Broderick: Ayotte Behind Changes To YDC Fund To Save Money, Victims Likely To Lose Out

By Nancy West, InDepth NH

Gov. Kelly Ayotte pushed changes in the law to eliminate the former YDC Settlement Fund Administrator's job and the independence that came with it to save money, changes that will ultimately shortchange victims who were physically and sexually abused as incarcerated children by state employees, according to John Broderick, who served as administrator until the amended law went into effect July 1.

Broderick, who formerly served as the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court, said the revised law now shifts the power to appoint the administrator to the governor and gives the attorney general final say over all monetary awards to the roughly 1,500 victims. Previously, the administrator was selected by the state Supreme Court and could only be removed for cause, allowing true independence to do right by victims, he said.

"None of this would have happened if Governor Ayotte was opposed to it. When she put zero dollars in her budget, she obviously knew what that meant," Broderick said in a telephone interview.

Attorney General John Formella reportedly told a state Senator, “I don’t want the Governor mad at me,” when asked why he stopped supporting the settlement fund and argued against it, according to a letter Broderick's attorney Joan A. Lukey wrote Aug. 12 to Gov. Ayotte.

On Tuesday, Ayotte, a Republican, sent out a news release saying she will renominate Formella at Wednesday's Executive Council meeting. He has been on holdover status since she took office. Ayotte and Formella didn't respond to a request for comment.

In the letter, Lukey said the legislature can change a statute, but it must do so with deference to contracts the state has already entered into and asked that Broderick be allowed to return to work as fund administrator.

"In the event that the return to the previous status quo is rejected, the Chief (Broderick) will resolve this matter for payment of two years’ salary, although his original arrangement would have continued through 2032, or until the claims process is completed," Lukey wrote, pointing out Broderick's "exemplary service."

The letter detailed some of the events that led to the two amendments when it became clear Broderick wouldn't resign.

When Broderick confronted Formella about his change in how the fund was to be administered and by whom, Formella told him that, "things have changed; the Governor doesn’t want the Fund," Lukey wrote.

"(Formella) went on to say that the claimants will have their 'day in court' without the Fund. The General was unmoved when (Broderick) responded that this would likely raise the barrier of the statute of limitations issue, which was part of the impetus for the Legislature when it created the Fund. In fact, the Attorney General (Formella) expressly acknowledged during their meeting that his office would be moving to dismiss as many sexual and physical abuse cases as possible on statute of limitations grounds. 'That’s the responsibility of my office,' (Formella) said," Lukey wrote.

Broderick said on Aug. 20 in Merrimack County Superior Court, he was subpoenaed to testify by victims' counsel (NixonPeabody) in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the amendments filed by YDC victims who are fighting the changes.

"During the brief cross-examination of me by the state’s lawyer, I was asked if my lawyer had written a letter to Governor Ayotte on August 12th asking for my job back and, if that was not forthcoming, that I be compensated for 2 years of lost wages for breach of contract," Broderick said.

Broderick said the letter hadn't been made public and he hadn't heard back from the governor when he was asked about it. Broderick decided to release the letter to InDepthNH.org asking that it run in full. Lukey's letter to Ayotte is posted in full at the end of this story.

Broderick accepted an offer that defined his position in accordance with the statute as it then existed, Lukey wrote, especially representations and assurances that the position would be his through the completion of the claims process or FY 2032, unless he chose to retire or was terminated by the state Supreme Court for good cause.

Broderick was paid the same annual salary as a judge, so two years would be about $380,000.

But Broderick was clear during the interview that it isn't about the money, but rather about seeing the process be changed back to the original independent fair process for the many victims who were abused as children by state employees over a 50-year time span.

Lukey wrote that in April of 2025, Broderick attended a meeting with the Senate Finance Chair and another senator, when he was asked again why the victims' legal fees were not being paid out over time. Broderick explained under the language of the statute, he did not believe he had the authority to pay over time. Broderick had asked Formella to spell out that authority, but Formella never got back to him, he said.

