 
Ken: No, the language as I amended it. The language as I amended it. 
Kathy: That’s correct. Ok. Would you figure out exactly what that language is so we can 
get it up on the screen for Julie and then we’ll bring it back off the table? No, would you 
do that around the corner right here and we will move on? No, it is un-debatable, that is 
correct. But, so people know the difference of where they’re headed. So we are back to 
the recommendation as proposed. Go ahead, Martha, you had a comment? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: Yes. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: Yes, you would. 
Ken: But everybody did have the opportunity to (inaudible) the amendments (inaudible) 
just like the other recommendations that we’ve had. There’s no more reason to table this 
than there is to table all the other proposals we had here today. 

Kathy: Dick? 
Dick Winters: (inaudible) 
Will: Could you come up to the mike? 
Kathy: Yes. We have a motion and seconded move to table and a parliamentary inquiry if 
you wish to vote for this, would you vote in the affirmative? And your question? 
Dick: My question is, and I think I’m repeating Andy’s comment is that if we now move 
to table this, we can pull it off the table once new wording has been agreed upon. I would 
prefer to have Barnes and Felmly get together, but if they don’t choose not to do that, at 
least we can get the wording there, we can move on and my sense is this is really just a 
point of inquiry and I think we should move to a vote on the table motion. 
Kathy: Thank you. Is everyone clear, if we move to table this, you then later can pull it 
off the table? Is everybody clear about that? All in favor of moving to table? Any 
opposed? Thank you. It has now been tabled. Would you like to move to the next 
recommendation? 
Will: Recommendation number twenty one, from the Public Access Research Committee. 
Is there an amendment on this recommendation? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Will: We’ll distribute the amendment. 
(pause-handing out copies) 
Will: Ok. 
Kathy: Does everyone have- 
END OF TAPE 1 SIDE B. TAPE 2 SIDE A AS FOLLOWS: 
Ken Barnes: -a very eloquent statement about how thinking about the big picture and the 
needs of the state’s residents should at least be put on the table, the conversation should 
at least be started and the purpose of this statewide office of citizens advocate is in a way 
to continue the work of this Citizens Commission on the State Courts that we’re all 
members of here. To keep this conversation going, to keep addressing the issue of access 
to the courts or, not access but the lack of access of people without sufficient financial 
resources to purchase legal services. We talked about fully funding legal, civil legal 
assistance, that is available for people of low incomes. You have to be a little above the 
poverty line, somewhere above the poverty line to be eligible for those traditional legal 
services that are now only meeting the needs of something like twenty percent of the 
indigent population. The moderate income people, middle income people many of us in 
this room, would answer John Tobin’s question from before if we had a problem with our 
house being foreclosed upon, would we hire a lawyer, the answer is yes we’d like to but 
then could we afford it? I’d probably say we’d have a hard time affording to hire a lawyer 
if there was actually going to be a trial on issue of our loss of our housing. It costs a lot of 
money in the private market in New Hampshire and it costs a heck of a lot less in New 
Hampshire than it does in other states. Not only low income people, but moderate income 
people can’t afford it. Regular working people can’t afford it. A large number of middle 
class people can’t afford it. And so, the, our Public Access Committee tried to think about 
ok, what kinds of things can we propose that would help the people in that category, 
middle and moderate income people. We proposed the civil Gideon as a way to have at 
least a right to an attorney for certain essential issues like the loss of your home or child 
custody. But what about all the other kinds of legal matters that people have in civil 
litigation? You know, somebody mentioned wills, people should have a will, but can they 

afford it, maybe not. But in court, if you get injured in an accident, if you are injured on 
the job, maybe you can’t afford a lawyer, there are a lot of areas where if you’re, if your 
employment has some issues, if you’re terminated or suspended or something like that. 
And if you’re going to go and litigate that, that could be a seriously expensive thing. So, 
how do you deal with it? And what we came up with is for rights that are less than, legal 
rights that are less than essential, the idea of a citizens advocate and one thing that we 
propose that you can see on the hand-out is a study, a needs assessment to analyze, ok, 
what areas are there needs in? Family law, divorces, maybe an area where some people 
can’t afford problems, but that’s not the only area, there may be others. The second area 
is serve as an ombudsman in all the courts. That is our attempt to integrate our proposal 
for a citizens advocate with the proposal that was in the middle of one of the Customer 
Service recommendations, to have an ombudsman, and this would be to help people who 
are already in court to deal with their customer service kind of problems with the court 
system. Clear up any misunderstandings, advocate for achieving the customer satisfaction 
that we all want. Item C is to monitor the justice system and advise the courts as our 
Citizens Commission is doing here on a one-time basis, but to do it on an ongoing basis. 
Monitor changes in the population, changes in demographics might require language 
access issues to be addressed. As has happened. Changes in other aspects of the types of 
cases filed, maybe there are a lot of bankruptcies, if the economy goes bad. But what are 
the kinds of things where people are not getting assistance and therefore are not getting 
full justice in the courts, and make recommendations. Are the courts living up to the other 
proposals that the Citizens Commission here have made. I know there’s a proposal by 
Representative Peterson to have the Chief Justice get back to us in six months, but what 
happens after the six months is over? Shouldn’t the kind of work that our Commission is 
doing be ongoing and something that we look at again? The world will change drastically 
in the next fifteen years as it has in the past fifteen years. We didn’t even have internet 
fifteen years ago, imagine what it will be like fifteen years from now. The proposal 
would have somebody looking at how the courts should respond to that. And item D is to 
identify possible substantive legal issues that affect a lot of people. For instance if there’s 
a policy of a state agency or a hospitals billing practices or whatever the issues may be, 
those are some of the things that you read about in the papers all the time that seem to be 
systemic problems that affect a large number of people and the citizens advocate could 
refer those to private attorneys who might be willing to take the case. They might take the 
case pro bono. There are advocacy organizations, legal assistance, disability rights center, 
there are consumer groups, environmental groups, but refer systemic cases out so that 
each individual doesn’t have to come into court with his or her own case and burden the 
courts and other lawyers, with other parties with having to reinvent the wheel with every 
individual case. So if there’s systemic cases, let’s refer them out to lawyers that have 
systemic issues. So those are the recommendations that we have and again, I wish I could 
be as eloquent as Clyde but I think that the Commission needs to be willing to start a 
conversation with the other people in the state, the people with power and the ordinary 
average citizens. To start a conversation, to make sure that access to justice eventually 
becomes a reality for everybody in New Hampshire. Thank you. 
Kathy: Thank you. Question? Kelly? 
Kelly Ayotte: Good morning. Kelly Ayotte, Attorney General. In reading this proposal 
and I’ve obviously read the prior proposal and I’ve just had a chance to read this revised 

