Preliminary audit of YDC fund lacks any smoking gun
Carson requested and Legislative Fiscal Committee ordered YDC fund audit
Senate President Sharon Carson, R-Londonderry, requested and the Legislative Fiscal Committee approved a report reviewing the finances of the Youth Development Center Settlement Fund created in 2022 to consider damage awards to victims of alleged sexual and/or physical abuse.
The 18-page report addressing seven bullet points the Legislative Fiscal Committee had called for at the urging of Senate President Sharon Carson does not cite any concern that the fund, created in 2022, has been improperly managed.
Christine Young, director of audits under Legislative Budget Assistant Michael Kane, said four members of her team conducted interviews over the last four weeks of employees involved in the program with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the YDC Claims Administration (YDCCA) staff group. They've also been reviewing all policies and reports.
A final report from Young's group is due in early June.
Carson said she requested the review because she didn't know enough about how the fund was dispensing awards, especially since June 2024 when a new law allowed fund administrator John Broderick and his legal team to pay out awards over time rather than in lump sums.
The law allows awards to be paid in up to 10-year terms, but the report found that only five of 80 approved awards would be paid over 10 years, while 50 of the 80 awards will be paid out in four years or less.
Awards already agreed to are going to cost the state budget at least $20 million in the two-year period that begins July 1, according to the report.
The House-approved state budget has earmarked only $10 million for the fund in each of the next two years. Broderick has requested $150 million, which would equal the $75 million the fund is allowed to spend in any given year.
Payments to lawyers
Carson and other fiscal members raised questions about how lawyers representing the victims are paid.
The report found the average attorney fee paid to date has been 30.8% of the award, below the 33% cap allowed by state law.
Young's report confirms that 18 firms representing more than 75% of the victims have agreed to receive their fees over a three-year period.
But the report found 50 claims had attorney fees totaling $11.2 million that had been paid in lump sums while their clients were all getting paid in installments.
The report does reveal that Broderick has chosen not to act upon requests from Attorney General John Formella's staff for more fact finding on his cases.
Preliminary financial report on YDC settlement fund released
A House-Senate budget oversight committee approved an immediate audit into the finances of the state-created claims fund that approves damage awards to victims of sexual and physical abuse at the Youth Development Center in Manchester (pictured).
The AG hired the Verrill Dana law firm of Portland, Maine, to review claims by the administrator to assess completeness and areas of agreement or disagreement. From 2022 to 2024, the AG had to provide its position whether it agreed 'fully or partially' with the administrator's claim decision. Since June 2024, that view from the AG has been optional though the practice 'remains substantially in place,' the report said.
Young said the Verrill Dana firm has 'in certain cases' requested Broderick refer the case to a fact facilitator, but Broderick has not done so.
'YDCCA staff reported requests have not been granted by the administrator to conduct an additional independent investigation because statute requires timely processing of claims, and the resolution proceeding uses trauma-informed professionals to address verification and credibility questions in addition to controls throughout the claims process,' the report said.
'Contracts for these professionals include fact facilitation in the scope of work should it ever be needed.'
Other details in the report included:
* Inmate victims: Nearly one in five who have brought claims are currently prison inmates. Only 17 of those inmates are in out-of-state jails while the other 181 (91.4%) reside in New Hampshire prisons.
* Administrative costs: Formella's staff spent 61.6% for the fund with the YDCCA has accounted for 38.4%.
