Government & Customer Loyalty = '0'

This is a story about how:

"Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power."

George Bernard Shaw 

The American Government is in shut down; what can we hope comes of it? 

Everyday we work to constantly improve the customer's experience and our positions. For me,  it's a challenge I take pleasure in achieving. If I am loyal and dedicated, the results show through my employees and volunteers because I care about what matters most to them and it creates a loyalty effect.  

All to often, when I am working with any government department from a city worker, to a worker in the court system the constant problem - is they feel they have a power without responsibility, without authority and/or over sight. In my jobs, whether or not I have control over the levers to make the changes I know are necessary; I am the one in charge and blamed by the public for any poor performance despite the fact that I made the recommended changes and the Government employees failed to implement them. Hence always have a backup plan for their anticipate failings.

The problem between them (government workers) and most of us, is that there has been no point in complaining; because there is no reason for them to take pride in what they do. With Unions who simply transfer them around, to individuals who simply do not want to work; they feel they “deal” with the public and that in and of itself, means do as little as possible, because well we just might expect it all the time. 

The Priority on exactly what government offices are closing is disturbing when there are so many other's that could be closed; like every single congressman's office in DC & their home states and small government there.  

For instance recently, I paid a parking ticket in Nashua, NH and the guy at the desk could not even crack a smile and took an inordinate amount of time to simply accept cash for the $10.00 parking ticket and produce a receipt; when he finally did I said Thank you, without the courtesy of a reply.  He could barely maintain eye contact and just went back to who knows what, there was a computer and nothing else on his desk. Yup, it’s like hey your welcome, I paid the ticket the same day I got it.  Why do a lot of people avoid paying their tickets? They forget about them; because they do not want to deal with government employees. But we are their customers.

Customer retention is about motivating people, being efficient and actually being friendly.  A great manager practices political principles and recognizing their people’s achievements in meaningful ways. So where are those principles with our government? 

Whether it’s a single worker/volunteer and/or an organization volunteering or working on a project with me; I have found that when working with over 260 volunteers and/or even 1 or over 130 employees, that simple clear cut instructions and expectations with public recognition gets results.  Then when someone fails you simply let them go; not shuffle them off to be someone else’s problem.

People want a great product or service and when you give it to them, with a showing of appreciation and getting feedback from your own staff of workers and/or volunteers and take feedback from the public - publicly recognize those contributions and make adjustments, everyone wins. 

Hint, Republicans & Democrats alike can help Obama Care be better than it is, this hold is not helping anyone except if you want to look like an arse in front of the entire world.  

By focusing on the people who want to work with you and give you "constructive feedback", follow the rules, stick with a plan - they are the hero’s and the reason for combined success. Persistence Consistency, resolve, determination applied with kindness and delivery of what was promised wins…customer satisfaction rises as does credibility and your bottom line.   

If just a mom, can create a community event with a 27.27% increase following it, in 2 years double participation and almost triple the size maintained it for 4 years as a volunteer without pay; why can't the government who is actually getting paid - even when they are responsible for the shut downs?

Congress doesn't see it that way, as with Union employees they feel entitled and get paid when they are disrupting so many others lives.

Accountability would save us a lot of money and who is deciding that these government agency's lose first?  The moral, maybe the government employees losing their pay will come back with a better purpose, be polite and maybe they will push those above them to be better... what we can count is ...

"Governments that block the aspirations of their people, that steal or are corrupt, that oppress and torture or that deny freedom of expression and human rights should bear in mind that they will find it increasingly hard to escape the judgement of their own people, or where warranted, the reach of international law."

William Hague 

NH Office of Legislative Budget Assistant - AUDIT DEMANDED

Audit NH DCYF AND The Family Courts!-Contact the NH LBA Audit Division

New Hampshire LBA:

Please Contact the NH Legislative Budget Assistant and demand an Audit of NH DCYF AND the Family Courts!

Office of
Legislative Budget Assistant
107 North Main Street
State House, Room 102
Concord, NH 03301-4906
(603)271-3161- Budget Division
(603)271-2785- Audit Division

New Hampshire Families are being abused by NH DCYF and the Family Court's. Our children are being kidnapped and placed in the homes of stranger's, chosen by DCYF without following Federal mandates. A few other States have already begun auditing, finally realizing the harm Child Protective Services is bestowing upon children and families. The Families of NH have been requesting an Audit for the last four years. The Legislature has done nothing to move forward on this much needed Audit. Will NH be last as usual? This time we must all unite and contact the LBA. Demand  an Audit. Our Children are NOT For Sale and we must put an end to the abuse of NH Families and our traumatized children!