version as I understand it. I have a number of serious concerns. Foremost, I’m not sure 
who this office is going to report to. I mean is this an office that works for the court 
system? It seems to be interfacing with the court system but does it fall under the 
auspices of the Chief Justice or is it going to be its own separate bureaucracy. Because 
the way it’s framed, there are a number of very effective mechanisms now existing within 
our state for example on broader consumer issues, I have a consumer protection and anti-
trust bureau which I would like to see and we have New Hampshire Legal Assistance that 
does a number of bringing broader systematic cases where there are concerns involved. 
And they brought a number of cases like that including the Disability Rights Center. And 
so this organization as I understand it seems to contemplate taking over some 
responsibilities that a number of existing mechanisms already are in place in New 
Hampshire law. And I'm just not clear about it and how it will work. And I'll tell you that 
those mechanisms that are in place some of them have not, for example I can tell you our 
consumer protection bureau, the legislature two sessions ago voted to add a number of 
positions to the consumer protection bureau but never funded those positions. So I guess 
what I would like to do is see us examine what we already have in place and maximize 
the effective mechanisms we have in place rather than create an entire new bureaucracy 
that I’m not sure how it will interact with already some effective things we have going 
and some effective organizations that are working quite well on behalf of New 
Hampshire citizens and could do so an even better way if we looked at perhaps giving 
more resources to existing organizations such as, like I said our consumer protection 
bureau looks at systematic issues that deal with consumers. New Hampshire Legal 
Assistance and Disability Rights Center. So I have some serious questions about this as to 
where this is going to fit in and I’m not sure creating another bureaucracy that I’m not 
sure how is going to fit in with existing organizations is really going to be effective or 
accomplish what I think is this proposal is trying to accomplish. 
Kathy: Further question? Eric, then Ralph. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: Why don’t we hear from others and then you can respond. 
Eric Herr: Eric Herr from Hill, New Hampshire. I’d like to build on the Attorney 
General’s comment by for example noting that on item C will create a function to 
monitor the justice system and advise the courts about procedural improvements. I think 
they have that job today. We shouldn’t relieve the, all those groups in the state that have 
current obligations. The legislature, the courts themselves, the Governor. There’s a little 
bit of audit function it seems to me in here, the legislative budget or the audit, I forget 
what it’s called, there have been, LBA, have done audits of the state justice system. We 
shouldn’t relieve the current organizations with responsibility for oversight of justice and 
improving performance. We should rely on them and make sure they understand they 
have that obligation. 
Kathy: Thank you. Ralph. 
Ralph Littlefield: Good morning. My name is Ralph Littlefield from Concord, New 
Hampshire. I think the first thing that we need to do is ask each one of ourselves as 
citizens, how do I have my voice heard on policies and procedures in the New Hampshire 
Court System that affect my life? Also, I think you need to ask yourself, if I have a 
problem and I need information, where do I go? Who do I talk to? When you look at the 
other three branches, when you look at all three branches of government, New Hampshire 

legislature’s pretty clear. I can go to my local House Rep that’s in my town. I can go to 
my State Senator in my district. I can come here to the legislative building. I can 
participate in offering legislation. I can go to hearings. I can lobby. And the Executive 
Branch, we’re still a small enough state where we can go up and make an appointment 
with the Governor or his staff. Or we can talk to the folks in government that manage 
most of the programs that are out there. But in the New Hampshire Court System, where 
do we go? Who do we talk to as citizens? If you remember the surveys that we 
participated in when we started this process at the Citizens Commission, generally our 
citizens felt good about the court system. They felt it was doing its job. But when you 
went a little bit deeper and asked them about specifics about the court, most of them 
could not answer the questions. They couldn’t give you the answers of who do I go to? 
And who do I talk to and how is my voice heard in the court system? Likewise when we 
went to the public hearings and we listened to the testimony that was presented in the 
public hearings, we heard over and over again from those groups that they appreciated 
the opportunity to speak to the issues that concern them about the courts. It was almost 
like they had no other venue to come and speak to the court about issues that concern 
them. If you take a look at the groups like the Father’s Rights group, whether you have 
their issues or not, or believe in their issues, I think one of the things that I heard over and 
over again in most of those public hearings was how do I have my issue, how do I take it 
before the court, how does the court look at it, who do I turn to to have my issues 
resolved? I think when the Chief Justice established this Citizens Commission, he 
understood the importance of citizen input and I think likewise he felt that he needed 
advice and issues that confront the court from the local citizens. How do we do that and 
how do we accomplish it? I think in the recommendation that comes out of the Citizens 
Commission, it’s kind of fundamental. One of our issues is how do we formalize for 
citizens their right to input into the court system that affects their life? One of the 
recommendations from the Public Access Committee is to establish an office of citizen 
advocate so that it’s clear for New Hampshire citizens that they at least have one place to 
go that’s very clear. Right now as several folks have already mentioned, there are 
multiple places to go. But it’s not clear to the New Hampshire citizen where they go, who 
they talk to about the issues before the court. In recommending the citizen advocate, 
we’ve also relied on models that already exist in the community and in our state. Such as 
the public, the PUC consumer advocate and their office. Not only do they have an 
individual or several individuals who participate in that conversation and follow out on 
its task but they also have an advisory board made up of local citizens who advise them 
about the issues before the public utilities commission and what positions they should 
take. As far as I know there are no such representative bodies within the court system to 
advise the court on these type of issues. During our last commission deliberation on this 
particular issue, there was some suggestions that the recommendation duplicated the 
responsibilities of the New Hampshire Judicial Council. We took a look at the RSA’s, 
reviewed the Council and its responsibilities and I quote “to serve as an institutional 
forum for the ongoing and disinterested consideration of issues affecting the 
administration of the New Hampshire Court System.” It very well might be the 
administrative model that may be the advocates office operates under. But when you also 
look at the RSA, there are twenty four members of this particular council, five of them 
are lay people. The rest have a direct administrative role in the court or the judicial 

