DRAFT
California Victim Compensation Board
Open Meeting Minutes
September 17, 2026, Board Meeting
The California Victim Compensation Board (Board) convened its meeting in open session upon the call of the Chair, Gabriel Ravel, General Counsel of the Government Operations Agency, acting for, and in the absence of Nick Maduros, Secretary of the Government Operations Agency, at 400 R Street, Room 330, Sacramento, California, on Thursday, September 17, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Also present was Member Evan Johnson, acting for, and in the absence of, Malia Cohen, Controller. Appearing via Zoom was Member Diana Becton, District Attorney.
Executive Officer Lynda Gledhill, and Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier, attended in person at 400 R Street, Sacramento, California. Board Liaison, Sharee Mitchell, was also present and recorded the meeting.
Item 1. Executive Officer Statement
Executive Officer Lynda Gledhill greeted the Board members and began by stating the Board members’ meeting binders included the fiscal year 2025-2026 annual report which highlights the progress CalVCB has made in meeting its strategic plan goals and provides statistics for the fiscal year.
Ms. Gledhill explained that CalVCB received 29,000 applications and paid out $38 million in compensation. She continued, noting that violent crime rates are down throughout the state, as noted in previous meetings, which also means that CalVCB’s application numbers have dropped. However, she is proud of the work CalVCB staff has done. Ms. Gledhill also reminded the Board and the public that the race and ethnicity category on the applications for compensation is voluntary and is not believed to completely reflect the number of CalVCB’s applicants but represents the information CalVCB currently has. Ms. Gledhill reiterated that it is important to emphasize the great work that CalVCB staff has done in helping victims of crime during the fiscal year.
Ms. Gledhill added that as part of CalVCB’s ongoing effort to upgrade CalVCB’s internal processing system, CalVCB does have a Request for Information (RFI) posted and expects potential vendors to respond soon. Once that occurs, CalVCB will review the responses and determine next steps. Ms. Gledhill said CalVCB is very excited about moving forward on a path to modernizing its internal processing system and all the benefits that a new system will provide for victims, CalVCB staff, and those who use the program.
Next, Ms. Gledhill reported that CalVCB submitted the federal grant application. She explained that CalVCB continues to work with Office of the Attorney General on the lawsuit that was filed last year regarding some of the conditions but has not had any problems moving forward with the grant. There continue to be discussions at the federal level on the long-term stability of the VOCA funding, but currently no impact on compensation is anticipated in the near future. However, it remains an ongoing conversation at the federal level, especially for the assistance side where it may have a greater impact.
Ms. Gledhill next stated that all the main grants have been executed and the flexible emergency cash assistance grants have been drafted and sent to the trauma recovery centers for signature. In addition, next year’s Notice of Funds Available will be posted in mid-October with applications due in mid-December, which is a similar timeline to what was done last year.
In July, the governor issued a human trafficking executive order which included CalVCB and asked CalVCB to collaborate with other state partners on a roadmap to better support survivors. CalVCB is working with those state partners and is sharing monthly updates with the governor’s office and the first partner’s office as requested in the executive order.
In August, CalVCB submitted a public comment on a federal rule that would reduce the record retention period for firearm purchases and impact law enforcement’s ability to solve crimes. CalVCB stated that the rule change did not consider the impact on victims and that the rule change will make it harder for law enforcement to solve crimes. CalVCB wanted to ensure that this information was included in the public record in response to that proposed federal rule.
Ms. Gledhill also added that over the last couple weeks, she has had the opportunity to attend several conferences and meetings, in addition to visiting trauma recovery centers in Southern California. Ms. Gledhill stated she was at the California District Attorneys Association meeting and met with the victim’s rights committee, as well as the California Crime Victims Assistance Association. Ms. Gledhill said that she was able to answer questions and talk about the work that CalVCB is doing. She also went to the Sexual Assault Response Team conference. She added that the Sexual Assault Response Team does heroic work helping sexual assault victims and providing updates about the work that CalVCB is doing and how we can continue to partner as we move forward.
