Justices on the New Hampshire Supreme Court are defending an irregular personnel maneuver that allowed a top state court employee to collect nearly $50,000 in employment benefits following a layoff that lasted just 48 hours.

The sitting justices — with the exception of Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi — issued a statement Thursday evening saying that Dianne Martin’s removal from her position as the top administrator of the state court system and subsequent hiring into a new role in the Judicial Branch two days later was in line with “standard personnel policies.”

Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, along with Justices Patrick Donovan, Melissa Countway, and Bryan Gould, issued the statement in response to reporting by New Hampshire Public Radio that described how Martin was able to cash out her unused sick and vacation time before transitioning into her new position, a benefit other state government employees are typically not granted when moving between state jobs.

The state Judicial Branch had earlier declined to respond to a detailed list of questions NHPR sent prior to publication, or respond to a whistleblower’s allegations that MacDonald — who has a long professional relationship with Martin, including when she served as his chief of staff — helped orchestrate the payout.

Late Thursday, however, the justices issued a statement acknowledging “public interest” in the matter.

“The Court remains committed to responsible stewardship of public resources and to maintaining the effective administration of justice across the state,” the four justices wrote.

According to the statement, Martin was removed as director of the Administrative Office of the Courts on March 3 as part of a “reorganization” that called for the elimination of the position. The justices say that realignment was part of a cost-cutting review that began in early 2024.

On the same day Martin was removed from her position, however, the state Supreme Court announced an interim replacement for her in the role of director, calling into question the claim that the position was eliminated. In fact, the administrative director position would remain filled by Judge Chris Keating, Martin’s replacement, until mid-October — a full six months — when the Judicial Branch then formally announced the abolishment of the position. (Keating now holds the title of State Court Administrator, a job that assumes many of the responsibilities of the former administrative director, along with other new responsibilities.)

Justices defend handling of Martin’s transition

Internal personnel records obtained by NHPR showed that Martin was laid off on April 1 but was rehired into a new job as general counsel two days later. That brief gap in state employment cleared the way for Martin to cash out her unused sick and vacation time, which was valued at $43,548. She also received $6,307 in “termination pay,” based on her length of employment at the Judicial Branch.

The justices did not respond to a series of questions from NHPR on Friday about why Martin was laid off for two days, instead of directly transitioning into the new position. The statement from the court Thursday said that the New Hampshire Department of Administrative Services, which oversees personnel policies for other branches of government, “reviewed” the transaction. A lawyer for that agency did not respond to a request for comment on when that review took place, or if it raised any concerns about the transactions involving Martin.

When Martin was rehired by the Judicial Branch on April 4 into a new role overseeing applications to practice law in the state, the job was already filled by a veteran in-house legal counsel, Sherry Hieber. Hieber had previously informed the court about her plans to retire that summer. Martin and Hieber would simultaneously hold the position for five months, with each earning a salary of more than $154,000.

The position is funded entirely through bar admission and application fees, and doesn’t come out of the courts’ general fund budget, the justices said.

In defending the overlap, the justices said they “determined that Ms. Martin should work alongside her predecessor for several months before taking over as General Counsel so that she could absorb the institutional knowledge necessary to the execution of her responsibilities.”

The five-month overlap appears to violate the Judicial Branch’s own personnel rules, however, which state that any dual appointments to the same position cannot last longer than two weeks. A court spokesperson declined to respond Friday as to why the justices appear to have sidestepped their own rules.

The justices’ statement also did not address claims made by a whistleblower who said that moving Martin into the new position was the “chief’s idea,” an apparent reference to MacDonald. Handwritten notes obtained by NHPR through a public records request show that the whistleblower told a state official that “Dianne won’t accept the transfer because she wants the layoff payout $.”

Martin remains employed with the Judicial Branch as a general counsel, and reports directly to MacDonald.

Two of the state’s current five Supreme Court justices were not sitting on the bench when Martin’s job moves took place earlier this year. Gould, who signed onto Thursday’s statement from the court, was only confirmed to his seat on the bench in September, months after Martin’s change in jobs. Hantz Marconi, who did not sign Thursday’s statement, was on administrative leave from the bench earlier this year, as she faced criminal charges related to attempting to meddle into an investigation involving her husband, the state’s port director.

Earlier this week, Gov. Kelly Ayotte declined to comment on if she would support an investigation into the payments to Martin, saying it involved a separate branch of government. She did tell reporters, though, “that everyone in government, every branch, has to follow the laws and the rules. And so I want to make sure that happens.”

On Thursday, top New Hampshire House Republicans said that they were preparing to take action when they return to Concord early next year on a range of issues involving the judiciary.

“I think we’re going to see a number of cases come up over the next few months where the legislature uses our authority to hold the justices, the judicial branch, accountable,” said Rep. Joe Sweeney, the House’s deputy majority leader.

Sweeney declined to say which judicial officials or what conduct he sought to review.

“I think as we continue to uncover certain things that are happening behind the scenes, we’ll then come out with different plans for different judges,” he said.