The letter also said Senate Finance Chairman James Gray, also a member of the Joint Fiscal Committee, reached out to Broderick unexpectedly by phone one morning.

"Senator Gray began the conversation by saying that he was not calling for himself but for two of his colleagues. The message from Chair Gray was, 'if you were to step aside, Judge, there might be more money for the Fund.' (Broderick) was shocked and replied, 'why should I step down? I haven’t done anything wrong.' Senator Gray responded, 'no, you haven’t.' Chief Justice Broderick, who was feeling unfairly and improperly pressured, then added, 'you can tell your colleagues I have no intention of stepping aside.' The call quickly ended.

"In this same time period, a well-respected lawyer in a local law firm informed the Chief that Senate President (Sharon) Carson had called Chief Justice Broderick 'an elitist Democrat and moralistic egomaniac,'" Lukey wrote. "Never having met her or had a conversation with her, he was – and is -- confused as to who or what has caused her, if the statement attributed to her is true, to use such cutting words."

Lukey said in late June near the very end of the legislative session and prior to any vote on the pending two-year budget, the Senate Finance Committee voted along party lines to amend the YDC Fund claims statute. It did so with no advance notice to anyone and without a public hearing, she wrote.

"The amendments were hugely consequential. They eliminated the Chief’s position as an employee of the judicial branch serving as an independent neutral administrator who had authority to issue final decisions on claims that could not be vetoed by the state," the letter said.

Broderick said he is embarrassed for the state. "I love the state of New Hampshire. I am embarrassed. We are better than this," Broderick said. He quoted Boston attorney Joseph Welch in 1954 during the McCarthy hearings. "Have you no sense decency, sir," Broderick said.

Broderick said he spent three years listening to victims whose lives were damaged by their abuse at the hands of state employees when they were just kids and his heart breaks for them. He said he is proud of the work he and his staff accomplished during this scandal.

Broderick said he couldn't believe the state wanted to save money on the backs of victims who as children had been harmed by state employees.

"It's immoral," Broderick said. "I want my job back. I'm a hard worker. I'm not looking for free money. I also think the state of New Hampshire shouldn't be able to treat me the way they treated me.

"They did it because they didn't want an independent neutral administrator," he said. They did it last minute with no public hearing, no public notice, he said. "It's so cynical and so wrong."

Broderick said there were budgetary problems because the state had eliminated the Interest and Dividends tax and cut the Business Enterprise Tax rate.

He said Ayotte was able to find money for firefighters, EMTs and police retirement to make good on promises made, but not for promises made to victims who were promised trauma-informed, fair settlements.

"Maybe it's my age or the way I was raised but I know my mother would say do the right thing if something is unjust or unfair," he said. "My heart aches for these people who finally trusted the state, now being told something different. We caused them harm."

Lukey's letter concluded: "The Chief therefore requests the following: that he be allowed to return to his old job as constituted with his staff, so that they can continue the work that they were privileged to be doing before the amendments.

"In the event that the return to the previous status quo is rejected, the Chief will resolve this matter for payment of two years’ salary, although his original arrangement would have continued through 2032, or until the claims process is completed.

"After the Chief’s exemplary service to the state and its residents, we are hopeful that this
situation can be amicably and quickly resolved. We would be most appreciative if you would
have your representative reach out to me at his/her early convenience," Lukey wrote.

JOAN A. LUKEY's Letter to Gov. Ayotte

Dear Governor Ayotte:

I write to discuss a serious situation involving former New Hampshire Chief Justice John Broderick (the “Chief” or “Chief Justice Broderick”) and his work with the Youth Development Center Settlement Fund (the “Fund”). In 2022, the State offered the Chief an appointment to serve as the independent claims administrator of the Fund, and he accepted that offer in reliance on the specific terms discussed below. Thereafter he performed that job honorably and well and held up his end of the bargain with the State in every respect.

The position to which he was appointed under the control of the state Supreme Court has now been eliminated and replaced by the state Legislature with an at will position within the executive branch, effective July 1 this year. This occurred without notice or opportunity to be heard by claimants under the Fund or by the Chief himself.

