“Take time to deliberate; but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in." Napoleon Bonaparte

The time is NOW to do something in regards to changing the current way guardian ad litems do business in the state of Maine.
We have heard from hundreds of you with issues on how custody and divorce works particularly when dealing with GAL's. Everything that we have covered in our blogs, discussions and articles comes down to this. Our talking from experience on billing that wasn't understood or explained or that nearly bankrupted your family. We have also covered bias, to interviews and reports that didn't happen but were supposed to have happened. You have come to us crying out about custody being granted to an alcoholic or drug addict or felon parent Those stories have haunted us and pushed us onward to this moment.
The deadline for guardian ad litem comments from you is July 1st, 2012. That gives you today and tomorrow to email them in to the judicial branch.
Send along a sentence about your desire for change or email your version of 'War and Peace' but act now. Let's see if the Judicial branch of Maine is really up for the needed change or just paying lip service to appease us.
To make suggestions on ways to improve the system, please submit those by July 1st 2012  to: lawcourt.clerk@courts.maine.gov

We will continue to address your concerns as you send them to us.

Like us on Facebook at Megalalert or Megalhelp or send your questions or tell your story at megalalert@gmail.com megalhelp@gmail.com

The deadline of July 1st is approaching

One day is all you have to speak your mind on Guardian ad litem reform. 

Don't let this day slip away.

Maine's Judicial Branch has given the public an opportunity to give comments on how Guardian ad litem oversight should be addressed. We are encouraging our readers to comment. Your thoughts and ideas can range from simple to complex. From a one line thought on oversight to “War and Peace”. It does not matter. What does matter is that your voice is heard.

Comments can either be mailed or emailed to the court. They will be posted for the public to view with any personal information removed. Your view does matter. Comments can be viewed here:

Maine– Public comments on GAL oversight- Click here

And your thoughts on GAL oversight can be emailed to this address:

lawcourt.clerk@courts.maine.gov

 

Or mailed to this address:

Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court
205 Newbury Street, Room 139
Portland, ME 04101. 

 

The deadline of July 1, 2012 is almost here.

Time is running out - only SIX days left

Six days is all you have to speak your mind on Guardian as litem reform. Don't let that time slip away.

Maine's Judicial Branch has given the public an opportunity to give comments on how Guardian ad litem oversight should be addressed. We are encouraging our readers to comment. Your thoughts and ideas can range from simple to complex. From a one line thought on oversight to “War and Peace”. It does not matter. What does matter is that your voice is heard.

Comments can either be mailed or emailed to the court. They will be posted for the public to view with any personal information removed. Your view does matter. Comments can be viewed here:

Maine– Public comments on GAL oversight- Click here

And your thoughts on GAL oversight can be emailed to this address:

lawcourt.clerk@courts.maine.gov

 

Or mailed to this address:

Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court
205 Newbury Street, Room 139
Portland, ME 04101. 

 

The deadline of July 1, 2012 is fast approaching.

How can this be said? Tactfully.......

We have been thinking a lot lately about why consumer complaints to the Chief Judge seem to go nowhere. Two warnings in two years; one written; one verbal. It is an amazing set of statistics. Either there is great consumer contentment with their GALs and they are doing a near perfect job, or there is huge, bigoted, unfair "bad sportism" about GALs that has to be weeded out with "tough love". The stories we hear from many consumers suggest that more than 2 GALs have done bad things and should warrant some form of corrective action. What gives?

Then we started to dig a bit. Who creates GALs? Who trains them? Who has worked with them in the courts? Who has worked with GALs in the legislature? Who acts on consumer complaints about GALs? As they say, "Three guesses and the first two don't count." It is analogous to asking the Director of General Motors to deal with consumer complaints about Chevrolets. Sure he knows a lot about Chevrolets, but how on earth can he keep his judgment fair, and avoid it being tainted by pride in his "product".

It is an amazing example of asking the manufacturer be exclusively in charge of consumer's rights, protection and consumer's complaints. How is the judge in this role to avoid a rampant perception of all consumer's complaints as evidence of consumers being "bad sports"? And ... viewing these consumer's complaints as a sort of temper tantrums? It leads to a "tough love" handling of perceived tantrums. It leads to minimal instruction/help in how to do a complaint, no identification of criteria for a complaint, no consumers at hearings. It leads to consumer unfriendliness in the final response. These responses are becoming notorious: terse one line responses to consumers after their complaint has been dismissed and they have poured their hearts out about lives that have been wounded by a GAL.

