By DAMIEN FISHER, InDepthNH.org
If a Superior Court judge has a conflict of interest that potentially benefits Gov. Kelly Ayotte, the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office doesn’t want anyone to know about it, according to a notice filed this week in a lawsuit brought by survivors of sexual abuse committed by state employees.
At issue is Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Daniel St. Hilaire’s recent ruling against 1,500 survivors of the Sununu Youth Services Center, formerly called YDC, sex abuse scandal, a ruling that favors Ayotte who is a named defendant.
The lawsuit was filed after Ayotte pushed through legislative changes to the YDC Settlement Fund that gives Attorney General John Formella the authority to veto any settlement agreement survivors reach with the fund administrator. Those changes happened after the State allegedly coerced survivors to drop their civil lawsuits in favor of the settlement process. Part of the featured benefit of the Settlement Fund was the fact the neutral and independent fund administrator would make the final decision.
But Ayotte’s changes, which took place on July 1 after the survivors filed for settlements, obliterate the deal, according to the survivors. According to Thursday’s motion to reconsider, Formella has already vetoed 20 percent of the settlements former Administrator John Broderick reached before the law changed on July 1.
The survivors who disagree with the settlement offers can always restart their lawsuits, but that process is estimated to take several years, if not a decade. The delay might be part of Ayotte’s motive for the changes, according to an affidavit filed by Jonathan O’Neil, one of the Nixon Peabody attorneys representing the victims.
“Many of our clients will never receive justice. Indeed, 50 of our clients have passed away since the consolidated litigation began in 2021. That number will inevitably increase as a result of the delays caused by Defendants’ dismantling of the Settlement Fund. Based on the average settlement amounts in the Settlement Fund, the deaths of 50 victims yielded a savings to the State of approximately $20 million. Additional delays will mean additional deaths and further savings to the State of funds which should be directed to victims,” O’Neil wrote.
St. Hilaire ruled last month that Ayotte’s changes are valid as the survivors don’t have any legal right to say how the Settlement Fund operates. But, InDepthNH.org has since reported that Ayotte’s office is refusing to disclose the names of any lower court judge who applied for the upcoming Supreme Court opening. Ayotte ultimately makes all judicial nominations which then must be approved by the Republican-dominated Executive Council.
Ayotte’s refusal to release the names of Supreme Court applicants prompted the survivors to file a motion demanding answers about St. Hilaire’s possible ambitions. They argue the rules for judicial conduct require St. Hilaire to disclose if he is seeking the spot on the New Hampshire Supreme Court expected to open in February.
Neither the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, nor Ayotte’s Office responded to InDepthNH.org. Instead, the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office filed a notice with the court on Thursday that it plans to object to St. Hilaire answering the question.
David Vicinanzo, lead attorney for the survivors, said there is no good reason to cover up the fact if St. Hilaire applied for the Supreme Court job.
“The request for disclosure is very simple, and the State shouldn’t be blocking it. Why wouldn’t the AG and Governor want the judge to just say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ so the abuse victims can be treated with respect and candor? The public also deserves transparency from its government. Our Constitution says our government must be ‘open, accessible, accountable and responsive.’ Objecting to our simple question just makes it like they have something to hide,” Vicinanzo told InDepthNH.org.