Article submitted by Dorothy Knightly fully endorsed by Denise-Marie McIntosh please call and request a full audit. 

Justice the Truth - it Just takes ...

Determination "no" is not in our vocabulary... 

The Results in New Hampshire on a young boy maliciously being separated from his Mother, are not over yet. 

Joselyn Martinez, never gave up searching for her father's murderer it took her 27 years and hopefully the State of New York will deliver the justice her family has waited for.  

People need to be vindicated and People need to pay for their mistakes it's called accountability.  

In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.

Albert Einstein 

Redress of Grievance in Jeopardy LOB Room 301 2 pm 12/20/12

Action Alert: 

NH House Rules committee is intending to remove the Redress of Grievances Committee from the Rules of the House on Thursday at 2:00 pm - If the public wants to show concern over the loss, they should have a big presence. Room 301 keep it crowded so we can all get there!

If at all possible please to try to be there, the model other states are following is in jeopardy;Maybe Horrigan will actually live up to his own ramblings and vote to keep the redress of grievance committee as he stated here, but of course he didn't.

2013 Petitions to the New Hampshire House

Additional commentary by Rep. Timothy Horrigan
last revised: December 2012

See Also:

• Chairman Ingbretson's November 2012 Report to the Speaker
• 2012 Petitions
• 2011 Petitions
• 2010 Petitions
• 2009 Petitions

It probably seems a little silly to be listing the 2013 House Petitions, since there will almost certainly be no House Petitions and Redress Committee in 2013. The previous Speaker Bill O'Brien was committed to keeping the committee in place, even after House Counsel Ed Mosca became one of the many villains of the highly memorable "Youssef Petition." O'Brien did some work on redoing the committee's rules for the upcoming session. (He didn't include me or any other Democrats in that work, apparently since he considered us so insignificant that there was no need to even tell us what he was up to. I only found out because he told a reporter, and she passed the news on to me.)

O'Brien lost the Speakership: he narrowly held on to his seat, but over 100 of his fellow Republicans were not so lucky. He ended up not even being the Minority Leader. The new Speaker Terie Norelli has her expressed her opposition in the past to the creation— and continuance— of the committee, although in 2009 she helped create a process whereby petitions could be formally filed. There is only the most speculative possibility of the committee continuing to exist past January 2, 2013.

The 2013 session began on the first Wednesday in December, i.e., December 5, 2012. The main order of business for the House on December 5^th was to elect a new Speaker, along with the House Clerk and the House Sergeant-at-Arms. The Senate simultaneously elected its President as well as its own Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms. Finally, the House and Senate met in joint convention (not to be confused with Gus Breton's "joint conomtion") to elect the Secretary of State and the State Treasurer.

The House's standing committees are specified in House Rule 30, which currently has 23 subparagraphs lettered a through w. In 2012, there were 22 standing committees plus the Rules Committee. An amendment to Rule 30 is needed to create or abolish one or more committees. It would be bad form to bring a rules change to the floor of the full House without having a Rules Committee hearing first.

The Rules Committee won't have any members until the Speaker appoints some (probably herself, 4 other leading Democrats, the minority caucus leader and 3 other leading Republicans.) House Calendar #2, issued on Thursday, December 13, 2012 contains the following notice of a December 20, 2012 Rules Committee hearing:

RULES COMMITTEE, Room 301, LOB 2:00 p.m. Regular meeting.

That's all it says: "Regular meeting." The newly appointed committee will presumably hear testimony regarding the proposed abolishment of the Redress & Grievances and Constitutional Review & Statutory Recodification Committee. I would like to keep the Redress Committee in existence, even though many mistakes were made in 2011-2012. I am neutral about the Constitutional Review Committee, which proved to be useless but harmless. The big issue of the day will be guns in the State House. Right now there are only minimal restrictions on guns in the State House, except for the Senate chamber, a short hallway outside the Senate chamber, and the Governor's office, where they are banned. This will be an especially difficult issue this time around because of the recent spate of mass shootings.

I don't know how I will vote, since I don't know how many amendments will be presented on (or shortly after) January 2, 2013 to the full House nor do I know what form the amendment(s) will take.

In any case, several reps have submitted Legislative Services Requests ("LSR's") for several petitions during the September 2012 and November 2012 filing windows. Two of them were filed by Rep. Robert Luther, the man who introduced the inimitable Joshua Youssef to the Granite State political scene

---

Who's judging New Hampshire's judges? Only the Legislators ...