* Size of awards: The average award has been $543,000. Among the 296 completed claims, 54 of them were more than $1 million and 242 were less than that benchmark.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
22 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump warned by top Senate Democrats to rethink advanced AI chip sales to China
Six Senate Democrats on Friday released an open letter asking President Donald Trump to reconsider his decision to allow tech giants Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices to sell AI semiconductor chips to China in exchange for 15% of revenue from the sales. The letter — signed by Senators Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Mark Warner, D-Va.; Jack Reed, D-R.I.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Christopher Coons, D-Del.; and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. — was in response to an Aug. 11 announcement by Trump that Nvidia and AMD would pay the U.S. government a 15% cut of revenue from chip sales to China in exchange for export licenses. "Our national security and military readiness relies upon American innovators inventing and producing the best technology in the world, and in maintaining that qualitative advantage in sensitive domains. The United States has historically been successful in maintaining and building that advantage because of, in part, our ability to deny adversaries access to those technologies," the letter states. "The willingness displayed in this arrangement to 'negotiate' away America's competitive edge that is key to our national security in exchange for what is, in effect, a commission on a sale of AI-enabling technology to our main global competitor, is cause for serious alarm," the letter continues. Senators also warned that selling advanced AI chips — specifically Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308 chips — to China could help strengthen its military systems, a claim that Nvidia denies. In a statement to CNBC, a Nvidia spokesperson said: "The H20 would not enhance anyone's military capabilities, but would have helped America attract the support of developers worldwide and win the AI race. Banning the H20 cost American taxpayers billions of dollars, without any benefit." The letter from Senate Democrats also requests a detailed response from the administration by Friday, Aug. 22, regarding the current deal involving Nvidia and AMD, as well as any similar arrangements being made with other companies. "We again urge your administration to quickly reverse course and abandon this reckless plan to trade away U.S. technology leadership," the letter states. A request for comment from the White House and AMD was not immediately returned. Despite Trump allowing chip sales to resume, it has already become clear that China isn't welcoming Nvidia back with open arms, instead urging tech companies to avoid buying U.S. companies' chips, according to a Bloomberg report. "We're hearing that this is a hard mandate, and that [authorities are actually] stopping additional orders of H20s for some companies," Qingyuan Lin, a senior analyst covering China semiconductors at Bernstein, told CNBC. In a separate report, The Information said regulators in China have ordered major tech companies, including ByteDance, Alibaba, and Tencent, to suspend Nvidia chip purchases until a national security review is complete. —
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The rich already know how private equity mints money — and it's not from a 401(k)
The ultrawealthy are envied for many reasons. For instance, we wish we could access the same private-market investments that they favor. Now, after the White House issued an executive order on Aug. 7, you may be able to invest like the billionaires do. Homeowners rush to refinance as mortgage-rate plunge opens window of opportunity My wife and I are in our 50s and have $11 million. We're not leaving it to our kids. Is that wrong? You could receive up to $7,500 from the AT&T settlement. Here's how class-action suits work. But would you want to? The executive order allows ordinary retirement savers to invest in private assets and cryptocurrency. This will expand investment options for anyone with a 401(k) or similar tax-advantaged retirement plan. It is a big deal — opening part of America's $12.4 trillion defined-contribution market to private-asset managers. The largest private-equity firms and other asset managers are salivating at the opportunity to pitch this untapped market of retirement savers. Private assets encompass a range of investments that do not trade on a public exchange. Examples include hedge funds, private equity, private credit and infrastructure. The case for private assets is they can provide a buffer against inflation — plus steady returns. The downsides include high fees, illiquidity and complexity. The nation's biggest asset managers welcome the executive order. They want to develop funds that make private assets easier for people to buy, and argue that the added diversification serves savers' best interests. Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock BLK, says retirement savers should replace the traditional 60% stocks/40% bonds asset-allocation model with a 50/30/20 split: 50% stocks, 30% bonds and 20% private assets. Read: Larry Fink proposes an alternative to the 60/40 portfolio. It means more fees. Should you be excited about this widening menu of investment choices? It depends on whom you ask. Some investment professionals like the idea of making private assets more available to more people. 'Historically, a number of private-market strategies have produced higher performance and additional diversification in defined-benefit pensions,' says Peter von Lehe, head of investment solutions and strategy at Neuberger Berman. 