As you know the Fund was designed to address injuries suffered in a dark period of New Hampshire’s history by a cohort of the State’s residents whose childhoods were stripped from them, and whose lives have been left in shambles by virtue of the sexual and physical violations to which they were subjected by some among the YDC’s past employees.

For approximately fifty years primarily in the latter half of the Twentieth Century, children who were already struggling were compelled by the State to enter the YDC. There, they were exploited and even terrorized by some state workers who were supposed to be protecting and assisting them. Although the rapes and beatings came to light well before 2022, that is the year in which the State finally stepped up and agreed to offer compensation to more than a thousand surviving victims. The Legislature committed to fund seventy-five million dollars per fiscal year through FY 2032 and created a detailed framework specifying to whom the damages could be awarded, the amounts that could be awarded, and under what circumstances. Of critical importance to the program’s success, the legislation called for the appointment by the judicial branch of government of an independent claims administrator to hear the individual abuse claims, determine the appropriate amount of compensation under the statute’s framework, and offer that amount to the claimant. If the claimant accepted, there would be no further challenges and no risk to the State of costly litigation. The hearings conducted by the administrator and the claims process itself were to be trauma-informed and victim-centered.

In August of 2022, lawyers for several claimants, as well as Attorney General Formella (“General Formella” or the “Attorney General”), approached Chief Justice Broderick and inquired as to whether he would be interested in the independent claims administrator position, not only because of his prior role as the state’s Chief Justice, but also because of his years of trial experience and his lengthy and noted commitment to mental health issues. When the Chief asked the Attorney General what the role would entail, the Attorney General responded that the Chief would have to hire staff, set up the office, and eventually conduct trauma-informed hearings with claimants where he would be solely responsible for determining appropriate awards in each case. When the Chief asked the Attorney General how long the position would continue, he responded that it would be until the job was done, and that he would be subject to removal only by the state Supreme Court and only for “good cause.” In short, his position would not be political in nature. In his seventies, he recognized the choices he made at that point would very likely be the last stage of an acclaimed career in public service. Offered the opportunity to help those who needed help badly, and with the assurance of independence until the job was done, the Chief accepted.

On January 3, 2023, when the Fund office opened, the Chief and a small staff performed their assigned role admirably, processing and deciding more than 386 claims by the end of 2024. In so doing, they helped bring some solace to each of those claimants, while sparing the state the exposure to costly lawsuits that derived from abuse. One such lawsuit brought by a claimant who chose the court system over the Fund reportedly resulted in a $38,000,000 verdict (now on appeal) for a single victim, while the YDC Settlement Fund awarded an average settlement of $545,000 per victim, with a total payout of about $221 million dollars including deferred interest over several years. (Of note to points discussed below, the statute did not allow extended disbursement of the attorneys’ fees over time, instead requiring payment of the full fees at the time of settlement.)

To ensure transparency, throughout its operations the office of the YDC Settlement Fund issued quarterly reports providing all the detailed information the Legislature required and specified in the claims statute. The Office was running smoothly, and the claimants were being well served.

Unfortunately, over the last several months with the change in Administrations, a sea change became apparent in the State’s attitude toward the Fund. General Formella’s previously strong and invaluable support abruptly ended. First, he questioned why the lawyers’ fees were not spread over time. The Chief explained that the statute did not provide for that, but that he felt he could make that change if he received written instructions to do so from the Attorney General as the state’s chief law enforcement officer. Such instructions were not forthcoming. Then, in February 2025, when the Chief asked General Formella to join him in advising the Legislature that it was possible that payments to claimants for the Fund for FY 25 could exceed the $60 million appropriation (not the promised $75 million), the Attorney General refused. To the Chief’s surprise, the Attorney General wrote to him advising that, not only would he not join in notifying the Legislature as requested, but also that, if the Chief sought any of the promised balance of $15 million, he would testify against it.