system. In our recommendation we don’t envision that as being input by the general 
citizenry. We feel that we need to have input that is given to the Chief Justice and the 
staff and comes from the citizens. That it’s clear to New Hampshire citizens where they 
go, who they can talk to about these issues and how can they have their issues reviewed. 
Now many of you might feel that there’s an adequate level of citizen input into the New 
Hampshire Court System. Then you certainly vote this recommendation down, but if you 
feel like I do that there’s room for improvement, that we need a defined way for citizens 
to bring their issues to the court and review them, then I hope that you’ll consider voting 
for this and give the Chief Justice and his staff an opportunity to at least review the issue 
and the recommendations and how best to proceed. Thank you. 
Kathy: Anyone else wishing to speak for the first time? Mary? 
Mary Krueger: Mary Krueger from Concord. I guess I just wanted to reiterate a couple of 
things. I was on the Customer Service and Communications Committee and we discussed 
some of these issues as well. They are reflected in our recommendation number four 
where we talk about a one eight hundred (1-800) number and having an ombudsman and 
the, the, some of the background as to why we recommended these things has to do with 
the fact that a lot of the court staff are having to deal with questions that are completely 
out of the realm of what they are equipped or qualified to answer. When people walk into 
the courthouse they may be in the wrong place. Trying to figure out what it is, where they 
need to be, what they need to be doing. And I see that this recommendation would 
alleviate some of that and also make things happen a little more efficiently for the staff 
themselves that are having to be as helpful as they can with people that don’t really know 
whether they even need to be there in the first place. Another thing is this summer I was 
an intern with New Hampshire Legal Assistance up in the Berlin and Littleton offices and 
I spent sometime answering the phones and I would say that every time I was answering 
the phones, each day maybe ten days out of the summer, I got at least two calls from 
people who were just looking to find out where it is they were supposed to go for help, 
whether it was for custody issues or issues that had nothing to do with what New 
Hampshire Legal Assistance did, but they just needed guidance as to where do I go, who 
do I talk to and fortunately I had in front of me a list of places and I could say what’s 
your issue and I could refer them out. So having someone whose role to do that in the 
state I think would just be a really useful and efficient thing for people to have as a 
service. And then finally, the other piece that I wanted to mention, there’s also the flip 
side, the public perception of what the courts are here to offer is sometimes the “Judge 
Judy” thing that you know, that most average citizens think that you can go to the court 
with any dispute and have the court resolve that dispute for you. Having someone to call 
to say what do I do, my neighbor is, you know, shoveling the snow into my yard and I’m 
really upset about this and I want to bring a lawsuit. Having someone who’s qualified to 
say, you know, that may not be an appropriate thing to deal with through the courts and 
here’s why. And that’s not something that a court staff person is necessarily comfortable 
doing, so for that reason, I think setting up a place for people to call to at least get basic 
information and I don’t know if that pairs this down too much but I do think that that’s an 
essential piece I would hate to lose if people do vote this down and I also just think it’s a 
great way to gauge how the citizens are feeling about how the court system is operating 
for them as a service and that an ombudsman or an office of the advocate could really 
take in all that information, identify trends in the state, what the problems and the issues 

might be and help to fix those problems for the people who deserve to have justice 
served. So, thank you. 
Kathy: Thank you. Further question? 
Hon Bob Lynn: I’m Bob Lynn from the Superior Court. It seems to me this, I find this 
recommendation very troubling because it seems to me that one of the most important 
things that the court system has to offer is that we are a system that we don’t take sides. 
We will adjudicate anybody’s dispute, we don’t, we don’t take sides, we don’t have an 
agenda. And just as an example, one of the things that this proposal seems to suggest if 
I’m reading it correctly is that this sort of ombudsman would sort of decide what is in the 
interest of the average citizen. And in contrast to the example that was cited was the 
consumer advocate for the public utilities commission. It seems to me that that is a much 
more limited and discreet role, it’s not hard it seems for me for people to understand that 
in the sort of unique context of public utilities regulation, you have a group of utilities 
who sort of have, you know, can afford to hire lawyers, who can afford to have a 
particular interest in furthering one particular agenda and in that particular context maybe 
you do need to have someone who, to speak up for the rate payer, so to speak. But this is 
a much broader, the courts are a much broader institution. Who is the average citizen and 
who will decide that/ Will it be as Mister, as Judge Runyon pointed out, will it be the 
small landlord who owns the duplex and has to be concerned about making his mortgage 
payment or will it be the tenant who can’t afford to move? Who will decide what the 
interests of the average person are? It seems to me at least as to subsection D of this 
proposal, it seems to me that one of the suggestions would be that the Judicial Branch 
will have an ombudsman who will in some fashion, I suppose, survey the landscape and 
decide what is fair or unfair and then will go out and either find the private lawyers to 
bring a lawsuit or at least as I read the original proposal and maybe it’s still in here, be 
authorized to bring a lawsuit on his or her own, on behalf of, you know, some agreed 
parties. Now can you imagine if you’re the person on the other side of that lawsuit? And 
you’re going before the five justices of the Supreme Court and it’s their employee who 
has suggested that this litigation be brought. How does that look? How can anyone 
suspect that this is a fair and impartial body? It’s taken, it’s taking sides. One of the 
things that, that the judiciary, the judiciary’s fundamental role is that we decide disputes, 
we don’t go out and look for disputes that we would like to decide. At least I hope that 
that’s something we never do because if we want to maintain confidence in the judicial 
system, you can’t do that. We can’t be a court that is only available to the quote “average 
citizen”. As that may be defined by somebody in some unspecified manner. I think that 
this is a very, very inappropriate thing for a court system to do. You know, maybe should 
the legislature do something like this? I suppose they should do that but my thought, I 
guess my suggestion or my inclination would be that if somebody thinks that something 
is broken in the system, the person that you go see is your legislator to correct the system. 
You know, one of the things that was said and I think it’s very true, one of the my prior, 
one of the prior speakers said well, if I have a complaint, it’s hard to know who to go to 
in the court system. Reality is that in a sort of very concrete way, most of those types of 
complaints are about because somebody’s involved in the court system or at least expects 
that they’re going to be involved in the court system and of course, you know, I get those 
things, I’m sure other judges get those kind of things all the time where somebody calls 
up and would like to talk to me and of course my first question is about what? And if it 

