[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6528340,"mediaKeyId","3409346-733fe34bfe1041e6d6bc04e285ede1e9","parentId",3409346,"title","Senate finance committee hears that restored public defender funding would cut contractor use to conflict cases","audioSeconds",114,"startMs",1117000,"endMs",1231000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3409346-733fe34bfe1041e6d6bc04e285ede1e9&start=1117&end=1231","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3409346-733fe34bfe1041e6d6bc04e285ede1e9/thumbnail_1117000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6528340/New-Hampshire/Senate-finance-committee-hears-that-restored-public-defender-funding-would-cut-contractor-use-to-conflict-cases","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528340-ad6f5a0f6199f96bb5d9fb950693257a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775968453&Signature=FEZ0uLCJ3FosMskQQFbIwnFOXmGPC~7cgrtINq~owRtcAS6~dLvyZVSvJH7M~yTTTzHrXdTTJbIZMwEyu3Vxbi8~qAmr9ySKUt39-nPXOuGdra97U8o0ecMch-xDB1gADDYytPfNvKjY5gl8-6pXxpq-vIit1fdHBESZw83sLpolDLO05gVp~C9XAdFm9BFXldZiQinzB8taAmGbGwNW0l7gC7C5W50D~F~k~HZgMFF9py-uRFp47fiCD9826J4v4I7CYhquJ~uoHnzrK5wYXU2p600I6UfxlrrdrU0f~dE-tDGC4wTt~~9faojxAg49RiLCRTszbPeDqvsicbCkOg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-05-20T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Finance Committee heard questions about funding for the state Public Defender Program and whether restored positions would eliminate use of private contractors, with Judicial Council officials telling senators the money would let public defenders reopen courts but would not remove the legal need for outside counsel in conflict cases.

The committee’s executive director introduced the Judicial Council’s representatives and the incoming and outgoing directors of the Public Defender Program before senators asked whether restored positions would replace contractors. The Judicial Council executive director said, “With the additional money ... there would not be any use of contractors besides that which is necessary to cover conflicts of interest.”

Why it matters: Committee members raised concern that without restored positions, the state relies on contractors and assigned counsel to handle cases when the public defender’s office is overcapacity or has a conflict, increasing cost and complicating continuity of representation. Senators put items 1a, 1b and 1c on hold while they review related budget language.

Committee discussion and details: A senator asked directly: “If this money is put back in, are you still gonna be contracting with the ... public defenders organization to come in?” The Judicial Council representative answered that contractors would remain necessary \"simply due to conflict of interest reasons\" and where courts have been closed for capacity reasons the restored funding would allow the public defender to reopen those courts. The official clarified there are two categories of private attorneys used when public defenders cannot take a case: contract attorneys and assigned counsel, differing mainly in compensation method; the Judicial Council refers to both as conflict counsel.

The committee also asked whether the Judicial Council could return to the fiscal committee to request additional funds specifically for contract and assigned counsel; the Judicial Council answered that it could. Senators pressed whether contractors might be unavailable if not retained, and the Judicial Council cautioned that contractor availability cannot be guaranteed attorney by attorney.

Action taken: The committee placed items 1a, 1b and 1c on hold pending further review and follow-up questions from senators.

Ending: Committee members asked the Judicial Council to provide follow-up detail about contractor costs and the practical effects of restored positions; those hold items will be revisited in future meetings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Finance (05/20/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Finance Committee heard questions about funding for the state Public Defender Program and whether restored positions would eliminate use of private contractors, with Judicial Council officials telling senators the money would let public defenders reopen courts but would not remove the legal need for outside counsel in conflict cases.","taxTitle","Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29500,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6528330,"Senators press YDC claims administrators after audit; committee seeks clearer payout and buffer estimates",82,1905000,1987000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3409346-733fe34bfe1041e6d6bc04e285ede1e9&start=1905&end=1987","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3409346-733fe34bfe1041e6d6bc04e285ede1e9/thumbnail_1905000.jpg","/articles/6528330/New-Hampshire/Senators-press-YDC-claims-administrators-after-audit-committee-seeks-clearer-payout-and-buffer-estimates","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528330-327d98c8e282dcb105a6c994611561ca/orig.mp4?Expires=1775968453&Signature=nayYslvNaK431m1zldr6I7crQjJ3~4exJety7JVkLtXNbIBSGvBYD8R2mxI6OwBM7VC7loD2koQTfIm9FLx-6z8W0la6cvUnEdClQAygGWci-dHbSgRAGL4brFTTw-pVdtiJ78geidh9kF9NN-pBC933z0CGAAiRp4WpXg7ZATrduEJ~Zp2DaL1R2feP5G2Ri40Z5AAdr54yd~aKVLwDPEODMo7cL93PIQzqaUax-DpSp7oEoAtgrjE3ajl1jq46KFAvMALpKjqsR5OX~znxMKVD8XlUt2Zjs5KiGj4VT7SADUk3VCfd7Z6w2VoxQcQLrJXcpiGXZo7Ijko5n8AEXg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Finance Committee members pressed YDC claims administrators and the Attorney General’s office for clearer accounting after a committee member cited an audit showing significant past payouts and pending obligations.