Ms. Gledhill next described her recent visits to the Long Beach Trauma Recovery Center and San Diego Tri Valley Health Trauma Recovery Center where she was able to tour and see all the good work that these facilities are doing. She said it was rewarding to be able to go out and talk to people in the field and have a better understanding of both how CalVCB can better help them with the challenges that they are facing, and to answer all their questions. To that end, CalVCB is hosting a regional conference at California State University Long Beach in mid-October. Ms. Gledhill stated CalVCB wants to make sure that we are inviting advocates to come in person to deepen their program knowledge, share resources, and have them connect directly with each other and with CalVCB.
Finally, Ms. Gledhill reminded everyone that October is Domestic Violence Awareness month. As is tradition, the staff at CalVCB will be collecting toiletry items that will be donated this year to the Sacramento Regional Family Justice Center, to show staff’s continuing commitment to help families and support those who may need additional assistance. Ms. Gledhill thanked the Board and stated she would be happy to answer any questions.
Chair Ravel asked the Board if there were any questions.
Member Johnson stated that he appreciates the annual report and acknowledged that the annual report paints a clear picture of the hard work that CalVCB leadership and staff are doing He added that he appreciated the thoroughness as well as the supplemental data. Member Johnson said that it is helpful to paint a clear picture of where the funds are going and to provide a broader picture of the process in which the Board engages. Member Johnson asked Ms. Gledhill, regarding her comment that application rates are going down due to the drop-in violent crime rates, if she could add color to the statistic of why denial rates had a bit of an uptick, noting that denial rates have risen significantly compared to two years ago, despite the decrease in application volume.
Ms. Gledhill responded that CalVCB was running a public media campaign, and she believes CalVCB saw a slight increase in self-reported applications that were not viable applications. Many of the applicants were not victims of violent crimes, yet they saw the advertisement and thought, “Okay, we’re going to submit an application.” Ms. Gledhill added that CalVCB continues to ensure that its statutes and regulations are applied consistently and fairly across the board. She concluded that these factors contributed to the uptick in denial rates. Ms. Gledhill agreed that the denial rate has increased slightly from last year but noted it remains proportionate to the number of applications received.
Member Johnson thanked Ms. Gledhill for her response.
Item 2. Legislative Update
The Legislative Update was presented by Deputy Executive Officer, Katie Cardenas.
Ms. Cardenas stated that the Legislature has concluded its session. There are two bills remaining on the Governor’s desk that may impact CalVCB.
AB 1595 by Assemblymember Schultz would lower the current standards for habeas relief, which may increase the number of erroneous conviction claims filed with CalVCB.
AB 2297 by Assemblymember Stefani would require defendants who participate in diversion programs to pay direct restitution to their victims. Those restitution orders would also reimburse CalVCB for expenses that have already been paid on behalf of a victim.
The Governor has until September 30 to sign or veto bills. Ms. Cardenas concluded by saying she was happy to answer any questions.
Chair Ravel thanked Deputy Cardenas and asked what happened with the bills Ms. Cardenas previously mentioned in the legislative report that are on the Governor’s desk. Ms. Cardenas stated that she believes at this point staff are still waiting for a final resolution on those bills.
Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Cardenas and asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board.
Item 3. Contract Report
The Contract Report was presented by Deputy Executive Officer, Shawn Ramirez.
Ms. Ramirez stated that the Contract Report was solely informational and includes renewal contracts for mail services, as well as the Criminal Restitution Compact agreements, which support the imposition and collection of restitution. Finally, the report includes the May 2026 Board-approved Trauma Recovery Centers and the additional centers funded pursuant to Section 2 of the 2026 Budget Act.
Ms. Ramirez concluded that none of the items require approval but stated she was happy to answer any questions.
Chair Ravel thanked Deputy Ramirez and asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board members.
Item 4. Public Comment on Items Not on the Agenda
The Board opened the meeting for public comment and Ms. Mitchell reminded everyone that consistent with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, items not on the agenda may not be discussed at this time but may be put on a future agenda (Gov. Code § 11125.7).
No public comment was offered.
Item 5. Approval of the Minutes of the July 16, 2026 Board Meeting
Chair Ravel asked the Board if there were any discussions, additions, or corrections to the Minutes for the July 17, 2026, Board meeting. There were no comments or questions, so Chair Ravel called for a motion to approve Item 5.