turns out as it usually does that it’s about some case that either I have or some other judge 
had, I have to say no, I’m sorry, I can’t have an ex parte conversation with you. And 
would you want it to be some other way? Would you really want that, to be, you know, 
that as long as it’s on behalf of the average citizen, it’s ok for the judge to get that input, 
either directly or through this advocate? I suspect that if you really think about it, you 
would not. Thank you. 
Kathy: Thank you. Anyone else want to- 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: - I have a motion to table, is there a second? I have a second. 
Ken Barnes: (inaudible) something that Judge Lynn referred to, there’s no longer any 
litigation component in this. It’s, that’s been taken out in the amended version and it’s 
mostly kinds of things that Miss Krueger was talking about, assisting average citizens 
when they have issues dealing with the process and referring people to some outside 
lawyer and that can be done for both sides. You can refer a landlord and a tenant, a public 
defender has conflict counsel, that’s outside. The NHLA has sometimes represented 
elderly landlords as well as tenants, so, it’s not a litigation component or taking one side 
as Judge Lynn was talking about. 
Kathy: All in favor to table this? Any opposed? The eyes have it, the third item that has 
been tabled today. 
Will: Recommendation number twenty three. Did somebody have an amendment on this? 
Kathy: There is no amendment, is that correct? Alan, you’re just presenting this? 
Al Cantor: Yes I am. Hi, I’m Al Cantor. I live in Bow. It’s appropriate that I present 
because people think I’m a lawyer because there’s another Alan Cantor who spells his 
name the same way, but I am not. So, I’m a pro se person standing in front of you here. 
Our Committee on Access to the Court has been dealing with an issue and I think we’ve 
been grappling with it over the last hour or so with various amendments. We have a hole 
in the system here, folks where people have not had fair access to the courts. Sometimes 
it’s been physical or linguistic and one of the proposals from our Committee that was 
passed last week dealt with that. That reduced the hole a little bit. Often it’s financial and 
another thing that was passed last week about fully funding legal services, again, 
narrowed that a little bit by if this ever happened, by taking the lowest of the folks in the 
economic ladder and guaranteeing them legal service. We’ve tabled and I hope we will 
return to the discussion about civil Gideon because that’s part of closing the gap and 
making the courts accessible to all, it’s a really basic American value. What we’re talking 
about here are several things which when looking at this, Will and Kathy, it kind of ties 
together with what was in proposal twelve coming out of the Family Court Commission, 
Committee dealing with pro se’s. It’s really basically saying that there is this pro se 
population, it’s been referred to many, many times over the last two weeks, over the last 
many months. Folks who are going into court without the aid of lawyers, it bogs down 
the court system and it does not provide a fair, fairness to those who are litigants. And so 
our proposals are basically a set of ameliorating efforts to try to make those folks have a 
better shot at it. One of them echoes what the, apparently the Supreme Court Committee 
on Rules has already said about unbundled legal services and what we wrote in our 
rationale is saying a little bit of a lawyer is better than no lawyer at all. Something that 
perhaps some people might argue with, but I won’t, that if you can get somebody to come 
in and just help you with one part of the case, one procedural issue without taking it all 

on. And, and other areas talked about the case manager system, expanded use of 
paralegals which helps lower down some of the costs and the uncontested divorce kit. We 
didn’t have any amendments to this because I don’t think there was, there was more of a 
request for greater discussion about this, but we didn’t hear any particular part of this 
being troubling to people, but we just couldn’t get our arms around it last week. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: I have a motion, is there a second? I have a second, is there further discussion? 
Eric? 
Eric Herr: I’d just like to point out a potentially inconsistency in the way we’re 
approaching the topic and in particular refer you to lines twenty one through twenty four 
of the rationale. “Keeping in mind that the ultimate ideal is to have full representation by 
an attorney with a thorough and integrated knowledge of the client and his or her needs, 
the fact is…” and it goes on. You know, we’ve, we’ve, it’s not clear to me that success 
with legal institutions is to have every case, every issue tried and requiring a full time 
attorney. We’ve talked with other proposals here about alternative dispute resolution and 
I wonder if, I just raise the concern speaking only to a world where every action requires 
a full time attorney may not be in the best interest of the system, either the state or the 
judicial system. 
Kathy: Further question? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: You all set to vote? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. 
Will: Recommendation number twenty six from the Sentencing Committee. 
Kathy: We have an amendment to be handed out. 
Cathy Green: Again, our amendment is very minor, so I’m handing out copies, but I can 
tell you what the changes are. When we presented this last week, there was a concern that 
we had written that there was a large percentage of inmates who are sentenced to jail that 
shouldn’t be and we’ve amended that to read, “however there are numerous inmates who 
are sentenced to jail who could benefit from alternative sentencing.” And additionally on 
the last page of our recommendation in deference to Representative Peterson’s comments 
and Attorney General Ayotte’s comments, we have added language to say that “these 
pretrial diversion programs should be designed to protect public safety, compensate 
victims of crime and deter future criminal behavior.” So we’ve incorporated the 
amendments that were suggested last week. 
Will: Any questions for Cathy? I’ll let you read the amendment. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
(unknown): Second. 
Kathy: I have a motion for adopting the amendment you have in front of you and a 
second. Further question? All those in favor? Those opposed? Recommendation’s 
adopted. 
Will: Recommendation number twenty seven, also from the Sentencing Committee. 
(pause) 
Will: Copies are coming to you. 
Chris Keating: Chris Keating. I drafted, helped draft the original recommendation and 
just did a disservice to the Sentencing Group because it didn’t accurately reflect I think 
their sense of things and Judge Kelly quite rightly pointed out that there wasn’t actually a 
recommendation in the recommendation. And so the Commission and its wisdom sent me 