The excerpts I included in this article came from a Concrod Mointor article, written by a Dr. Robert O. Wilson, chairman of the New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee (NHJCC), he said “it does not surprise me that there is public confusion over the role of the House Committee for Redress of Grievances as it may relate to judicial matters.”  I have included his direct quotes here but rewritten what in fact, is the reality of the situation.

I think the confusion starts with the fact that the people before the redress of grievance committee have already been before the Judicial Conduct Committee, complaints including conflicts of interest, a judge sitting on a criminal case and then behind closed doors a parallel case with DCYF, Judges demeaning women in their court, refusing evidence by males and females, bias against either sex, refusing to answer motions, simply keeping them in the file and pushed aside and the marital masters not following Rules 12-14 all ignored by the Judicial Conduct Committee and it is in large part why the legislators finally ended the marital master program. 

Judges have codes of conduct to be followed and the NHJCC has repeatedly and consistently failed to hold them accountable to the public they serve and those codes of ethics.  Which is why, “The New Hampshire Constitution, while establishing the three branches of government - executive, legislative, and judicial “ may have “heavily weighted the scope of governance to the side of the Legislature.” However it is more likely they saw mans greed, and wanted to “established the Redress Article “for the purpose of accountability for "the wrongs that the people suffer" at the hands of government.”

“Dormant for many years, the Committee for Redress of Grievances was re-established in 2011;” to a large number of complaints by citizens of this state. “Many of its hearings have dealt with citizens unhappy with judicial decisions and the judiciary in general. Sometimes, with the encouragement of legislators, aggrieved former litigants tell their story to the committee, but the committee goes no further to investigate a claim of judicial malfeasance. I have to disagree, this committee requires real evidence of these individuals to present their grievance, many whom I helped direct where to get the evidence to prove their point and highlight the concerns that exist within the Judicial System“In some instances, the committee votes overwhelmingly in favor of the grievant and threatens to bring a bill to the House to impeach the judge.”  Yes, this has happened based on real evidence that the committee took hours and days to pour over, unlike the Judicial conduct committee who meets once a month for a couple of hours to pour over many complaints.

Dr. Wilson, a retired oral surgeon with no legal background, finds “this disturbing, because the public hears only one side of what is often a complex and emotionally charged story.” The committee has repeatedly asked the judicial branch for their side and they refuse. What is disturbing is that this Doctor is chairman of the New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee.

"A long history"

"The Judicial Conduct Committee was established more than 35 years ago as an independent, lay-dominated body charged with investigating complaints against judicial officers and, where appropriate, imposing or recommending discipline for misconduct as defined by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

In 2006, the appointing bodies were changed so that the speaker of the House and the Senate president each appoint one lay member; the governor appoints two lay members; the New Hampshire Bar Association appoints two members, one of whom must be a lay person; and the Supreme Court appoints five members: one representing each of the three lower courts, a clerk of court and one lay member. There is also an alternate panel, which hears cases involving a member of the standing committee." hmm I wonder if that happen when complaints were lodged against a Lyn Aaby whose husband sits on the board? A GAL & NH Attorney who in the beginning stages of  a divorce case, gave pick up and drop offs to a girlfriend of the father in the matter, oh who was also her client in her own case, and did not disclose the conflict of interest and intentionally misrepresentative herself to the mother and Judge in the case, the result of the JCC was that there was no conflict, this was also held by the NH GAL Board, who charged a $100.00 to file the complaint. However, we can sincerely thank the executive council who received the exact same information and made sure that Governor Lynch's recommendation that Lyn Aaby become a Judge was DENIED.

"Every state has a similar committee to handle complaints of judicial misconduct using a code of judicial conduct. The New Hampshire code was developed over many years to define how judges, masters, clerks and court reporters will conduct themselves to assure the public that it can feel confident cases will be judged fairly."  If it was done fairly it wouldn't be confidential and hidden.

“The JCC meets at least monthly and, after a thorough investigation of a report of misconduct, will either dismiss the report or carry the matter forward.” Right here it shows that they take less time with the complaints than the legislators who actually heard, reviewed, and analyzed what was brought to them over weeks and long hearings.

"Should the committee find that a judge, master, clerk, etc., violated the code, it will determine an appropriate sanction, even so far as recommending suspension to the Supreme Court. But the JCC cannot overturn a judicial decision. That remedy is accorded only to an appellate court, which in New Hampshire is the state Supreme Court."  The key here is the word "Should" meaning "ought to" but they have not. 

"It is not uncommon for someone reporting what he or she believes to be judicial misconduct - often submitting 20 to 100 pages or more, photographs, and recordings to document their report - only to learn that the committee did not agree and cannot change the ruling or substitute another judge to hear their case."  It is only too common that the JCC never agrees. The one Judge recently removed was due to public fraud not a complaint in her court.