Member Becton moved to approve the Minutes for the July 17, 2026, Board meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson.
Board Liaison Sharee Mitchell then called for any public comment on Item 5. There being no questions or public comment, Chair Ravel called for a vote to approve Item 5. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.
Item 6. Proposed Updated Mental Health Guidelines
The Proposed Updated Mental Health Guidelines were presented by Deputy Executive Officer, Jennifer Rocco.
Ms. Rocco stated she was before the Board to propose changes to the Mental Health Guidelines.
Government Code section 13957.2 grants the California Victim Compensation Board the authority to establish rates and service limitations for reimbursement of mental health and counseling services.
Pursuant to that authority, the Board approved the first set of Guidelines in 2006. These Guidelines:
• clarified how the program should interpret statutory language and apply it to policies and procedures; and,
• provided consistency and clarity in the processing and reimbursement of expenses related to mental health claims.
The Guidelines were approved by the Board and filed with the Secretary of State. Since then, staff remained consistent in bringing proposed changes before the Board for approval and filing them with the Secretary of State.
The most recent version of the Guidelines was adopted by the Board in November 2022 and filed with the Secretary of State in December 2022.
In early 2026, staff from the Victim Compensation Division and the Legal Division completed an extensive review and determined that the service limitations outlined in the Guidelines should be replaced by new and updated regulations. The Legal Division took the lead in that effort and the new mental health regulations were adopted by the Board at the July 2026 meeting.
The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) reviewed and approved the regulations, effective January 1, 2027. At that time, all the service limitations that are currently included in the Guidelines will be codified in regulations. Only the reimbursement rates from the prior iteration of the Guidelines will remain.
As a result, staff recommend that the service limitations in the Mental Health Guidelines be abolished effective January 1, 2027, and that only the previously approved reimbursement rates be retained.
Upon approval, an informational copy reflecting these changes will be filed with the Secretary of State effective January 1, 2027.
Ms. Rocco stated that she would be happy to answer any questions the Board may have.
Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Rocco and expressed that he is pleased to hear that OAL approved the regulations. He stated that this is great news and that they will take effect at the start of next year. He also expressed appreciation for the effort required to move such regulatory packages forward and noted that this adjustment provides consistency and asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board on this item for Deputy Rocco.
Chair Ravel then asked if there was a motion to approve Item 6. Member Johnson moved to approve Item 6, and the motion was seconded by Member Becton.
Board Liaison Sharee Mitchell then called for any public comment before the matter was brought to a vote.
There being no questions or public comment, Chair Ravel called for a vote to approve Item 6. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.
Item 7. Christopher Casto (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)
Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier presented the Penal Code Section 4900 claim of Christopher Casto. Ms. Gauthier stated that Mr. Casto filed an application with CalVCB on June 27, 2024, as an erroneously convicted person. That application was supplemented on August 13, 2024, and was based on Mr. Casto’s 2016 conviction for arson of an inhabited structure or property, which conviction has not been reversed or vacated. The claim seeks $174,580 for 1,274 days of imprisonment.
Ms. Gauthier continued, noting that the Attorney General objected to the claim arguing the evidence fails to prove Mr. Casto’s innocence by a preponderance of the evidence. As explained in detail in the proposed decision, the claim is recommended for denial as Mr. Casto has failed to meet his burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he is innocent of the challenged conviction as required by Penal Code section 4900 (a).
Ms. Gauthier added that throughout these proceedings, Mr. Casto represented himself. The Office of the Attorney General is represented by Deputy Attorney General Caitlin Franzen.
Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gauthier and addressed Mr. Casto, who appeared in person.
Mr. Casto thanked the Board for having him and considering his claim. He stated that he understands the recommendation is to deny his claim, but he believes it should not be denied. Mr. Casto explained that the reasons as to why his claim should not be denied are because he did not commit the act of arson and did not burn his house down with everything in it. Mr. Casto stated that he woke up with his house on fire and his dog saved his life. He said his neighbor claimed that she saw him bringing several gas cans from his Mercedes-Benz into his kitchen the night before, but this was not true.