back to the drawing board and so what this tries to address is very cleanly and ideally 
efficiently, urge the courts to work with the legislature and the Department of Corrections 
to ensure that we have probation and parole officers to provide more supervision to 
offenders in our community. There’s a lot in here about public safety, Kelly, so 
addressing some of your concerns. And also to urge the courts to work with the 
Department of Corrections to come up with a unified sense about how to address 
substance abuse issues. I think the essence of the recommendation is to just get courts 
more information about substance abuse treatment and to get courts more information 
about offenders, and we think that we can reduce prison populations and jail populations 
in this way. And we can also promote public safety. 
Kathy: Question? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: I have a motion, is there a second? 
(unknown): Second. 
Kathy: Further question? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. 
Will: Ok, we’re going to go back to recommendation number nine and I’ll pass out a 
draft amendment. 
Kathy: This was the first item that was tabled this morning. 
(pause-handing out copies) 
Will: Did everybody get a copy? Oh, sorry. 
Kathy: This was the amendment that was up on the screen, so you have seen it but now 
you have it in your possession. Do I have a motion to remove this from the table? Thank 
you. Is there a second? Thank you. All in favor? Opposed? Thank you. 
Mary Krueger. Ok, I’m Mary Krueger from Concord. This was, I was the one who raised 
the initial concern about this so I just recommended this amendment. But the, a couple of 
things that concern me about this recommendation is that maybe there wasn’t enough 
emphasis on ensuring that court staff are properly compensated for the work that they’re 
doing and that their work load is being factored into the decision making around 
becoming more efficient. In section, so on section B, the last sentence, I just added, “in 
addition courts should be evaluated to determined whether there is sufficient staff to meet 
the current work load demands.” On the Committee that I served on, we did hear from a 
couple of people who work in the court system about the demands being made on current 
court staff without consideration for whether, you know, the legislature may pass a bill 
for example, that requires additional paperwork and the staff now has to do more tasks 
around that but they’re not hiring additional people to help out moving that paperwork 
through the system. In the example that I gave in the rationale has to do with the current 
parenting plan that was passed, a multi-page parenting plan that requires the staff to 
process. And it’s another added pile on their desk, but in the meantime they’re not 
necessarily alleviated of other work that they already had before this particular plan 
passed. So what we heard is that people are stressed out. The other piece had to do with 
the idea of customer service. When someone comes into the court and they’re dealing 
with an overworked stressed out person behind the counter, they’re not necessarily 
getting good customer service, so if we want to ensure that the courts are able to provide 
good customer service and justice, we want to make sure that the people behind the 
counter are satisfied with their jobs. Job satisfaction can come through compensation and 
salaries, it can also come through being heard by people. Being heard by management 

and judges about not only their concerns about getting the work done but also to get their 
ideas as to how to make the work better. And so I tried to reflect that in section D to 
recommend that staff are involved in helping problem solve, they have a lot of 
experience, knowledge about how courts run and if they’re asked for their input, not only 
are we going to get good ideas, but we’re also going to get buy-in and make them feel 
valued as workers. And then on the other side of it, they will be happier in their jobs and 
will help people out and be happier serving customers so to speak. So, I don’t know if I 
need to read all of D there but it’s in front of you and that’s basically the gist of it there. 
The other piece about salaries that I was shocked and surprised to learn. One is that 
there’s a cap on salaries for people that have been in the system for a long time so if 
they’re doing really good work, they can, they’re capped off at what they’re paid and 
they may choose to go work in another industry where they can get paid much more than 
what they’re currently paid. The other piece is that starting salary for some of these court 
positions are as little as twenty thousand dollars a year and it’s pretty difficult to live in 
New Hampshire off that, unfortunately today. And if you want to get, I think the other 
piece that was expressed to us is that there’s a lot of people who are aging out of the 
system and there’s going to be just like in other industries, teachers and so forth, there’s 
going to be a need to hire high-qualified people and you need to have attractive salaries 
and attractive jobs in order to get those people to work in the system. 
Kathy: Further question? Andy? 
Andy Peterson: Andy Peterson from Peterborough. I don’t have any problem with that 
support, much of what was just said about the body of this recommendation with the 
exception of some concerns about the first point, where we advocate for a full time 
judiciary across the board. And I just want to voice some concerns about this. They stem 
from the fact that at least in my experience, I don’t think there’s a terrible problem right 
now with the part time District Court judges. In fact it spreads out the number of people 
involved in the judiciary and allows in some cases those people to be closer to the 
communities which are served. As far as I know and I know we have at least one part 
time District judge here, there hasn’t been a huge problem with conflict of interest. Those 
cases tend to be set aside in a different basket and judged from, another jurisdiction 
comes in and handles those people that have no great incentive to participate in anything 
that comes close to the line there and I think in general they don’t. The sum and 
substance of the two recommendations to make courts fully accessible and to move to, 
through attrition, I notice, which is good to a full time judiciary, in my view would have 
the result of having fewer judges and probably fewer courts, longer travel times for the 
people involved, particularly in the north country although I read in the paper that there’s 
a building boom in Pittsburgh. A lot of the state still is quite rural, I certainly am aware of 
that coming from the southwestern part of the state and it simply is I think going to be 
difficult to maintain courthouses close to people. You of course can have judges rotate 
where they go and have wonderful facilities here, there and everywhere but the ones, and 
I understand there are at least two in the north country now that are nowhere near- 
END OF TAPE 2 SIDE A. SIDE B AS FOLLOWS: 
Dick Winters: I’m Dick Winters from Meriden, New Hampshire and I’m also a member 
of the New Hampshire Judicial Council and I just wanted to indicate in part in response 
to Andy's query that the New Hampshire Judicial Council is actually currently studying 
the issue of a transition from part time judiciary to a system of fulltime judging in the 