We sense that it is the pride of the "manufacturer" in his product that gets in the way of consumer protection. The manufacturer is a GAL's best friend!

Other states are moving the consumer complaint process away from the office of the manufacturer. We need to too.

Is 1% really a problem with Maine's Guardian ad litems?

According to Maine's Judicial Branch the number of complaints filed against GALs is small. On average about 13 to 14 a year, or 1% of the total divorce/custody cases with GALs, end up with complaints. Of these complaints in the last two years (2010 and 2011) the Chief District Court Judge Charles LaVerdiere issued a written warning in 2011 and a verbal one in 2010. From this scant data one might say that there really is no problem with the GAL system we have in the state of Maine.  All is well, or is it?

What do these numbers, which were  presented at the hearing on May 31, 2012, really tell us? Nothing. Nothing other than there were 13 cases where one or both parties felt strongly enough about the integrity of the GAL on their case to pursue a complaint, a course of action that for the average person will consume both time and money with little hope of corrective action and miniscule feedback from Judge LaVerdiere.  A person might be as well off investing that money in the lottery – to many there appears to be an equal chance of a favorable response.

What are the numbers at the district court level? How many complaints are filed there, and what is the out come of those complaints? If there were records would they be accurate? How many legitimate complaints never made it to the judge, because, as one concerned parent wrote to the Judiciary – a complaint against the GAL “would hinder my case, and the GAL could deal with the case not in a favorable way”.  Fear of what may happen in custody judgments if one makes an unsuccessful complaint about a GAL is a big deterrent.  A GAL's wounded ego may make things worse for the complainer.  How about supervised visits with your child until the age of 18?  And ... for you, a lifetime program of anger management, if you want those supervised visits.

So how big is the numbers  problem with the GALs in Maine? Big numbers, or are things okay. It really depends on how you define the complaint "problem". From a GALs perspective, looking top down, there is no problem with a system that generates 13 complaints a year. From a parents perspective 13 does not accurately reflect the issues we are hearing about from consumers who are actually dealing with GALs and their behavior.  The anecdotal data we are getting is significant.  But GAL malpractice lacks a series of open criteria or definitions for framing a complaint from the Judicial Branch.  Then there is the reporting problem.  As consumers, we are intimidated and sometimes coerced into keeping silent. When we have a complaint there is no user friendly system to record that complaint at the District Court level. As we have mentioned earlier, no records or statistics at this level does not mean the system is functioning as it should. It only means that no one has established a system for collecting and counting the numbers.

Will the Judicial Branch "Shoe" fit Consumers?

This is the critical issue for all "consumers" of GAL services: who will be developing a blueprint for GAL reform?   Will the "shoe" get fitted to our actual, real foot as it is being designed, or will it be designed ''in camera' and handed out without a fitting after it's made? There are other closely connected questions: for whose needs will this particular "shoe" be designed? For GALs who have to work with it, or for "consumers", including children who have to experience it, or for district judges? Or for all three  entities? What are the overarching goals of any planning design for GAL reform?  How will "child's best interest" and "child's safety" balance out?  Our sense is that clear, carefully articulated goals of any GAL reform plans are the most important determining task for JB planners.  Everything is founded on goals, every planning action flows from them.

Our general feeling is that specific aims of a reformed GAL program are best determined in the actual planning process itself, by a fair, open process which encompasses diverse perspectives and diverse interests. But there are a mix of topics that, in our view, need consideration and explicit articulation in any planning process: legal goals, social goals, public health goals, child welfare goals, economic/cost goals, manpower knowledge, skill and experience goals, oversight and correction goals, public education goals and- not least- political goals.

We feel strongly that consumers must be involved in such a way that they will be able to support the design for reform that comes out of any planning process. Ideally, the planning design should be for and about consumers. It should be about them, their children, their families, their friends and their community.  A starting point  has to be the lives of consumers going through divorce- adults and children- that call for a public judicial service to facilitate this process in a safe healthy manner. 