'It's appropriate that a broader range of investors have access to private assets in their defined-contribution plans because of the potential for return and diversification that these long-term investments can provide.' However, von Lehe cautions that these investments are illiquid and 'have a higher degree of complexity.' He says his 'most appropriate use case' for private-market investments is through professionally managed target-date funds or other funds that allocate a percentage of defined-contribution money to these complex but potentially more lucrative alternatives. Read: Here's something the rich know about managing investment risk that can help you, too Financial advisers have differing views on the role of private assets in client portfolios. Steven Roge, a certified financial planner in Bohemia, N.Y., says private markets are not for everyone. 'It's for people in the wealth-accumulation phase, say 40 to 50 years old, who have a long time horizon and a high risk tolerance,' Roge says. 'And they have to be sophisticated enough to understand it. We know if they don't understand it, they may not stick with it.' Of the firm's 300 clients, he says that 'only about a dozen' fit the bill for adding private-market assets to their retirement accounts. Even with the expanded investment options that may result from the White House's action, Roge remains a fan of passive strategies for most investors. 'Indexing is how they will win over the long run,' he says. 'But some clients want something that's special and different' as they seek market-beating returns. Given the illiquidity of private assets, Roge anticipates setting expectations for those clients who tend to monitor their portfolio daily — and who engage in frequent trading. 'These private investments may only price four times a year,' Roge says. 'That's not enough action for certain clients who track their portfolio like a hawk.' In his personal portfolio, Roge uses private markets — especially private equity — to diversify his holdings. He says he allocates about 25% to alternative assets. 'It helps me sleep at night knowing my portfolio isn't being pushed around by the volatility of public markets,' he says. Roge adds that he is not concerned about the current high valuations of private-equity funds. 'The valuations [of private-equity funds] are more realistic than the erratic valuations we see in public markets on a daily basis,' he says. Other advisers are more skeptical of the White House executive order. 'It's less being done out of interest for the general public and more for private industry lobbying the [Trump] administration,' says Alex Ruda, an adviser in Silver Spring, Md. The executive order undoubtedly pleases asset managers and private-equity firms. For years, they've wanted to attract retirement savers' money. These savers bear primary responsibility for managing their 401(k) compared with today's older retirees, many of whom receive employer-funded defined-benefit pensions. While some younger savers enjoy picking their investments, others dread it. 'The average American worker isn't equipped to navigate these complex [private-market] investments,' Ruda says. 'And they may fall prey to a little performance chasing given where we are in the market cycle' — as private markets have outperformed publicly traded stocks since 2000. Ruda feels so strongly about not incorporating private assets into client portfolios that he's willing to forgo newcomers who express such interest. 'If I wanted to broaden my client base, I'd have to play to what they want,' he says. 'But I don't have to do that. So I'd say to them, 'I'm not the best fit.'' Read next: Here's what it's like to invest in private equity — and why you don't want it in your 401(k) More: As private equity enters retirement plans, is it too dangerous for average investors to jump in? I'm a senior who barely survives on $1,300 a month. No way could I live on $1,000. 'I am a senior citizen': My car needs $3,500 for repairs, but only has a trade-in value of $6,000. Do I bother fixing it?
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Redistricting in Indiana: Republicans raise questions, Democrats have limited options if special session called
As Texas Democrats eye an end to their nearly two-week walkout to block Republican efforts there to redistrict, a growing number of Indiana Republicans have been voicing questions and concerns about redistricting in Indiana. The Texas Democrats announced Thursday they will return provided that Texas Republicans end a special session and California releases its own redrawn map proposal, both of which were expected to happen Friday. Democrats did not say what day they might return. Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott still intends to push through new maps that would give the GOP five more winnable seats before next year's midterm elections. Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows has said that if Democrats don't return the next time lawmakers reconvene on Friday, the session will end and the governor will immediately benign another one. Abbott put redistricting on the agenda at the urging of President Donald Trump, who wants to shore up Republicans' narrow House majority and avoid a repeat of his first presidency, when the 2018 midterms restored Democrats to a House majority that blocked his agenda and twice impeached him. It is unusual for redistricting to take place in the middle of the decade and typically occurs once at the beginning of each decade to coincide with the census. Last week, Vice President JD Vance visited Indiana to meet with Gov. Mike Braun and other state Republican leaders to discuss redistricting Indiana's nine congressional districts. Braun told the Indiana Capital Chronicle Tuesday that he hasn't yet decided if he'll call a special session for redistricting, but said he and state leaders are 'considering it seriously' as they wait to see what comes out of Texas. 'I think mostly what happens here is going to depend on where Texas goes, because I think they've got five seats in play,' Braun said. The Indianapolis Star reported Friday that Trump invited Indiana Republican lawmakers to the White House for an Aug. 26 meeting. Molly Swigart, a spokeswoman for Senate Republicans, said the meeting was scheduled 'to discuss President Trump's agenda.' Indiana University Professor Emeritus of Political Science Marjorie Hershey said the effort to redistrict is 'a power politics move' because the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives is 'as narrow as it could be.' In the last 100 years, there have been two midterm elections where the party that holds the White House hasn't lost seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, Hershey said. If Republicans lose a handful of seats, they would lose control of the House, she said. 