District Courts. This will of course will require legislative examination so this 
admonition from this Citizens Commission would of course go to the legislature where it 
would be under consideration there along with the recommendations of the Judicial 
Council which we expect to be forthcoming probably next fall. So this is an issue, it’s an 
ongoing issue, Andy is absolutely right, this raises real issues of favoring pat time 
judging as well as favoring full time judging but it’s going to be under review by the 
Judicial Council and as well the legislature of the state. 
Kathy: Bruce? 
Bruce Felmly: My name is Bruce Felmly. I want to speak strongly in favor of the 
recommendation dealing with the movement or the transition to full time judges. I don’t, 
I don’t think bringing that up or raising it is in any way an indictment of the wonderful 
service that the part time District Court judges have done or are doing in New Hampshire 
but what we’re talking about are things that create appearances of conflict, appearances 
of situations where litigants commonly feel concern when they’re in front of a part time 
judge. That’s out there, if you think that’s not out there, it’s out there. I’ve experienced it, 
we’ve all dealt with it and I think the reality of it is the vision that this document that 
we’re working on sets forth is for this critical role of the judiciary to be measured in its 
performance, to be held accountable, to be dealing with training and responding to 
changing community needs and values. The demands on the judiciary are going to 
increase dramatically. This is an existing problem, it’s certainly a perceptional problem 
for citizens and we’re kidding ourselves if we think it’s not out there. And this isn’t 
something that we’re going to do instantaneously. One, because we have wonderful 
people that are in the job, we’re looking towards something in the future. It is true that 
the structure and the delivery mechanism may change in terms of the number of judges 
and I think Andy makes a very good point that the ability of every community to have as 
many judicial people available to it may change. But this isn’t something we do quickly, 
it isn’t something that we do tomorrow. But if we don’t move this state to a full time 
judiciary, we have really dropped the ball, I think in terms of this kind of an examination 
because the business of judging is just too important, I think to not move in that direction 
as the demands on it increase. So I would strongly urge us not to water that down. 
Kathy: Further comment, suggestion? Phil? 
Hon. Phil Runyon: Again, Phil Runyon from the Jaffrey-Peterborough District Court. 
With all due to respect to Bruce, I guess I would be in favor of watering it down. I, as one 
who is involved with the court system on a regular basis, I’m sure that even I don’t know 
all the ramifications of moving to a full time judiciary and we’re talking primarily about 
the District Court although there certainly are some part time Probate Court judges as 
well. But there are so many issues involved in this, that I think we would be operating 
without full information just to be recommending that we do it and my suggestion instead 
would be that we consider whether the New Hampshire justice system would be better 
served by a full time judiciary rather than simply making that recommendation without 
all the facts. 
Kathy: Further discussion? Mr. Co-Chair? 
Will: I’d like to make a motion that we consider the proposed amendment in sequence, A, 
B, C and D because I think there have been a lot of suggestions to go to individual pieces 
of this and we’d probably be best served by going through them individually. 
Kathy: Is there a second to that? I’ll second it. (laughs) 

(laughter) 
Kathy: All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. So we will move for the, item number A. 
Further discussion on recommendation A? Andy, further discussion? 
Andy Peterson: Well, I think to move this along I’ll go ahead and propose the amendment 
that Phil Runyon just referenced. And let us vote on that and we’ll see how we go from 
there. 
Kathy: And which, would you repeat what that is for the greater body? Or would you like 
Phil to assist you? 
Andy: I think it was to consider- 
Kathy: To consider a full time judiciary. Is that correct, Phil? 
Hon. Phil Runyon: (inaudible) consideration be given to whether New Hampshire’s 
justice system should be served by a full time judiciary. 
Kathy: Is everyone comfortable with that? Did you all hear that? Consideration be given 
for New Hampshire justice system to be served by a full time judiciary. It’s been moved 
and seconded. Further question? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Item number B. 
It’s been moved and seconded. Further question? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. 
Item C. It’s been moved and seconded. Further question? All in favor? Any opposed? 
Thank you. Item D. It’s been moved and seconded. Further question? All in favor? Any 
opposed? Thank you. Recommendation number nine as split is moved. 
Will: Ok next we’re going to go to, sorry to do this out of sequence, recommendation 
number nineteen which we had tabled previously. Ginnie, do you want to speak to this 
or- 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Will: Ok. 
Bruce Felmly: Bruce Felmly. This of course was tabled a little bit ago and several of us 
worked on some language I think to address- 
Kathy: Bruce, just to follow process. I’d like to get it off the table first. I wasn’t aware 
that we were going to do this particular one. I see the motion, is there a second to that 
motion? All in favor for removing it from the table? Thank you very much. Go ahead, 
Bruce. 
Bruce: Thank you. The amendments that have been worked out in the time we were on 
the table are really two-fold. First it addresses the concern that I raised and others spoke 
to in the first sentence of the recommendation and it really replaces that first sentence that 
was phrased in terms of commitment to the sentence that is there and when I say there, on 
the screen in front of you. “Recognizing the importance in protecting the essential of 
right of civil litigants in certain critical legal disputes, we recommend New Hampshire 
examine the expansion of legal representation to civil litigants unable to afford counsel 
and study the implementation of a civil Gideon.” That certainly encompasses the gist of 
what I was trying to bring forward and I know several other people spoke to it and I 
understand from my conversations with both Ginnie and John Tobin that that would be 
agreeable. The other two changes are designed I think really to address this issue that 
Andy raised and others spoke to which is what types of cases and who gets the lawyers 
and it accomplishes I suppose taking that a little bit out of the spotlight by eliminating 
two sentences. In the recommendation, the last sentence which previously had read: 
“Essential rights contemplated by a civil Gideon include the loss of custody of a child 
and the loss of shelter/housing.” That sentence is eliminated in the proposal that this 