When the Chief was on the agenda at the public session before the Joint Fiscal Committee a month or so later to discuss the possible need for some of the $15 million, a series of troubling events occurred: One member asked to go into Executive Session for purported “reputational” reasons, apparently a reference to the Chief whose reputation was and is wholly above reproach. A committee chair raised the issue of why attorneys’ fees were not disbursed over time, rather than all at once, and the Chief explained the statutory limitations and his unanswered request to the Attorney General for any instructions to the contrary. Senate President Sharon Carson noted that the Senate had many people seeking help, implying that the State did not owe a special debt to the claimants who had been so tragically abused by State employees. The Chief responded that the YDC Settlement Fund was the equivalent of a 1000-year flood, but the Senate President was unmoved.

When he was instructed to return to the Joint Fiscal Committee in a few weeks to give the Committee an update on the Fund balance, he did so, only to be told by an LBA staffer upon arrival that the Committee had tabled his presentation and that he would not be heard that day. No explanation was given. About 25 minutes after the Chief left, Senate President Carson reportedly publicly exclaimed that she did not know what was going on at the YDC Claims Office run by the Chief, that nothing going on there made sense, and that an immediate audit of the Chief’s operation was needed. A motion was made and passed for an audit. It is unclear whether Senator Carson had ever reviewed any of the nine quarterly reports previously issued by the Chief’s office.

When the press inquired of the Chief about the Senate President’s surprise audit request at that public meeting, the Chief stated that he would welcome an audit. A few weeks later, three auditors arrived at the Fund’s claims office where they spent 4 to 5 weeks reviewing everything they requested. They wrote an interim report in May and a final report in June. The Chief’s office passed the audit with flying colors. Not one problem or concern was identified.

In April of 2025, the Chief attended a meeting with the Senate Finance Chair and another senator, on which occasion the issue arose yet again of why the claimants’ legal fees were not being paid over time. The Chief explained that, under the language of the statute, he did not believe that he had the authority to pay over time, a position with which the auditors subsequently agreed. He further said that he had been waiting for months for a written directive from the Attorney General directing him to do so, but no such directive or clarification had ever been received. The Chief was later informed of a conversation between the Attorney General and a legislator in which the Attorney General confided that the Chief did not have the statutory authority to require that legal fees be paid over time. Reportedly, the Attorney General also told a state Senator, when asked why he had stopped advocating for more money for the Fund, that “I don’t want the Governor mad at me.”

In May, following these troubling events, Senate Finance Chairman Gray, also a member of the Joint Fiscal Committee, reached out to the Chief unexpectedly by phone one morning. Senator Gray began the conversation by saying that he was not calling for himself but for two of his colleagues. The message from Chair Gray was, “if you were to step aside, Judge, there might be more money for the Fund.” The Chief was shocked and replied, “why should I step down? I haven’t done anything wrong.” Senator Gray responded, “no, you haven’t.” Chief Justice Broderick, who was feeling unfairly and improperly pressured, then added, “you can tell your colleagues I have no intention of stepping aside.” The call quickly ended.

In this same time period, a well-respected lawyer in a local law firm informed the Chief that Senate President Carson had called Chief Justice Broderick “an elitist Democrat and moralistic egomaniac.” Needless to say, the Chief was extremely taken aback, especially given that he has never encountered Senator Carson personally, and has only seen her in the context of her role in the Senate. Never having met her or had a conversation with her, he was – and is -- confused as to who or what has caused her, if the statement attributed to her is true, to use such cutting words.

The Attorney General has publicly placed blame upon the Chief for the controversy regarding how the Fund is to be administered and by whom. When the Chief confronted him as to why his position has so strongly changed regarding the Fund and the Chief himself, the General’s response was that, “things have changed; the Governor doesn’t want the Fund.” He went on to say that the claimants will have their “day in court” without the Fund. The General was unmoved when the Chief responded that this would likely raise the barrier of the statute of limitations issue, which was part of the impetus for the Legislature when it created the Fund. In fact, the Attorney General expressly acknowledged during their meeting that his office would be moving to dismiss as many sexual and physical abuse cases as possible on statute of limitations grounds. “That’s the responsibility of my office,” he said.