A committee member summarized audit figures, saying, “It's through March 31. We've spent $130,000,000 out of the fund. That is 123,000,000 to claimants and $7,000,000 on administrative fees. We're committed to $9,000,000 over the next 2 years for claims settled through March 31.” Jen Foley, general counsel for YDC claims administration, answered that committed payouts for resolved claims for 2026–27 are “26,000,000 plus,” and that the number is rising as new resolved claims are issued. She also said she would provide more specifics in the quarterly report and take questions back to the audit division when senators requested table references.

Why it matters: Committee members said they need a clearer reconciliation of paid claims, committed payouts, pending claims, and administrative costs before approving appropriations. Senators asked whether the $37 million in the audit labelled “pending claims” referred to filed claims, agreed claims awaiting payment, or claims still under evaluation; Foley said she would take that question back and provide detail with the next quarterly report.

Committee requests and context: Senators asked for breakout figures, including which award payments are lump sums versus periodic payments, the schedule of attorney fee payments, and how a requested AG buffer would affect appropriation needs. The committee placed the YDC claims item on hold to allow administrators to return with the audit tables and a reconciliation of committed and pending obligations.

Ending: The committee requested a follow-up report with specific table references and a clearer accounting of pending and committed obligations, expected in the upcoming quarterly report.","Senate Finance Committee members pressed YDC claims administrators and the Attorney General’s office for clearer accounting after a committee member cited an audit showing significant past payouts and pending obligations.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6528335,"Court system defends planned closures, cites efficiency target and geographic trade-offs",107,1398000,1505000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3409346-733fe34bfe1041e6d6bc04e285ede1e9&start=1398&end=1505","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3409346-733fe34bfe1041e6d6bc04e285ede1e9/thumbnail_1398000.jpg","/articles/6528335/New-Hampshire/Court-system-defends-planned-closures-cites-efficiency-target-and-geographic-trade-offs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528335-1aba4ef9c24ebacb1c913545e43de09b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775968453&Signature=FoQheWHSo01wz83hT4RgQKevq6ajOZ3lh1fbhID-RQe32hEsUisaRoyHAzcax8Pe9vy1ThcwoJAGaAJR9f3qbDTrsYkfsnvrMsOgidQ23e4W98kWXSSibwewETwCBrRwwZsxGwWxcP3JL9OZqBZnSai5WmDJaSuv9cocQnoQnd6jpCsXSZk0CMhbotwGScUxYZZfbY4e2FsfF8OaKL89gqEJwxqPogmqZNruaGkonTVbsNEqivVZU~5kitX299zqDhAsc7ys4-jMU6InlYR4vJJURy19RuXL-55q~5E~1f6uAKfL1xomSqyA7fc02A9JGtHGNeiIRp3es896r8MPTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The state’s court system defended a plan to close two of its 32 circuit court locations as part of a 4% efficiency budget target, telling the Senate Finance Committee the closures were chosen after reviewing facility use and costs but acknowledging the decision would inconvenience some communities and could increase local law-enforcement burdens.

Aaron Cregan, general counsel for the court system, told senators that reducing costs to meet a 4% efficiency target required larger savings than could be found in rents and contracts alone. Cregan said, \"On average, the courts process cases at a cost of about $900 each. We are lean and we are very personnel heavy ... In order to make that efficiency cut, we had to close 2 of the 32 locations where the circuit court appears.\" He said the system initially considered Candia and Claremont and ultimately settled on Austen and Hooksett after further feedback.

