Commissioner Sevigny's opinion and argument is without merit

Jordan G. Ulery

Member 161st New Hampshire General Court - House

Republican - Hillsborough 27



Commissioner Sevigny’s opinion and argument in the Concord Monitor is without merit. The underwriting fund was created, maintained and if necessary was to be used exclusively for the people who paid into the fund, not the people of New Hampshire. The State only had a facilitating role, not a constructive role, in the creation and operation of the fund. No public money was used in the fund, therefore the public has no legal, moral, ethical, or practical interest in the fund. There is a benefit to the public in that the fund exists to assure malpractice insurance. That is the benefit to the people of New Hampshire, not the money paid into the fund.


The suggestion that merely because state law rightly prohibits the state from competing with private business somehow creates a “right” to monies paid by private persons into the account is specious at best.


The argument that the JUA did not pay taxes is an admission that the quasigovernmental insurance agency he was directing was not operating in accordance with state law. Deduct the taxes that should have been paid (and penalize the persons responsible for not paying the taxes), but to rob the fund is preposterous.


If a private person pays into a fund, operated as a convenience to a profession or business, then the monies that are not paid out still belong to the persons who paid into the fund. If this is allowed to happen to doctors, then it can happen to electricians, plumbers and even taxi-cab drivers should the occasion arise.


Monies paid to a fund created for your and similar workers’ benefit do not mysteriously transfer ownership to a third party merely because the third party has armed officers and the absolute power of the state to take it from you. The taking of the monies from the JUA smacks of Prince John stealing from the good folk of Sherwood Forest.