In the current situation (the existing GAL program), consumers are the best spokespersons for saying where the "shoe" pinches- and how badly. We know where there are things that don't make sense, or that seem outright crazy. We know the dangers to children. We know the most troubling problems with a lack of GAL accountability and arrogance. We have details about the poor quality of statutory observance, inaccurate reports, bias and an array of things which exemplify dysfunction and which destroy faith in Maine courts.  We know where poorly trained GALs are way over their depth, spouting shallow judgments without any in depth clinical or legal knowledge, and hiding behind rigid dogmatism or formulas.   In short, in our combined experiences, we know "where the bodies are buried." We know, because some of us have been buried with them. The question is: does the JB want to know too; not for a display of acrimony- but for planning which avoids problem repetition and inadvertent harm to consumers?  Let's not do a replay  on the current GAL-dominated, GAL-centered program.  Any planning process has to begin  with careful problem definition before moving on to solutions to the defined problems.   As consumers we are "experts" on GAL problems!

There are several ways in which one can obtain consumer input:

(a) there is a "consumer's report, such as the Maine Guardian ad litem Alert Report, sent to the Chief Justice and many others on May 15th, and which has since "gone viral" throughout Maine.

(b) there is an open public hearing with testimony in which the JB made a very brave start on May 31st. Well done, we'd say!

(c) there is the creative use of a JB web site for public comment, problem definition and proposals for solutions.  To which we say: "Top shelf"!

(d) there might be focused interviews by consultants gathering data about perceptions of various people representing various "interests".

(e) in the final analysis, however, there needs to be some integration of all of this diverse, rich data into a framework that leads to goals and approaches derived from this complex data.

(f) there also needs to be planning for evaluation and correction of plans- after they have been implemented.

Any final 'blueprint" will always have a few rough edges, unforeseen issues, and adjustments of fit that need correction after a plan has been given a run for a while.  Any new GAL plan should have provision for a "1000 mile check up and re-tuning".

As consumer of GAL services - and with the scars to prove it -  we'd ask to be an integral part of all aspects of planning for GAL reform.  Not only do we represent a "political aspect" as one of the "interested parties" involved in this venture, but we also bring significant experiential knowledge that can't readily be gotten from other sources.  We have spent a great deal of time studying and analyzing Maine's GAL problem, we have talked with an ever growing number of consumers.  We have also looked at ideas outside of Maine as well.  We have collected a great variety of opinions from many sources.  We truly offer a perspective on the GAL problem that ought to be included in the core of planning.

And ...  we are highly motivated and backed by others who are equally avid  to see reform.  We truly want to see the best interest of Maine's children and families served well.  We want Maine to move into the forefront nationally and be recognized as a leader in this field.  It can happen, if we all are involved in and all owners of a plan for Maine's children and families.

“IF WE’RE NOT AT THE TABLE, WE’RE ON THE MENU!”

We found that the Judicial Branch’s hearing on May 31st was a rewarding experience. They have heard- and are hearing- us. At the hearing they listened carefully, many of us spoke and offered a variety of diagnoses of the GAL problems, as well as proposing an amazing range of ideas for fixing them.There was a good human feeling, coming from a respectful process.

But … though we say it was a  very good beginning, we’d also say, “We’re not home free yet!” There is work to be done on an actual plan for reform.

One of the many problems that need to be resolved is the GAL able to diagnose a child?  Is it within a GAL’s ability and/or job description to make a diagnosis?

Another problem as we see it, is that no matter how badly a case is handled, not in the results produced or custody determined but in procedures followed or lack thereof, the guardian ad litem has immunity. In several cases we have read about the court of appeals reviewed the cases and noted that immunity only applies if the guardian ad litem is acting within the scope of her duties. If a guardian ad litem is exceeding the scope of those duties then immunity does not protect the guardian ad litem. Those rulings are very rare but we do not understand why they should be.

We believe that switching GAL’s should work in the same way as obtaining a different attorney. If your guardian ad litem is deficient in his or her duties or if you have a complete disagreement in all aspects of what both of you see as an agreeable situation for custody or visitation, allow a change in the guardian ad litem.
Mandate detailed billing that is updated and available to you, the client, on a monthly basis. Having a bill loaded with vague phrasing as in ‘sent an email’ or ‘wrote a letter’ tells you nothing. We would never accept that from a doctor, a lawyer or a plumber, why should it be acceptable from a GAL?