"If litigants report to the JCC that a judge yelled at them, or was biased in some way, was rude or demeaned their testimony or didn't follow the law, the JCC may ask its executive secretary to obtain the sound recording of the trial and/or the transcript for the members to hear and read for themselves."   Again, litigants have been providing audio and transcripts of Judges threatening, berating and/ or being bias. But we'll see what they say shortly ... about a Judge who tells a litigant that if they appeal his order for a GAL, that the party clearly cannot afford that he will recuse himself. Furthermore, Judges that simply push motions to the side and refuse to rule on them and cause more chaos in the courts, they haven't found fault with this to date, lets see if they are put on notice if they will.

"If the committee votes to move to the next stage of inquiry - a complaint - it will ask for a response from the judge, master, clerk, etc. Should the committee be dissatisfied with the response, it can conduct an additional investigation, leading to the filing of a statement of formal charges and a public hearing, should there be clear and convincing evidence of judicial misconduct. Reaching that level is rare - perhaps once or twice a year out of 80 or 90 reports of judicial misconduct."   You have to look at this "clear and convincing evidence" line because it is the lowest standard used in Child Protection Cases to take parents rights away to collect federal money and it goes through all the time. Try to hold a Judge accountable and well as you can see from the JCC findings compared to the same evidence being given to legislators that took more time to listen and review real evidence it's not happening, they are not Judging NH Judges they are covering up for them. 

Don't even get me started on the NH Bar Association... vote yes on Question 2 we need a constitutional amendment. 

Another Reason to Vote yes for NH Constitutional Amendment

Marital Masters on their Way Out but....are the scales between corruption/money and real justice balanced?

picture by cynical patriot 

Apparently not, here is another example of the Old boys network in NH.  Supreme-Court-AO-2012-08 describes how these marital masters who were appointed with 3 year terms will get a great benefit package at the cost of indigent families being denied an attorney in NH RSA 169-C cases and no supplemental payments for Guardian Ad litems in NH RSA 461-A cases.

Keep an eye and ear open for recommended appointments of Marital Masters to Judges positions with the approval of the Executive Council  not all of them but many do not deserve it.  If you have had an adverse experience with a marital master that is being considered for a Judicial appointment  go to the meeting and simply sign in, to have an opportunity to be heard - bring any documentation with you; please, please go you will save so many more families heartache, by ensuring they are not appointed, check nominations here.

When you read through the order above, please note that it takes awhile for legislators to get a bill through the house; they started this one in 2011 to get rid of the reappointments of marital masters and the Judicial Branch in a blatant effort to cover their comrades, over the people they are suppose to serve as stated in the first paragraph issued this order NH Supreme Court Administrative order 2011-05 which starts right off with "The anticipated legislative appropriation" instead of looking for ways to protect the community they are suppose to serve, they are as always only looking to protect each other.

Anyone who has ever tried to submit a judicial conduct complaint knows that it will yield no results; the reason why? Is because they are governed by the rules made by the Supreme Court,  which is why we need to vote yes for the constitutional amendment enabling the legislative branch to take back rule-making authority from the courts of NH.

The Judicial branch is suppose to enforce laws not make rules to get around them.

Visibility into DCYF personnel records - Read all about it...

Finally some visibility.  What the normal public views as a conflict of interest, was met by the short term of a Commissioner Morton, when he accused Sylvia Gayle of a conflict of interest. You have to read these findings to believe it and see the bias compared to the next set of links and findings under other Commissioner's, this board is anything but consistent, but some very useful findings in additional to the one on a Tracy Roukey, a CPSW found under demotions (really, what took so long).

In New Hampshire

DCYF demotions

DCYF Letters of Warning and these are the ones being appealed

DCYF Conflict of Interest only one additional

DCYF Application of rules

DCYF Letter of Warnings

DCYF Suspension without pay

DCYF employee policies and procedures that they are suppose to be following and it appears that the protocols established here are part of the mix

DCYF Training and Development a bit scary


So the next time you have one of these CPSW's on the stand and the other side objects to you or your attorney asking about their work records; they are not private more links can be found here under their personnel appeals board.

Go get em ... and do not back down! Keep searching for answers...

Victim Rights

Nolle prosequi or commonly known as Null process is a prosecutor's decision not to pursue charges. As a victim you have rights and one of those rights is to be privy to any plea bargain offered to someone who hurt you.

The EMT's in this story were denied that right and so much more, for the full story see Victim Rights

If you have been the victim of a crime you have rights see Crime Victim Rights by State

Part Two of this series on Speak Up