Grievances Committee an “Embarrassing Farce”

Last week, I described how the chairman of Speaker O’Brien’s House Redress of Grievances Committee had disclosed a brazen ethics conflict while hearing a child custody case. This week, there was rare agreement from the state’s three most influential newspapers.

Union Leader:

Last week, a blatantly obvious conflict of interest was revealed. It should have resulted in the swift removal of a committee chairman. Instead, it elicited yawns.

As a sponsor earlier this year of a legislative bill of address to impeach a martial master whom Johnson accused of malpractice, Ingbretson was conflicted up to his eyeballs and never should have chaired the hearing.

It should be reheard under a different chairman and with the involvement of the girl’s mother. Otherwise, the Redress of Grievances Committee will have created another grievance to redress.

Nashua Telegraph:

When House Speaker William O’Brien, R-Mont Vernon, established the House Redress of Grievances Committee at the start of legislative session, it marked the first time in roughly 150 years that the redress process spelled out in the state constitution would be put into practice by the state Legislature.

If what happened during a committee hearing last week is any indication of how this process is supposed to work, maybe it should be put back on the shelf for another 150.

Concord Monitor:

Now, out of New Hampshire’s history-making 2011 Legislature comes this riddle for philosophers: Can a violation of ethics occur in a farce, which by definition is a ludicrous, empty show?

The Committee on Petitions for Redress of Grievances is nothing more than a kangaroo court, albeit one whose only power is to make trouble and issue reports. It should be disbanded. If it isn’t, the committee’s four Democratic members should consider whether they really want to remain as players in this embarrassing farce.

Update: The chairman of the House Redress of Grievances Committee agreed to step aside following a request from the general counsel to the judicial branch.

When Legislators Try to Play Judge

This is what happens when legislators try to play judge.

The House Redress of Grievances Committee is a special panel created by Speaker O’Brien based on a clause in the New Hampshire Constitution giving citizens the 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.”

Thursday, the committee heard a complaint from David Johnson, who is asking the Legislature to give him custody of his daughter, impeach four judges and two marital masters and remove the authority of the chief justice of the Supreme Court over the judicial system.

After hours of testimony, chairman Rep. Paul Ingbretson ”remembered” that he is an acquaintance of Johnson and, by the way, he personally supervised visits between Johnson and his daughter once a week for a year.

Ingbretson said his discussions with O’Brien and Rich Lambert, executive administrator for the Legislative Ethics Committee, assured him that he was not violating the legislative ethics guidelines. Those rules define a conflict of interest as a situation where a lawmaker or immediate family member would gain financially, Lambert said yesterday.

O’Brien said in an interview that he advised Ingbretson to continue with the hearing because nothing in the case suggests a “conflict in fact.”

Before Speaker O’Brien began pursuing his vision of legislative supremacy, there was no need for the legislature to have judicial recusal guidelines. Now I guess there is. Or, we could leave the work of the judiciary to the judiciary.