The expense has been a constant concern and roadblock for any real change to oversight, here is a list with lots of options to choose from, surely one or more would be within our means. Clearly, what Maine has now isn’t working.

• Move the Office of the Guardian ad Litem to the executive branch,and place it in an existing department. Or
• Move the Office of the Guardian ad Litem to the executive branch and make it an independent executive branch agency that reports to an appointed oversight board Or
• Move the Office of the Guardian ad Litem to the executive branch and make it part of the Attorney General’s Office. Or
• Leave the Office of the Guardian ad Litem in the judicial branch but have it report to a board appointed by the Judicial Council. Oversight by this new board could at least partially resolve the ethical conflict of having the Judicial Council supervise the GAL.
We deeply appreciate the mere fact that this hearing was held, that so many people attended and participated, that the press has helped to highlight the issues, that the legislature has given a charge to the JB and that the Chief Justice and other Justices are responding with energy, openness and all due speed.

But we are wary of counting our chickens before they are hatched, and we strongly feel that consumers need to be involved in the planning process at the JB.  We don’t want to be reacting to a “done deal”.

This has been a great start and we certainly have gotten the attention of those who matter most in the State of Maine. But to relax before changes are implemented would be a huge mistake.

Comments for the needed change are due by July 1st, 2012, this doesn’t leave much time! If any of your concerns are addressed in this article, feel free to copy and paste but adapt it to your situation.

Please send your ideas for the improvement of the guardian ad litem system due by July 1st, 2012 to:  lawcourt.clerk@courts.maine.gov

Remember, if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu!

Like us on Facebook at Megalalert or Megalhelp or send your questions or tell your story at megalalert@gmail.com megalhelp@gmail.com

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then, Maine’s children win”.

The actual quote is “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.” We are paraphrasing a very famous quote from Mahatma Gandhi for dramatic effect. The same dramatic effect that a GAL we know said she was trying to achieve when she wrote a letter stating that a child she had yet to meet could become the next Jeffrey Dahmer or Unabomber if his mother had to go to prison as scheduled.

One of the many problems that need to be resolved is the GAL able to diagnose a child? Of course, in the case mentioned, two issues are in play. First, the guardian ad litem hadn’t met the child to diagnose any perceived problem. The second issue is, even if she had met the child, is it within a GAL’s ability and/or job description to make such a diagnosis?

Another problem as we see it, is that no matter how badly a case is handled, not in the results produced or custody determined but in procedures followed or lack thereof, the guardian ad litem has immunity. In several cases we have read about the court of appeals reviewed the cases and noted that immunity only applies if the guardian ad litem is acting within the scope of her duties. If a guardian ad litem is exceeding the scope of those duties then immunity does not protect the guardian ad litem. Those rulings are very rare but we do not understand why they should be.

The removal of a guardian ad litem, as in the case listed above, was attempted but the judge refused to do so even with another letter written on behalf of the mother. We believe that switching GAL’s should work in the same way as obtaining a different attorney. If your guardian ad litem is deficient in his or her duties or if you have a complete disagreement in all aspects of what both of you see as an agreeable situation for custody or visitation, allow a change in the guardian ad litem.
Mandate detailed billing that is updated and available to you, the client, on a monthly basis. Having a bill loaded with vague phrasing as in ‘sent an email’ or ‘wrote a letter’ tells you nothing. We would never accept that from a doctor, a lawyer or a plumber, why should it be acceptable from a GAL?

Potential changes on oversight:

• Move the Office of the Guardian ad Litem to the executive branch,and place it in an existing department. Or
• Move the Office of the Guardian ad Litem to the executive branch and make it an independent executive branch agency that reports to an appointed oversight board Or
• Move the Office of the Guardian ad Litem to the executive branch and make it part of the Attorney General’s Office. Or
• Leave the Office of the Guardian ad Litem in the judicial branch but have it report to a board appointed by the Judicial Council. Oversight by this new board could at least partially resolve the ethical conflict of having the Judicial Council supervise the GAL.

Like us on Facebook at Megalalert or Megalhelp or send your questions or tell your story at megalalert@gmail.com megalhelp@gmail.com
 
To make suggestions on ways to improve the system, please submit those to:lawcourt.clerk@courts.maine.gov

Can Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute discuss our cases?

