Lawmakers' group providing people's court for grievances

Lawmakers' group providing people's court for grievances
New Hampshire Sunday News (Manchester, NH) - Sunday, May 9, 2010
By NANCY WEST

unhappygrammy-I pray there is some hope for the people of NH. I'm counting on the Redress Grievance Caucus to help my precious grandchildren!
New Hampshire Sunday News

CONCORD -- About a dozen conservative state lawmakers say they have banded together to right wrongs the government has done to citizens in reviving a centuries-old practice known as "redress of grievances."

Their practice has shaken up the New Hampshire judiciary and triggered a run-in with Democratic House Speaker Terie Norelli.

Led by Republican Daniel Itse of Fremont, they call themselves the Legislators' Caucus for Redress of Grievances.

Last summer they started holding listening sessions, hearing from people who believe they have been wronged by government and officials.

They are not allowed to call themselves a committee or commission or label their sessions legislative hearings by agreement with Norelli.

"We listen to the wrong. If we determine that it's a suitable wrong, then we craft legislation to correct the problem," Itse said.

That might mean writing legislation to right a financial injury or destruction of property or any sort of abuse by government, including complaints against judges, Itse said.

"The beauty of redress is it doesn't cost the citizen anything. You don't have to lawyer up to go before the Legislature and say, 'I've been done wrong.' You make your case. If you win, you win," Itse said.

Early roadblock

Norelli initially barred the group from using legislative facilities and posting notices in the House calendar last year, after it sent letters to a district court judge and marital master on House stationery calling itself a council, notifying them of a hearing on a grievance against them and asking them to attend. She later reinstated those privileges.

"I made it clear they could not give the impression they represented an official body of the Legislature," Norelli said.

Norelli believes the group has a right to gather as an ad-hoc caucus, not as an official committee or council, to discuss grievances and as House members file legislation. But she said the caucus has no official standing and cannot use words that imply it has any authority bestowed by the Legislature.

"I don't personally believe it is the Legislature's role to adjudicate all these cases they want to look at. It is my understanding some cases they are reviewing or discussing are pending cases," Norelli said.

In a letter to the caucus, Norelli wrote: "Your letters attempting to summons a judge and marital master to your meeting were inappropriate and misleading and used terminology that I had specifically stated was not appropriate."

Reconsidered ban

After further communication, Norelli reinstated its right to meet in legislative facilities and post notices in the House calendar, with a warning.

"(Any) future letter sent out by your caucus inviting guests to attend your meetings should clearly contain a disclaimer that it in no way represents the Legislative branch of the state nor is it conducting any official business of the Legislature," Norelli wrote.

Howard Zibel, general counsel to the state Supreme Court, has made it clear the judicial branch has no use for the caucus.

"I do not believe the Legislators' Council on Redress of Grievances to be an official body of the House," Zibel wrote to Norelli.

Zibel complained about the group's letters to Judge Lucinda Sadler and Marital Master Philip Cross on House letterhead asking them to provide their "accounts of the events," at a hearing in the Legislative Office Building.

"It is highly irregular for a legislator to use official House of Representative stationery to attempt to summon a judge and marital master to present their account of a case heard in court at an unofficial meeting of legislators," Zibel wrote.

Members of the caucus filed three bills in the Legislature this session trying to oust Sadler, Cross, and Marital Master Michael Garner. Most of the complaints were from parents who believe they were harmed in custody or marital disputes by not getting due process in the court.

Expecting negative reaction

Itse expects all three bills will be voted "ought not to pass" by the Joint Committee on Address, but he is undaunted.

"Next time we'll be smarter," Itse said.

There soon will be a next time as 15 new grievance petitions are in the pipeline that eventually will become legislation, he said.

Several involve the Division for Children, Youth and Families' Nashua office and another is against a teacher for allegedly threatening a student.

Itse said petitions of redress were common in the Legislature from 1784 through 1819, and the judiciary was often the target of them until it exempted itself by a Supreme Court decision, Merrill v. Sherburne, and the filings waned. Scholars say the case outlined the separation of powers between the Legislature and judiciary.

Itse also is planning more listening sessions this summer for new grievants.

A constitutional scholar said the Legislators' Caucus for Redress of Grievances has no special authority, although members say they don't need any in relying on the New Hampshire Constitution Part 1, Articles 31 and 32.

Article 31 says: "The Legislature shall assemble for the redress of public grievances."

Article 32 says: "The people have a right ... to request of the legislative body, by way of petition or remonstrance, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer."

Richard Hesse, a retired Franklin Pierce Law Center professor and scholar of the New Hampshire Constitution, said the caucus has no constitutional powers.

Article 31 makes it clear the constitution is referring to the Legislature as a body, not individual lawmakers -- or even a group of lawmakers, Hesse said.

"For individual members to act as the whole body, that would be chaos," Hesse said.

"It is very clear to me that the language means the Legislature shall assemble for the redress. I am persuaded to a certainty, it doesn't authorize individual legislators to act in the name of the Legislature," Hesse said.

No power claim

Gregory Sorg, a former legislator and an attorney who advises the caucus, says it doesn't claim any special powers.

"They don't have any particular constitutional authority. All of the individual legislators have the right to speak to their constituents and have them express grievances. All (the caucus) did was assemble a group of legislators together so they could hear the grievances people had at one time," Sorg said.

Sorg said he believes the process will become very popular if the Republican party regains control of the Legislature.

"It shouldn't be a partisan issue, but the Democrats see this as a way for Republicans to demean the judicial branch and that's not what it's about," Sorg said.

Norelli disagreed.

"I think there is a very limited number of members of the House that share their view. This is not a partisan issue, but is a small number of legislators who think this is the role of the general court," Norelli said.

In the long run, Itse believes, the caucus will make government more responsive to its citizens.

"Once the bureaucrats of government know they can be held accountable in a public manner, the abuse of the public will diminish greatly," Itse said.

Ideally, Itse said, all lawmakers would listen to their constituents' grievances, but most don't even know about the practice, although some are beginning to question him about it.

"Right now, the only place to go is before us," Itse said.

"I'm getting converts, slowly but surely."
Page: 01
Record Number: mandc5-5ucvwnmht11b2mvl37p
Copyright, 2010, Union Leader Corp.