'That would essentially mean the end of President Trump's dominance of the political agenda. He's gotten where he has as a result of having complete control of the Congress,' Hershey said. 'In order to maintain his edge in the House of Representatives in 2026, Trump wants a cushion for Republican House members because he's afraid that otherwise he's almost guaranteed to lose the House.' Historically, redistricting has occasionally occurred between censuses, Hershey said, but it goes against precedent. 'This is not normal in American politics,' Hershey. 'It's not the way that the constitution was written. It's not the way the supreme court has structured election law over time.' Indiana Republican response Indiana was last redistricted in 2021, which left Congressional Republicans with seven seats and Democrats two seats. 'It's not as though Indiana isn't already redistricted in a highly partisan way to favor Republicans, it is,' Hershey said. 'Even squeezing out one more Republican district in Texas or in Indiana might save President Trump from becoming as much of a lame duck as he otherwise would in 2026.' Indiana's First District, held by Democrat U.S. Rep. Frank Mrvan, D-Highland, would be the most under threat for redistricting because it's become more Republican over time — though still Democratically held, Hershey said. The First Congressional District remains Indiana's most competitive seat. In 2022, Mrvan won nearly 53% of the vote against Republican Jennifer-Ruth Green. In 2024, Mrvan saw a small increase in the number of votes to just over 53% when he won against Republican Randy Niemeyer. The problem for Republicans with redistricting the First District, Hershey said, would be Democrats from the First District would be moved into other districts, which could make the other districts more competitive for Democratic candidates. 'Sometimes the majority party in a state gets a little too greedy and thinks, 'we might have a shot at this one additional seat,' and then they end up losing the seat next door and not winning the seat that they had hoped to gain,' Hershey said. Aaron Dusso, an associate professor of political science at Indiana University Indianapolis, said he hasn't seen an appetite from Indiana Republicans to redistrict because of the risk that it will make safe Republican congressional districts more competitive. State Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso, said party leadership has reached out to him to gauge his thoughts on redistricting Indiana. Soliday said he told the leadership 'show me the facts, tell me the unintended consequences, then I'll tell you how I'll vote.' 'I haven't seen anyone show me about how this would work,' Soliday said. 'I have a lot of questions before I jump on board with this.' Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell, said he's discussed redistricting with his colleagues but he's still thinking about his position on redistricting. 'I'm not committing one way or the other,' Niemeyer said. 'We're looking at it and have not made a decision yet. That's where I'm at.' State Rep. Mike Aylesworth, R-Hebron, said the state legislature 'did a good job' redistricting in 2021, but he's waiting to see what the leadership decides about a special session for redistricting. 'I don't think it's necessary, but we'll wait and see what the caucus says,' Aylesworth said. 'I'm hesitant to change things, but we'll see what leadership says.' State Sen. Dan Dernulc, R-Highland, said he's spoken with leadership about redistricting, but that he needs more facts and the 'why' of redistricting. 'I don't see a need for it. I don't want to say yes or no, we're a work in progress on it,' Dernulc said. Indiana Democratic redistricting maneuvers In the Indiana House and Senate, two-thirds of members — or 67 House members and 34 senators – have to be present to call a quorum, according to each chamber's rules. In the House, Republicans hold 70 seats to Democrats 30. In the Senate, Republicans hold 40 seats to the Democrats' 10 seats. Indiana Republicans have enough members to call a quorum. Indiana Democrats 'wouldn't have a lot of options,' Dusso said, other than short-term delay tactics, like requiring readings of the whole redistricting bill or talking for long periods of time on the floor. Democrats can talk about the issue publicly to try to rally support from voters to put pressure on Republicans to not hold a special session on redistricting. 'It doesn't really stop anything from happening, it just slows it down,' Dusso said. The best move, Dusso said, would be for Democrats and lobbyists to talk with Braun now to persuade him not to call a special session. 'I think that's where they can win. Once it's called, I don't think they have a chance,' Dusso said. 'If you can get Braun to relent, I think that's where they're going to have their success.' If redistricting were to occur in Indiana, Hershey said it's likely that lawsuits would be filed. 'I'm sure that the Democrats will fight as hard as they can because there's a point at which the party that's trying to take this unfair advantage just starts to look bad,' Hershey said. 'It's a game of chicken, and we'll have to see who it is who veers away first.' State Sen. Rodney Pol Jr., D-Chesteron, said it's 'problematic' that President Trump has been pressuring Republican states to redistrict in the middle of a census. Trump's decision to do so shows he's scared to face the voters given the policies he's passed. 'He's afraid of his own base,' Pol said. 'It's not how our democracy works.' Given Indiana's Republican supermajority, Pol said Indiana Democrats couldn't leave the state to delay the vote. If a special session were called, Pol said the Democrats would attend and voice their opposition from the House and Senate floors. 'The only thing that we have is our voice,' Pol said. 'We're going to have to show up.'