We include the following from Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute home page for your information:

2012 May 30: Parental Alienation

From what we can tell, some of Maine's Guardians ad litem held a alleged teaching session the day before the Judicial Branch (JB) hearing in Portland on May 31st. The Guardian ad litem Institute which is the trade organization for Maine GALs, was the sponsor and charged ($155.00 for members; $175.00 for non-members) for a session to share GAL "war stories" about their client's "parental alienation". Was your family's case or mine providing the assembled GALs with an afternoon of "stories from their case books?"

From the marketing notice of this meeting, it was unclear if there were any work-related learning goals for this so-called teaching. We doubt that there was any official JB licensing behind this alleged training of Maine court appointed officials. Without a regulatory mandate for this sort of group supervision using our real cases, it is in danger of becoming an ill-defined, unofficial, coffee klatch that may well violate confidences of clients and their children. Was the session aimed at enhancing social work skills or legal skills? Was this peer supervision aimed at correcting or improving the professional techniques and professional actions of anyone - which ones? Were all of the case presenters evaluated in how they performed in their cases, say - satisfactory, good or bad? Were they appraised by trade group peers as functioning with families and children as they should be? How would anyone know how to evaluate such a session? Most important, would their clients have agreed with their GAL's interpretation of situations that were presented? Would "peer GALs" be liable if one of those GALs attending and presenting a case happened to have been involved in an evolving malpractice situation? Who is accountable for quality in this format? How did this training improve performance of a GAL's statutory functions or is it an example of training that expands GAL role confusion and "mission creep"?

Bottom line legal question from our perspective: who gave the Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute permission to discuss our cases in a public venue? We need to be told by a government official associated with consumer protection whether this does or doesn't violate our confidentiality. Were there releases or permissions given by any of us consumers to talk about us as clinical examples of "parental alienation"? Or ... is it just presumption on the Institutes part that they can just do it. No one has ever questioned it before, so just do it! GALs are a law unto themselves.

There is also the matter of "informed consent". When we signed contracts with GALs at the beginning, were we informed (and did we agree) that our case might be on display in GAL training for a whole raft of other GALs who are unknown to us?  Even if case names are removed, in a small state, like Maine, identities can frequently be determined by the story itself.

In addition, there is the unspoken matter of what do all of these case discussions do to the rules/ethics about court officials discussing active cases out of court? Aren't court officials supposed to exercise some sort of restraint about discussing/sharing cases in a public setting? The Justices at Thursday's hearing were at great pains to avoid receiving any information that might later be used in court. Doesn't this same concern apply to court appointed GALs?

This apparently routine "training" exercise for GALs, making use of consumer's cases raises many ethical and legal questions. It calls for review and answers, and it desperately needs oversight!

MPBN interview on Guardian ad litem reform

Wednesday June 6, 2012 from 5:30 pm – 6:00 pm

Tune in to MPBN on Wednesday June 6th for a piece being done on Guardian ad litem reform in the state of Maine.

The interview should be available on one of the following stations:

WMED Calais - 89.7
WMEA Portland - 90.1
WMEP Camden - 90.5
WMEH Bangor - 90.9
WMEW Waterville - 91.3
WMEM Presque Isle - 106.1
WMEF Fort Kent - 106.5
 

“The Only Source of Knowledge is Experience” Albert Einstein

We have been hearing a lot of talk about guardian ad litems lately. I guess I didn’t realize there were so many issues with them. Why hadn’t I heard of this problem before?” This question was posed on our blog. Unfortunately, our experience with Gal’s has been less than spectacular. Therefore, you go with what you know. For most of us the term Guardian ad litem is one that most people will never have knowledge of. Guardian ad litem or GAL is a person who works within the court system and usually involved in custody cases.They are supposed to collect information (facts) for the Judge.. Think of it this way, a Judge is only able to see a snapshot of the dispute. The GALs function provides the Judge a preview of sorts. Not the whole experience but hopefully enough that the Judge can get a sense of what is going on. There are rules and standards that the GAL operate under and management of the GAL during the investigation is in the hands of the judge that appointed him/ her.

GALs have been in the news lately because there is growing concern in the way they (GALs) are managed. Back in 2001 in the Final Report of the Committee to Review the Child Protective System – it was noted that there is no actual supervision or oversight of GALs other than the presiding Judge or through the complaint process. Back then there were 139 GALs registered. Today there are over 300 GALs registered and still no oversight.