amendment brings to you as is the last sentence of the rationale which said: “just as going 
to jail is too high a price to pay for the inability to afford counsel, the cost to both 
individuals and society is far too great to allow those facing loss of a child or a home to 
proceed without legal counsel due to their indigence.” The concept there is not to say that 
those things might not be involved, but to spotlight those particular legal issues because 
they do raise unique situations. One thing that’s different with civil Gideon is in criminal 
Gideon, one party almost always has a lawyer, it’s called a prosecutor and they get paid 
by the state whereas in the civil context in many cases you’re going to have indigency on 
both sides of the courtroom and you’re talking about two lawyers as we pointed out and 
who gets them. So rather than fighting that issue today and I think ultimately in some 
cases there would be probably required two lawyers, the thought was to eliminate those 
two sentences as, maybe they’re examples of essential rights, but we know what we’re 
talking about in the body of this. So there really are two, three amendments. The first is to 
replace the first sentence with the concept of examining and really studying this matter 
and the second is to eliminate the striking point of those two specific sentences that dealt 
with examples of a essential rights. And I think that’s a good idea and I think New 
Hampshire should study this and I would certainly move from presenting it to urging it to 
be adopted. 
Kathy: I have a motion and a second. Is there further inquiry? Is everybody clear as to 
what the amendments are? Cheryl, you can see it just fine? You’re in agreement with it? 
Cathy, question? 
Cathy Green: I don’t mean to violate Kathy’s rule of nit-picking language but I think this 
is an important addition. I would ask you to consider to amend your amendment to read 
“expansion of the right to legal representation.” Because it just now says: “of legal 
representation” and people can have…. 
Bruce: I don’t think, I don’t think that’s nit-picking, I think that’s substance and I like it. 
Kathy: Is everyone clear that that is been added? So we have a motion, we have a second. 
Further discussion, question? Welcome from California, Lew. All in favor? Any 
opposed? Thank you. 
Will: Ok, next we’re going to defer. We’re going to go back to a couple of deferred 
amendments that were deferred until we had copies. So the first is recommendation 
number fifteen which is on page thirteen of your agenda. And copies are coming. 
(pause-handing out copies) 
Will: You’ll note that there’s just one sentence proposed for, in this amendment and 
that’s lines twelve, thirteen and fourteen on the amendment that was passed out. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Will: It’s been moved and seconded, any further discussion? Ed? 
Hon. Ed Kelly: Ed Kelly from the District Court and Family Division. My friend John 
Morrow is not here today but he would not forgive me if I didn’t point out that there’s 
also a Probate Court, so if the person who offered the amendment wouldn’t mind, I’d 
propose that we add probate after Superior so it would read: “resources for the Superior, 
Probate and District Courts.” 
Kathy: Is everyone clear about that amendment? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: I have a motion and a second. Along with the word probate. Further question? All 
in favor? Those opposed? Thank you. 

Will: Ok. If you’ll go back to category number two, the merger category. This is a 
complicated one, not really but it involves a lot of, it involves three recommendations. On 
page four of your hand-out, agenda hand-out under category two overlapping 
recommendations. I’ll pass this out, basically this proposes to merge twenty two and 
eleven together and to incorporate by reference in the new recommendation eleven, 
recommendation number twelve and recommendation twelve stands. 
(pause-handing out copies) 
(unknown): Move it. 
Kathy: (laughs) 
(laughter) 
Kathy: I have a motion to move this. Is there a second? I hear a second. Is there further 
discussion on this item? Would you like to take a moment and read it? 
(pause) 
(unknown): (inaudible) twelve not twenty two? 
Kathy: I believe that is the case. 
Will: Sorry about that. 
Kathy: Further question? All in favor? Those opposed? Thank you. We are at just about 
noon-time, folks. Even though that clock still has not moved. We know that we have 
much work ahead of us still and how many left at this point? We’ve got four or five 
recommendations. Is that correct? 
Will: I don’t think there’s that many. 
Kathy: I’m sorry, no. 
Will: There are a couple still on the table. 
Kathy: Is your pleasure to stay today or to come back on the seventeenth? What is the 
pleasure of the group? We have the seventeenth available to us, we can request to come 
back here to Rep’s hall or we can forge ahead today, finalize these and bring you a draft 
version of the report. 
(unknown): Go for it. 
Kathy: We’ve got a go for it in the front yard. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: A go for it in the back yard. Mr. Co-chair, recommendation number twenty six. 
We have done twenty six already? 
Will: We did twenty six. 
Kathy: Thank you. 
Will: Number twenty one - 
Kathy: Twenty one, I’m sorry. 
Will: - had been tabled and- 
Kathy: I need to put my glasses on. 
Will: - and I don’t believe we’ve acted on that. I think number, recommendation number 
twenty one was tabled and if it, does anybody want to reconsider that, I guess that’s the 
question? You can leave it on the table if you want, but that’s one of the outstanding. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: John? 
(unknown) (inaudible) wondering if you can tell us how many (inaudible) 
Will: According to my records, we didn’t address recommendation number ten. 
Kathy: That is correct. 

Will: Am I correct? That’s the only other one outstanding. 
(unknown) (inaudible) 
Will: No, you can leave it there. 
Kathy: Leave it on the table. 
(unknown): (inaudible) leave it. 
Will: Ok. Recommendation number ten. 
(unknown): I have a question. 
Kathy: Yes, go ahead, Sally. 
(Sally Davis: If we leave it on the table now does that mean it’s forever on the table or 
can it be brought off (inaudible)? 
Kathy: If two thirds bring it off the table as we had early established, then two thirds 
would bring back any recommendation from whichever bucket we chose. 
Sally: Ok, two thirds of the whole committee or two thirds of the people here today? 
Kathy: Two thirds of the people here today. Well, we had, I did count, we had fifty eight 
to begin our day. Dan, you had further comment? 
(unknown) (inaudible) on number ten with one amendment. The rationale added the word 
quality. 
Will: Is that right? Ok, so we’re done. 
Kathy: No, the amendment to eleven is still tabled as well to incorporate to twenty two. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Will: We just voted on that. 
Kathy: And that’s done and then you had- 
Will: Everything’s done. 
Kathy: - the other tabled, yup. So number ten has been accomplished? 
(unknown): Yes. 
Kathy: Yes. 
Andy Peterson: I wanted to bring one more that I have over there as thirty five if we 
could hand that out, do you have that? 
Kathy: Well, I guess I need to ask the Committee as a whole if you’re willing to consider 
a new recommendation. This is brand new. We had originally said no. 
Andy: Oh. 
Kathy: So we have it. I’m going to ask you as a full body for further recommendation. 
Originally the Steering Committee had said that we were not going to accept any further 
recommendation. 
Andy: Ok, that’s fine if that’s the pleasure of the body. It was a thing that came up at one 
of the listening sessions and I don’t think any of the standing committees really felt that it 
was in their purview or focused on it. It’s a two sentence thing if people would give me a 
two thirds vote so that I could present it, I don’t think that it would keep you here much 
through lunch. 
Kathy: It’s up to you all. 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: I have a motion. 
(unknown): Second. 
Kathy: Further question? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Here’s the amendment. 
Do you want to pass it out? 
Andy: Yeah, if we could just pass it out quickly. 