Why it matters: Senators said the planned Hooksett closure would directly affect two communities and the state police, potentially increasing officer travel time and overtime costs for smaller police departments. One senator asked the court system to provide a cost estimate for not closing Hooksett and for similar data on the other at-risk locations.

Committee discussion and requests: Senators pressed for a breakdown of costs and the likely effects on local police coverage; Cregan agreed to analyze both Hooksett and the other location and return with separate figures. The committee noted revenue projections from court fees that will offset some budget items; committee leadership placed item 6 on hold while awaiting the requested data.

Ending: The committee asked court staff to provide a detailed cost comparison — including impacts on local law enforcement and alternatives to closure — before the committee moves the item from hold.","The state’s court system defended a plan to close two of its 32 circuit court locations as part of a 4% efficiency budget target, telling the Senate Finance Committee the closures were chosen after reviewing facility use and costs but acknowledging the decision would inconvenience some communities and could increase local law-enforcement burdens.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6528324,"Votes at a glance: Senate Finance Committee actions and holds from the May session",8,1663000,1671000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3409346-733fe34bfe1041e6d6bc04e285ede1e9&start=1663&end=1671","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3409346-733fe34bfe1041e6d6bc04e285ede1e9/thumbnail_1663000.jpg","/articles/6528324/New-Hampshire/Votes-at-a-glance-Senate-Finance-Committee-actions-and-holds-from-the-May-session","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528324-f97085335bf31db71d1807a93b5fca28/orig.mp4?Expires=1775968453&Signature=Xh9I-vgqPJ5q1ea8y3UhFON0~wYJq9i2cdCaV3Gno5G-twryUo2ObYVFgunGTsXMkl7pAbb0b2VNu7b38b3k4EqFstgqvr~FiQZKlgaOJKecxiiLyF~8D9EJfp3KSUTWYOsc07Irvg5L7DlBz1S2e21cwAYYw5I6-MSm8y5ZP~NM3URqJkvYw1rMbM0ARREXa8RpLbv16xxQaaCdln5O7jffoFAhyLDYPvXYk-zXrGKzGtmnp3nO9qwsukf93Cpdzku~MhNrgUOyfdlLngeuskSwZ7PcYIB8zWvwI-DqmoTC4xok7sO5c~MJBcda3PPm67CY9zHQgh72aQKamryVMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Finance Committee took a series of procedural and funding votes during the session, approving multiple items by voice vote and placing several items on hold for further review.

Key outcomes (as recorded in the committee):
- Items 1a, 1b and 1c — placed on hold pending follow-up (voice agreement).
- Item 3 — approved (voice vote; committee said “The ayes have it”).
- Item 6 (court closure proposal) — placed on hold pending further cost analysis and impact estimates (voice agreement).
- Multiple Departmental and fund items (pages 3–12 as listed in the packet) — various motions to approve passed by voice vote; where a numeric tally was recorded the committee reported a 4–2 outcome for one approval.
- YDC claims item — placed on hold pending reconciled figures and audit table references.

What this means: The committee advanced numerous departmental funding adjustments by voice vote but held several items with significant fiscal or operational consequences until staff can provide additional data. Where recorded tallies are present in the transcript, the committee reported one recorded 4–2 vote on an approval; most approvals were decided by voice and are recorded as having passed.

Limitations: The committee recorded many approvals by voice without publishing a roll-call tally in the transcript excerpt. For items where the transcript only records a voice outcome, the committee’s statement “The ayes have it” or similar language is used to report passage. Where bills or amendment identifiers were not specified in the transcript excerpt, items are listed by packet page/item numbers as cited by the chair.

Ending: Items placed on hold will be revisited in subsequent meeting(s) after requested follow-up information is submitted.","The Senate Finance Committee conducted multiple voice votes, approving several items and placing a number on hold. Notable recorded outcomes include passage of several items by voice vote and a recorded 4–2 vote on one motion; multiple items (including 1a–c, 6 and YDC claims) were placed on hold for follow-up.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate finance committee hears that restored public defender funding would cut contractor use to conflict cases

Senators press YDC claims administrators after audit; committee seeks clearer payout and buffer estimates

Court system defends planned closures, cites efficiency target and geographic trade-offs

Votes at a glance: Senate Finance Committee actions and holds from the May session