PURSUANT TO THE invitation of the Honorable Court, the following suggestions and comments are offered as the Court looks to clarify the independence of the JCC and consider the recommendations of the Task Force for the renewal of judicial conduct procedures.

The current Committee supports the recommendations found in paragraph III of the Task Force report as follows:

1. That some members of the JCC be appointed by persons other than the Supreme Court.
2. That the JCC have its own office and not meet on Court premises.
3. That the JCC not be staffed by Supreme Court personnel.
4. That the JCC not rely on the Supreme Court for its budgetary and financial requirements.

In response to number 1 above, we believe that it would be appropriate for the public representation on the JCC to be appointed by other than the Supreme Court. The Committee feels strongly that there must be representation from the judiciary on the Committee. This representation need not, and should not be, a majority of the Committee but because it’s essential that the Committee have an understanding of how the judiciary functions in evaluating judicial conduct, representatives of the Court, including a Clerk, must be a member of the Committee. One member expressed concerns that appointments from the legislature could bring a personal agenda to the Committee that would be disruptive.

The requirement that the JCC have its own office has already been complied with as the Committee’s office functions from the office of its Executive Director in Dover and we do not, and have not for the past few years, met on Court premises. Our current meeting place is the office of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation in Concord. There also was an argument that we should have a public meeting place to encourage public access.

In connection with staffing, the current JCC has not been staffed by Supreme Court personnel for the last three years. Although the current Executive Secretary was selected by the Supreme Court, we do not believe this is essential in the future. The Committee has the capacity to select its own Executive Secretary with the assistance of the Personnel Office of the Administrative Office of the Courts. We believe a procedure could be put in place that upon the resignation or retirement of a current Executive Secretary that the vacancy be filled by ac tion of the Committee.

Related to the staffing issue, the Committee believes that its leadership, including Chair and Vice Chair, should be determined by the Committee and not by any outside agency.

In connection with budget and funding, we do not believe that is appropriate that the Committee has to go to the Supreme Court to seek approval of expenditures for the benefit of the Committee. The Committee should have its own budget that, once approved, should be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee as to its expenditure. For example, the Committee should not have to seek permission of the Supreme Court to pay for independent counsel hired by the Committee to represent the Committee in either disciplinary or other Committee actions. For example, it would be particularly difficult and sensitive if the Committee were investigating a complaint against a Supreme Court judge and the Supreme Court had a say on whether or not we could pay for independent counsel.

Some general comments: As to the terms of office, although we don’t take any specific position on terms of office, at least one member of our committee expressed the huge value of historical knowledge on dealing with issues that came before the Committee. To turn over the whole Committee every four or five years might require a new learning curve and might deny the Committee access to important past information. Therefore, if terms are set, people should be able to serve 10 years. One of the issues that the Committee often addresses is whether or not a particular action by a judge is part of a pattern of conduct. Whereas one incident would not constitute misconduct, a pattern of conduct repeating the same incident would certainly require Committee investigation.

The current JCC generally supports the recommendations of the Task Force and specifically believes that the JCC should have the authority to issue subpoenas in the event of a hearing. We believe that the Committee has exercised its independence from the Court and has functioned well to provide judicial oversight in the State of New Hampshire. The perception that the Committee is somehow directly under the control of the Supreme Court must be addressed to affirm the integrity of the Committee and its actions. However, the Committee recognizes that it is part of the judiciary but represents the public of the State of New Hampshire and those persons that need and use our judicial system. We encourage the Supreme Court to clarify the issues that have been addressed in the Task Force report and this letter.

Respectfully submitted,
The Judicial Conduct Committee

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer