Hours of testimony as House committee hears bill to investigate statewide domestic-violence coalition

A House committee on Feb. 11 heard hours of divided testimony on HB 16-75, a bill that would create a special legislative commission with subpoena power to examine the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. Prime sponsor Rep. Ellen Reed told the Committee the bill is aimed at bringing transparency to an organization she described as "almost entirely publicly funded" and responsible for coordinating services for victims statewide.

Reed said the coalition receives what she estimated to be "about $10 million to $12 million" a year in public funding and that the group holds a de facto monopoly on many victim-services functions. "We have effectively outsourced core Department of Justice functions to a private nonprofit without the normal transparency and accountability," Reed said, urging lawmakers to create a confidential venue where current and former staff and victims could report misconduct without fear of retaliation.

Why it matters: HB 16-75 would give the legislature an investigatory vehicle with subpoena authority to examine whether federal- and state-funded work, settlement awards, lobbying and other activities by a private nonprofit comport with law and grant conditions. Supporters said that independent review is necessary because criminal and administrative investigators have declined to pursue complaints in the past.

Proponents’ claims and testimony

Reed and multiple witnesses alleged a pattern of concerns: discrepancies between public filings and observed activity, possible violations of lobbying and nonprofit rules, settlement payments that benefited the coalition, and conflicts of interest involving outside law firms and government officials. Reed said she had received contact from current and former coalition staff, victims, lawyers and law-enforcement officers who described conduct they wanted a neutral body to examine. One witness said a person who alleged mishandled advocacy later was shot; Reed used that case to argue an independent, confidential fact-finding mechanism could bring information to light.

Opponents’ concerns and the coalition’s response

Lynn Shalette, the coalition’s executive director, said the organization supports oversight but that HB 16-75 as written would be unprecedented and harmful. "We support oversight and accountability," Shalette told the committee, but she said the coalition is already subject to state and federal audits, filings with the Charitable Trust Unit, and grant monitoring, and that those entities "have found no reason to investigate" the coalition. Shalette warned the bill’s funding restrictions would interrupt programs — 24-hour hotlines, training, shelter coordination and other services — that she said are essential to survivors.

What the bill would do

The proposal directs the legislature to create an investigative commission with subpoena power, authorizes targeted audit work and, in an enforcement provision, would restrict executive-council approval of coalition grants to those that "materially benefit survivors" (examples in the draft include shelter, food and medicine). Reed and supporters argued the funding limitation protects survivor-directed aid; opponents said the clause is vague and could curtail many core services.

Committee reaction and next steps

Committee members pressed Reed on legal authority, the constitutional limits of a legislative commission, and whether the attorney general’s office had been asked to investigate earlier complaints. Reed said the legislature has oversight duties and that a study commission is an appropriate first step; several members urged careful drafting to avoid unintended consequences for survivors. The hearing record includes dozens of public commenters who spoke both for and against the bill.

The committee closed the hearing without a vote on HB 16-75; next steps were not announced on the record. If the committee pursues legislation, any changes to funding or authority would require votes on the House floor and concurrence in the Senate before becoming law.

Ending: Lawmakers left the hearing with sharply divided testimony and factual disagreements about the coalition’s financial reporting, use of settlements and the adequacy of existing oversight. The committee may schedule further work or amendments before any vote.