Legislative audit finds New Hampshire Human Rights Commission slow and understaffed; lawmakers press for fixes

A legislative performance audit presented to the House Judiciary Committee found the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights was “inefficient and ineffective” at investigating complaints and closing cases, taking an average of 840 days (about 2.3 years) to close cases in fiscal 2023.

The finding, delivered by Legislative Budget Assistant staff, came as lawmakers and agency leaders discussed a 25-observation report that recommended administrative rule changes, new policies, improved data controls and a case-management system to shorten investigation timelines and increase transparency.

John Clinch, senior audit manager with the Legislative Budget Assistant’s office, told the committee the audit covered state fiscal years 2020 through 2023 and included 25 observations with recommendations. “We found the commission was inefficient and ineffective in investigating complaints and closing cases in a timely manner,” Clinch said. The report shows the commission fully concurred with 24 observations and concurred in part with one; two recommendations (numbers 10 and 13 in the report) may require legislative action.

Why it matters: The commission enforces state anti‑discrimination laws and serves complainants who often lack the resources to pursue court litigation. Committee members and outside lawyers said delays and unclear procedures reduce access to justice for low‑income residents and risk shifting caseload into superior court.

Key findings and agency response

The audit said the commission lacked accurate caseload data, comprehensive administrative rules and adequate written policies and procedures. It recommended the commission develop internal controls, update manuals, adopt administrative rules to govern intake and conciliation, and evaluate options for an electronic case-management system.

Clinch highlighted specific measures: inaccurate closure codes, missing reconciliation of commission records to the federal database managed by the EEOC, expired administrative rules, and “structural and operational conflicts of interest” in the conciliation process. The audit also noted seven of 10 findings from a 2019 financial audit remained unresolved.

Katrina Taylor, acting assistant director of the commission, said recent leadership disruptions slowed work but that the agency has begun implementing changes. “We are in the final stages of developing that case management program,” Taylor said, adding she and staff “anticipate a go‑live date of June.” She said the commission has reached out to EEOC counterparts about compliance and that the agency expects improvements if it secures additional staff.

Data and staffing details cited in the hearing

- Average case closure time in fiscal 2023: 840 days (about 2.3 years). - Pending caseload composition: more than 87% of pending cases were employment cases, with disability cited as the single largest category. - Current pending investigations awaiting assignment: about 390 cases; the oldest case awaiting an investigator dated to September 2023. - Monthly intake: roughly 25–30 new complaints per month, according to commissioners and staff. - Staffing: the commission reported nine current staff members and authorization for 15 positions; the commission has requested waivers to fill several vacancies and said one waiver (assistant director) was granted.

The report also recommended the commission remove personal, unredacted case information from training manuals, adopt transparent fee schedules in administrative rule where statutory authority exists, require timely filing of commissioners’ statements of financial interest, and regularly reconcile records with the federal EEOC database that provides per‑case federal funding for certain employment discrimination matters.

Reaction from lawmakers, lawyers and the attorney general’s office

Lawmakers pressed the commission and auditors about timelines and follow‑up. Representative Mary Smith (first reference), who helped request the audit in 2022, said the report provides a “road map” but asked what would happen next. Several members, including Representatives Perez and Birch, expressed frustration that issues identified in a 2019 audit had not been fully addressed.

Samantha Herring, an employment attorney at Shaheen & Gordon who testified as an outside observer, told the committee she supports the audit recommendations and urged maintaining the commission’s role. “With improvements in the HRC, it is capable of useful and efficient government operation,” Herring said, adding that eliminating the commission would leave low‑income claimants with limited options.

Sean Locke, senior assistant attorney general and director of the Civil Rights Unit, described the attorney general’s office role as legal counsel and administrative attachment but not day‑to‑day operator. Locke told the committee a dedicated lawyer on commission staff would be a useful asset and that some procedural features — including a complainant’s right to remove to superior court after a set period and the respondent’s right to remove after a probable‑cause finding — have been grafted onto the statutory process over time.

Policy issues discussed

Committee discussion focused on whether statutory or rule changes should (a) clarify intake screening practices, (b) limit late complaint amendments and extensions, (c) define timelines for investigators and commissioners, and (d) reconsider the statutory terms and consequences tied to ‘‘probable cause’’ and removal rights. LBA staff recommended the commission adopt administrative rules that disclose intake screening, define deadlines for amendments and extensions, and consider limiting opportunities that repeatedly restart investigations.

No formal committee action was taken during the hearing. Lawmakers said they may consider legislation after monitoring the commission’s implementation of report recommendations and staffing progress.

Ending

Committee members and witnesses agreed the Human Rights Commission serves an important access‑to‑justice role but that timely, transparent operations and adequate staffing are essential for it to function. The commission and Legislative Budget Assistant staff provided timelines and commitments to implement many recommendations; committee members asked for regular status updates and emphasized urgency in reducing backlog and finalizing administrative rules.