Mr. Casto also stated that the battalion chief said there were pour patterns throughout the house, such as in the living room, dining room, bedroom, kitchen, and around the corner down the street, which included a pooling of liquid and that this was the likely accelerant. From those test results, investigators cut out seven sections of the flooring, took a jacket and sent it to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for testing.
Mr. Kirk’s report stated that the fire was considered undetermined until the test results came back from the DOJ. The test results came back negative for any accelerant substance except for a rag in Mr. Casto’s car, which was flammable. That flammable rag contained engine degreaser, which DOJ indicated would be difficult to ignite with a match. Mr. Casto stated he presented a video that showed the rag was still difficult to light even with a torch and additional engine degreaser poured on top of it.
Mr. Casto stated that Detective Mirs first reported an acetone smell and later amended his statement to reflect there was an acetone or petroleum distillate smell, which was the engine degreaser which has jet fuels, kerosene, and lamp oils, but when you put them all together it is very hard to light.
Mr. Casto then shared that the arson investigators from California were called in thereafter. Mr. Casto stated he believed Mr. Ablot to be one of the most outstanding arson investigators in the state of California by his credentials and certificates. Mr. Casto explained the District Attorney (DA) then hired their own investigator, Mr. Hall. Mr. Casto alleged that Mr. Hall stated the patterns found in Mr. Casto’s home were not pour patterns but rather were burn patterns and the previous arson investigators were basing their determination on “junk science.”
Mr. Casto added that electrical causes could not be ruled out and the outcome according to the guidelines is considered undetermined because there is more than one possible scenario in the burn area. Mr. Casto stated Mr. Ablot also came up with the same conclusions and disagreed with Kirk, the battalion chief, who was only a fire investigator, not an arson investigator.
Mr. Casto said he then submitted a polygraph test that included four questions about the arson. The first being whether he stated the fire, which he stated he passed. The second question was if the neighbor mistook gas cans for grocery outlet bags, as they were fire engine red and school bus yellow, which Mr. Casto stated he passed that question as well. The third question was whether Mr. Casto had someone from Craigslist bring him 4,500 dollars on the morning of the fire from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., which he also passed. And finally, Mr. Casto was asked if he woke up with his dog to his house already on fire, which he said he also passed.
Mr. Casto stated that Ms. Franzen brought a lie detector agent with her from Sacramento, he offered to take a polygraph test with her lie detector agent, and she denied that. Mr. Casto alleged that Ms. Franzen said that lie detector tests were not reliable and they were not scientifically factual.
Mr. Casto said the guidelines of the National Fire Pro Safety Agency say if there is more than one possible scenario, then it must be considered undetermined. Mr. Casto stated he had five possible scenarios, as he had candles and electricity, and his house was built in the year 1900.
Mr. Casto stated he then asked investigators if he was allowed to go home, as his arson investigator’s report came back negative. He was told he could not go home until the DOJ’s arson investigator’s report came back. The DOJ’s investigation report came back negative as well, which they discovered through a Brady violation since he was only given one page of the original report from the DOJ. Mr. Casto stated that his offer from the DA went from arson to recklessly causing a fire.
Mr. Casto explained that his offer stated that if he signed the offer that day, he would get out on probation. Mr. Casto stated he did not sign the document that was given to him, as he would not admit guilt for recklessly causing a fire as he did not do such a thing.
Mr. Casto stated that neither arson investigator could say that the incident with his home was arson, as it was not willfully and maliciously set. Mr. Casto explained that he then went to trial, where he lost.
Mr. Casto asked the Board to look at everything he was doing up until the fire. He explained that the insurance on the house was cancelled on April 1, he had a visit on April 1 with a probation officer he had not previously seen, who told him that he was doing a really good job. Mr. Casto also said that this probation officer told him all that was left to do was take the theft class and he would be off probation, which he explained is not an easy thing to do in Placer County after three years.
Mr. Casto claimed he passed every test. He got off all controlled substances and had a scholarship through probation in Thunder Valley and was six classes away from being a jewelry design repairperson. He stated there was a jewelry shop attached to the house. Mr. Casto explained it was his dad’s and that it was fully equipped and had a grand reopening on the fourth of July. He stated he also had business cards being made as well.