(unknown): Yeah, sure. 
Andy: Again, in an attempt to save paper. 
(laughter) 
Kathy: This is a mini motion? (laughs) 
(laughter) 
Andy: At the Manchester listening session the first one that we did, I was interested to 
see a general contractor come in and make what I thought was a reasonable suggestion. 
It’s hard to imagine undergoing the expense of going to Superior Court for a claim under 
ten thousand dollars and I believe that there aren’t many claims that get disputed 
particularly the matter of a contractor homeowner dispute that it doesn’t take much to get 
over ten thousand whatever you’re doing these days. So it just seemed to me to be a 
reasonable update. It would be a doubling of the current limit which is five thousand and 
ask your consideration. I also think it has the advantage that if nothing else we’ve done 
here is understood, it’s pretty hard to misunderstand what this is. (laughs) 
Kathy: Question? 
Chris Keating: Chris Keating. Andy, I just wondered if you knew what, when the five 
thousand dollar limit was put into place and what the consumer price index would have 
done to that since that time. 
Andy: I think it’s been raised before over, wasn’t it three thousand at one time? Maybe 
you could address that, Ed? 
Hon. Ed Kelly: Ed Kelly from the District Court. Small claims started out years ago at 
two hundred dollars and slowly made it’s way up to five thousand dollars. In fact, I 
believe there is a bill in the legislature this year to raise it again, but I don’t think quite to 
ten thousand dollars. The reality is for those of you that don’t know, is a small claim 
session is a session that’s specifically designed for people to be able to represent 
themselves unlike these other problems that we’ve heard. It’s almost an expectation that 
people come without lawyers, so it’s a much simplified process for cases that involve less 
complicated issues. 
Kathy: Further question? 
Jeff Osburn: Jeff Osburn, Goffstown. I’m going to speak out of partial ignorance here 
because I really can’t remember the numbers, but to me this sort of mixes things between 
small claims and District Court jurisdiction and Superior Court jurisdiction. Because in 
the rationale it talks about not going to Superior Court in lieu of small claims, so 
hopefully somebody remembers the numbers better than I. My memory is you can go to 
Superior Court after five thousand now? Is that correct, Ed? 
Hon. Ed Kelly: (inaudible) 
Jeff: Well, and that’s the next thing I’m going to bring up. And you’ve got another issue 
that flows from all this and that’s the right to a jury trial for an amount over fifteen 
hundred dollars and you can’t take that away from anybody. So, I have a problem with 
this. There is an issue of where the jurisdiction is between two courts and by talking 
about keeping it out of Superior Court, I think you’re also keeping it away from a normal 
trial in District Court. And potentially can you get a jury in District Court for civil cases, 
not yet? So, and I have a problem with this and I apologize for not knowing the numbers 
because I just saw this but I think we’re running into potentially some issues with 
concurrent jurisdiction and while it sounds nice to be able to up the small claims, I think 

we have to be careful we don’t do anything to suggest that we’re challenging the 
jurisdiction for other types of trials. If people wish, I just throw that out. 
Andy: Just a question to Jeffrey. Is the problem you have in the recommendation section 
or the rationale? Because if we wanted it to be clear that it was small claims matters, I 
think you could word-smith so that would be the case. We wouldn’t be worried about a 
right to jury trial or those other types of issues. What I was trying to do was, you know, 
allow the frankly, the small guy a chance to go into court and have a People’s Court type 
of experience on these things and under a certain dollar limit that has something to do 
with modern life. 
Jeff: I don’t disagree at all with what Andy said. I think what we should so is under the 
rationale take out the commentary about Superior Court and if the group is of mind to 
make a recommendation which obviously isn’t going to be binding on anybody as to 
limits on small claims, then I don’t think that’s hurtful at all. 
Kathy: Is that clear to everybody that there will be a change in the rationale? Further 
question? All in favor? Those opposed? Thank you. Will and I will be taking all of your 
recommendations and beginning to write your report as of this afternoon. I have further 
question in the back, let me finish before we continue here. I also have a minority report 
that does need ten signatures and I understand that there has been a request by Paul 
Clements of some of you to get ten signatures. This minority report will go into the report 
if in fact ten signatures arrive. And Paul, were you going to put this up on the web site, or 
how were you going to email everyone? How are you going to get this out to people? 
You have emailed everyone? Ok. I know some people have received it, I wasn’t aware 
that everyone has. If in fact you wish to be added onto that minority report, we do need to 
hear directly from you. Further question? Clyde? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: I have a motion and a second to remove recommendation number twenty one 
from the table. All those in favor? 
(unknown): (inaudible) 
Kathy: It’s the Public Access. 
Will: It’s on page fifteen of your hand-out. 
Kathy: And it also was a hand-out. 
Will: There was a separate amendment. 
Kathy: Separate amendment that had been tabled earlier. I’m sorry, all those in favor of 
removing it from the table? Those opposed? I’m sorry, it does not go off the table. Thank 
you very much and we will see you at the Administrative Office Building at the Courts 
on the seventeenth of April. Thank you very much for all your assistance. 
END OF MEETING