The system as it stands is broken. The Chief Justice Leigh Saufley and The Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute recognize this fact as do several Senators and Legislators who have had personal experience. We have received emails from people who have also experienced frustration with a system that should be helpful but at times is not. There are scant statistics on how GALs operate within the system and no way of knowing if there are issues with an individual, group or system currently. As I said the system is broken and that is why you have been seeing news on the GAL industry. There are people who are concerned about the issue of oversight and management of GALs and are trying to fix the broken system. In the future there will be more as the issues are worked on by those involved.

Like us on Facebook at Megalalert or Megalhelp or send your questions or tell your story at megalalert@gmail.com

To make suggestions on ways to improve the system, please submit those to: lawcourt.clerk@courts.maine.gov

“Healthy disagreement, debate, leading to compromise has always been the American way.” Donald L. Carcieri

Upon review of Thursday’s events, like most of the attendees, we found that the Judicial Branch’s hearing on May 31st was a rewarding experience. They have heard - and are hearing - us. At the hearing they listened carefully, many of us spoke and offered a variety of diagnoses of the GAL problems, as well as proposing an amazing range of ideas for fixing them.There was a good human feeling, coming from a respectful process.  But … though we say it was a  very good beginning, we’d also say, “We’re not home free yet!” There is work to be done on an actual plan for reform.

The meeting on Thursday from 4-5:30 was well attended.  It is hard to estimate numbers, but we’d guess from the crowding in the hearing room somewhat over 50.  We know of many people, who wanted to attend, who had to work or who were too far away to make a round trip. It was a mixed crowd. Lawyers, GALs, and “consumers”, in a range of socioeconomic status. It was a Maine crowd of people who were all deeply concerned that the broken GAL program in Maine needs an overhaul. There was excellent testimony giving different opinions, reflecting the different perspectives of the speakers.  Consumers were very candid about systems problems, but respectful and focused.  Lawyers and GALs had  the different “takes” of each of their groups on the problem.  We have to say it was very interesting and very educational for everyone, both for participants and for Justices.

At the end of the meeting, in a conversation with Chief Justice Saufley, we learned that the Judicial Branch is seeking out-of-state consultation on the Judicial Branch’s GAL systems problems. We gathered that consultants are already engaged and about to start on their assessments. There are a number of issues that concern Chief Justice Saufley, which she touched on very briefly. The roles and functions of GALs are presently somewhat amorphous and  ill-defined. They need clarification and control of “mission creep” (non-statutory GAL role expansion). Saufley is deeply concerned about the punishing costs of GAL’s services, which can impoverish families and which may take money for future education of children and retirement. In another context (not the Thursday meeting), Saufley stressed the importance of updating information systems and data collection and use in management. We were pleased that many of  the concerns Saufley expressed were also concerns which Maine Guardian ad litem Alert expressed in its May 15th, 2012 report to the Chief Justice.

We deeply appreciate the mere fact that this hearing was held, that so many people attended and participated, that the press has helped to highlight the issues, that the legislature has given a charge to the JB and that the Chief Justice and other Justices are responding with energy, openness and all due speed.
But we are wary of counting our chickens before they are hatched, and we strongly feel that consumers need to be involved in the planning process at the Judicial Branch.  We don’t want to be reacting to a “done deal”.
This has been a great start and we certainly have gotten the attention of those who matter most in the State of Maine. But to relax before changes are implemented would be a huge mistake.

If you have questions or concerns please contact us at Megalalert@gmail.com, on our Facebook page Megalalert or comment on our blog Megalalert.blogspot.com

Please send your ideas for the improvement of the guardian ad litem system to: lawcourt.clerk@courts.maine.gov

Thank You For Your Support at yesterdays meeting!

The Guardian Ad Litem Reform hearing in Portland today was a huge success with a full house that included people with different views on how to handle GAL’s  oversight and accountability.

We would like to thank our many supporters who attended. We would also like to thank the Honorable Chief Justice Saufley, The Honorable Chief Justice Thomas Humphrey and BDN reporter Judy Harrison.  A special thanks for her continued support to State Senator Nancy Sullivan for putting people before politics.

More details on the meeting in a post coming in the next day or so.