The JCC transparency issue was put on inactive status. The Live Free or Die Alliance is monitoring any new developments in regard to this issue; any new information will be posted here. If you have new information regarding the issue please post it in our town hall or forward it to info@livefreeordiealliance.com
New Hampshire's Judicial Conduct Committee investigates alleged misconduct by judicial personnel, from a judge, master to a court stenographer or court clerk.
The committee consists of three judges, a clerk of court, two lawyers, and five lay persons. The committee may issue a warning, dispose of a grievance against a judge by informal agreement or adjustment, or recommend that the court impose formal discipline.
A recent case involving the public reprimand of a judge has raised the issue of the committee's transparency.
The only reason anyone in the public even knows about the reprimand of Judge Sharon N. DeVries is because a Manchester Union Leader reporter stumbled upon it while researching complaints that the JCC isn't transparent enough in its work.
It used to be that the JCC executive secretary would send to newspapers copies of an order after a reprimand or other disciplinary action was taken by the committee. But that practice stopped two years ago.
The
commission has a web site.
You'll find out who makes up the committee, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and its annual reports.
But there isn't anything about the current complaints it is reviewing, nor is there much in the way of information about past cases.
The committee has
defended its notification practice to the Union Leader.
Portsmouth Attorney Wilfred Sanders, vice chairman of the JCC, says the fact that a reprimand is on file at the JCC's office in Newmarket and can be inspected by the public makes it public enough.
Is it enough to put a judge's reprimand on file and deem it public record? Or should the commission be taking a more active approach to inform the public about its oversight and reprimand of judges?