NO LEGISLATOR EVER asked me what I thought about the concept of eliminating district court security officers who are paid hourly and replacing them with officers paid at a flat rate of $65.00 per day who work for the county rather than for the court. Nonetheless, in this past legislative session, through the budget process the Legislature targeted and eliminated funding for hourly district court security officers. To my knowledge, no legislator serving on the finance committee has come to the Manchester District Court to examine the role court security plays in the day-to-day operation of the busiest district court in this state. Had I been asked, I would have said that court security officers act as my eyes and my ears. They are the front line of court management and have the greatest contact with the public we serve. Who court security officers answer to and how they are paid matter a great deal to me.

I have been the clerk of Manchester District Court for 15 years. Manchester District Court (like all district courts in New Hampshire) handles many cases involving intense human conflict. Among the cases we hear every day are criminal assaults, civil and criminal domestic violence, evictions, abuse and neglect of children, juvenile delinquency, and small claims. The masses of people who come to the court generally appear immediately after a trauma or controversy has occurred, while their passions are still fresh and raw. For the most part these people cannot afford to hire their own attorney and, therefore, have no one to interpret the legal process for them. Many do not speak English. For better or worse, the public depends on the court staff (and especially court security officers) to guide them through the legal tangle. The ability of court security officers to understand the process and perform their role, without improperly advising people, is a skill acquired over time and after much experience. Members of the public have a right to expect that they will have the opportunity to appear in a safe environment where they will have an audience with an impartial judge and where they can rely upon the validity of information given to them by court officers.

Our ability to maintain a safe and secure environment is completely dependent upon the powers of observation and the interpersonal skill of our court security officers. It is through repeated exposure and contact with people who regularly appear at court that court officers begin to develop the ability to respond to the subtle nuances of the district courthouse dynamic. The response of a court security officer to a person who is agitated, angry or upset will determine whether that situation escalates or is defused. Any court security officer who, through inexperience, needs to have a situation interpreted or who depends upon the direction of someone else to formulate his or her response is placing the safety of the public, the staff and the judges at risk.

So why does it matter whether a court security officer is paid hourly or at a flat rate? Simply put, a person who is paid a flat rate has a built-in incentive to work as few hours as possible. This objective is completely at odds with my mission, which is to eke out every ounce of productive time from every member of the court staff - including the judges. To reach the many cases entered at this court with the limited judge time available, it is not uncommon for sessions to run past the noon hour or into the evening. A court security officer who is not paid for his or her time will feel robbed by every minute that sessions run beyond their base expectation.

Moreover, $65 per day (the mandated flat rate) without benefits is not sufficient compensation to attract and retain a committed court security work force. For a basic 7.5-hour workday, $65 per day translates to $8.66 per hour before taxes and without compensation for any health benefits or leave time. How many people in society are so well endowed that they can afford the luxury of working at such a low wage without benefits? How is it possible to establish and retain a committed work force when there is no opportunity for advancement? The mandated pay is less than that of entry level clerical employees and the people who are hired to clean our facility, yet we expect security personnel to carry a weapon, have training in the use of a weapon, possess discretion and judgment to know when to use a weapon and, even more important, when not to use it!

Why does it matter whether court security officers work for the county or for the court? Because when sessions end early, as they occasionally do, I can direct a court security officer "employee" to perform clerical functions that support the court operation. I currently expect the Manchester District Court officers to open mail, monitor court records, assist the public with certain court forms, manage the destruction of records, keep the court inventory, order court supplies, and make bank deposits as part of their job responsibilities to this court. Their services in these areas enable me to apply limited clerical time to the exclusive business of moving case files through the court process. When the Legislature took this budgetary action to eliminate hourly court security, did they factor in the cost of reabsorbing these clerical functions? If a court security officer is not a court employee, it is far more difficult for me to assign duties to or discipline that court officer for poor job performance.

I cannot help but notice that this so-called "budgetary" action taken by the Legislature specifically targeted employees of the court. No similar action was taken to convert security positions at the Legislature to per diem county employees. I am certainly not suggesting that such action should have been taken or should be taken in the future, because I fully appreciate the importance of consistent, knowledgeable and full-time security to our public institutions. I do not understand why the district court is not equally entitled to the same level of protection or why the Legislature arbitrarily concluded that a lesser level of security is appropriate to an institution whose sole function is to resolve human conflict.

Have our elected officials forgotten that Vicki Bunnell, a district court judge, was murdered in cold blood by Carl Drega? Did the legislators who made this "budgetary decision" realize that last year in Manchester District Court alone, 4,000 weapons were removed from people entering the courthouse? Does anyone recall that this court handled cases involving Daniel Vandebogart and Thomas Mah (two men convicted of savagely killing two beautiful and innocent young women)? Do legislators understand that people can get upset, abusive and even violent over something as small as a traffic ticket?

Since the adoption of the budget, all part-time court officers have been laid off. Manchester District Court has begun to lose its talented and experienced full-time security staff as well because they simply cannot support themselves and their families at the proposed rate of pay without health benefits. (Editor's note: In developing the court budget, the Legislature proposed that all court security officers would become part-time, per diem employees.) To address this loss of personnel, courts have been asked to consider shutting down metal detectors, running sessions without court security and ending sessions immediately at the end of the business day. In a very short time the loss of this personnel to the court will have a devastating effect on my ability to manage this court. The worst possible characterization for the action taken by our Legislature is that it was vindictive, at best the action was ill advised or uninformed. In any event the action taken by our Legislature was wrong. I hope and pray that the people of this state do not have to endure serious injury or loss of life before careful reconsideration is given to this decision.

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