When the New Hampshire Legislature removed the seven words, “upon the recommendation of the oversight commission,” from the law that governs how the State Child Advocate is appointed (RSA 21-V 3), a thorough vetting process that children and the rest of New Hampshire’s community rely upon was lost. Sort of.
The Oversight Commission on Children’s Services still has a mandate in RSA 21-V 10 to, “Recommend at least three qualified candidates to the governor, in rank order, for appointment to the position of child advocate; except that in the case of reappointment, a single recommendation shall be sufficient.”
Like most other states with similarly independent oversight offices, the appointment process ensured non-partisan, qualified, and fully vetted candidates for the job. That vetting process included public posting of the position to draw the widest pool of good candidates. Applications would be carefully culled over.
The top qualified were then interviewed by the 22-member commission representing a wide breadth of expertise in children’s matters, including providers, law enforcement, court officers and individuals with lived experience. That combination of lenses would assure the optimal fit of the candidate to the role.
On March 2, in an unprecedented (among State Child Advocate appointments) public hearing, a well-intentioned candidate was subjected to the humiliation of public accusations and testing of her limited knowledge of the position. Worse, a child’s confidential information was exposed in public and disseminated by the media. That exposure actually constitutes a critical incident that, by law, the Child Advocate would investigate.
Exposure in the media of a child’s personal details, status, condition or family circumstances is known to have traumatic effects on children and their families. Someone should have recognized that risk and prevented it. A rigorous vetting process protects the governor on appointment making, protects the candidate from public embarrassment and protects children from harm.
Even if a public hearing were not held, a Child Advocate appointed without the scrutiny of the commission would be at a distinct disadvantage on the job. Trust is the essential component in the function of the Child Advocate. The vetting process was designed to promote that trust. Despite best intentions, the impression of partisan decisions in political appointments is unavoidable. The Office of the Child Advocate is one busy and poorly resourced office. Building trusting relationships takes so much care and time, so why burden the Child Advocate from the start?
There is a way forward for Governor Ayotte. She could remind the Oversight Commission of their statutory obligation and request they commence a search for the best candidate to serve in the one position New Hampshire children have come to rely upon to protect their rights in public systems. That would demonstrate an honorable commitment to children’s best interest and go a long way building trust for the Governor and the Child Advocate.
Moira O’Neill served as the New Hampshire’s first Child Advocate from 2018 to 2022.