A few weeks later, in late June near the very end of the legislative session and prior to any vote on the pending two-year budget, the Senate Finance Committee voted along party lines to amend the claims statute. It did so with no advance notice to anyone and without a public hearing.

The amendments were hugely consequential. They eliminated the Chief’s position as an employee of the judicial branch serving as an independent neutral administrator who had authority to issue final decisions on claims that could not be vetoed by the state. They also eliminated the critical “for good cause” termination protection that is key to an independent administrator’s performance of his job. In short, they caused the State to violate its contract with Chief Justice Broderick. The legislature had no cause to remove the Chief and never articulated one. Had they believed cause existed, which it did not, it was incumbent upon them to petition the state Supreme Court for his removal. That did not occur. The amendments also made the Governor the appointing authority for the new administrator who would serve at her pleasure as an at-will political appointee in the executive branch. In short, they unilaterally transformed the Chief’s employment to an at-will position and took away his job.

Even more concerning was the authority granted to the Attorney General to veto any award to a claimant with which he disagreed. At the time that those amendments were passed, almost 1900 claimants had already filed in the administrative process before the June 30th deadline, in reliance upon the statutory promise of a neutral and independent administrator appointed by the judicial branch. The budget, with the identified amendments, was passed quietly by the legislature several days later and became effective July 1, 2025.

The Chief wrote to the Attorney General on July 21stating that his old job with the power of an arbitrator and “for good cause” job security protection had been taken from him. The Attorney General responded that he expected the Chief to assume this very different temporary post where he would essentially be recommending rather than deciding, and where he would serve at-will. The General stated that the Chief could serve until the Governor replaced him (most likely in August). Because (1) nobody ever offered the Chief a different post, (2) the new administrator role had no binding power to make any award unless the Attorney General agreed, and (3) the new process seemed trauma-inducing and not trauma-informed, the Chief responded by saying he could not do so, especially given that the job would be gone in a matter of weeks.

The Chief did not resign from a job that he could not accept and advised the Attorney General that, because he had completed the necessary follow up on his job that ended June 30th, he would be leaving the claims office on July 31st.

A few days later, you announced that you had received the Chief’s “resignation” and thanked him for his service. He had not resigned. And, regrettably, you never found an “appropriate” time to meet with him before your announcement.

To summarize, after the Attorney General wrongly claimed that the Chief violated the claims statute (the audit confirmed that he had not), the Senate President wrongfully castigated the Chief’s financial management of the fund requiring an immediate audit (which revealed full compliance with all statutes and Guidelines), and the Senate Finance Chair tried unsuccessfully to pressure the Chief to step aside by dangling the possibility of more money going to the Fund if he did, the Legislature eliminated the Chief’s contract, without notice or public hearing, but with your apparent encouragement and certainly with your full knowledge.

Chief Justice Broderick accepted an offer that defined his position in accordance with the statute as it then existed, and he performed in reliance upon the language of the statute and the representations that were made to him when he accepted. In particular, he relied upon the representations and assurances that the position would be his through the earlier of completion of the claims process or FY 2032, unless he chose to retire or was terminated by the state Supreme Court for good cause. Of course, the Legislature can elect to change a statute, but we respectfully suggest that it must do so with deference to contracts into which the State of New Hampshire has already entered.

The Chief therefore requests the following: that he be allowed to return to his old job as constituted with his staff, so that they can continue the work that they were privileged to be doing before the amendment.

In the event that the return to the previous status quo is rejected, the Chief will resolve this matter for payment of two years’ salary, although his original arrangement would have continued through 2032, or until the claims process is completed.

After the Chief’s exemplary service to the state and its residents, we are hopeful that this situation can be amicably and quickly resolved. We would be most appreciative if you would have your representative reach out to me at his/her early convenience.

Thank you.

Joan A. Lukey

JAL/cao

cc: Attorney General John Formella, john.m.formella@doj.nh.gov

Chief Justice John Broderick (ret.)

This article first appeared on InDepthNH.org and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.