In addition, Mr. Casto stated he was the in-home support caregiver for two mentally and physically handicapped people and that he had his own business doing mortgage inspections for a company out of state where he was making $65 to $85 per inspection.
Mr. Casto said the house was fully furnished, he had a Mercedes-Benz, a 56 Willies wagon, a 67 El Camino that someone was buying that morning for $4,200, and a motorcycle. Mr. Casto argued that it would not make sense for him to intentionally burn his house down when there was a person bringing $4,200 that morning to buy his car. He added that the house payment was $442.75 and that he could not find a house or a studio in Foresthill for under 600 bucks. Mr. Casto explained he did everything he could to save that house with the bank. He said he called the bank to try to get his name put on the account on April 1. He called the bank to make a payment and the bank stated he was not on the account and could not make the payment. He explained he had changed the account password and the bank confirmed he was on the account. Mr. Casto stated he assumed one hundred percent of his father’s debts and took one hundred percent interest in those properties. Mr. Casto said that, unfortunately, there was an assumable loan that went to his sister; however. Mr. Casto stated his house was never threatened.
Mr. Casto said that the erroneously convicted felon application stated he needed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not commit the crime he was convicted of. Mr. Casto stated that the decision by the Board is a “slap in the face” to the arson investigators because their guidelines and standards would not describe this incident as arson.
Mr. Casto stated he needs this claim granted so he can finally actually move on with his life, including his aspiration to become a world long drive champion. Mr. Casto stated he just recently took fifth in the world in 2022, and if his claim was approved, he would be able to pick himself up and start moving ahead because this has been hell. He said he has been trying to get a job or rent an apartment, but he says it is not currently possible.
Mr. Casto stated he believes he has proven with the polygraph tests and the guidelines of the National Fire Safety Protection, the wonderful arson experts who say it was not arson, that he is innocent.
Chair Ravel asked if Mr. Casto could wrap up his statement. Mr. Casto responded by saying he did not light his house on fire with everything in it and leave himself homeless. He expressed that he is unsure what else he must do; he had the two arson investigators’ guidelines and his polygraph test. He stated he hopes the Board makes the decision that will help him out and help him move on.
Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Casto and addressed Ms. Franzen who appeared via Zoom.
Ms. Franzen greeted the Board and acknowledged that contrary evidence was presented to the jury regarding whether the fire was caused by arson or from some other undetermined cause. This evidence was presented to the jury and ultimately the jury found Mr. Casto guilty of arson and his conviction remains valid to this day. Ms. Franzen continued, stating that ultimately, as noted by the third district court of appeal, even absent the expert’s opinion in this case and the competing evidence that was presented, there was more than sufficient evidence for Mr. Casto’s guilt based off his suspicious behavior alone. Ms. Franzen explained that evidence is fully laid out in the Attorney General’s letter response and asked that the board adopt the proposed decision from the hearing officer.
Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Franzen and asked if there were any questions or discussion from the Board. Seeing no questions, Chair Ravel called for a motion to approve Item 7.
Member Becton moved to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision in the Penal Code section 4900 matter of Christopher Casto. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson. No public comment was offered. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.
Item 8. Jane Dorotik (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)
Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier presented the Penal Code Section 4900 claim of Jane Dorotik. Ms. Gauthier stated that Ms. Dorotik filed an application on April 24, 2026, with CalVCB as an erroneously convicted person. That application was based on Ms. Dorotik’s 2001 conviction for murder, which was vacated by grant of habeas relief in 2020 and in 2022, all charges were dismissed.
Ms. Gauthier continued, noting that as there was no objection filed by the Office of the Attorney General, compensation is automatic under Penal Code section 4900 (b).
Accordingly, the Proposed Decision recommends compensation in the amount of $997,920, which represents $140 per day for each of the 7,128 days Ms. Dorotik was wrongfully imprisoned.
Ms. Gauthier added that throughout these proceedings, Ms. Dorotik has been represented by Paula Mitchell of the Los Angeles Innocence Project. The Office of the Attorney General has been represented by Deputy Attorneys General, Tami Falkenstein Hennick and Jessica Leal.
Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gauthier and addressed Hannah Brown with the Los Angeles Innocence Project, who appeared via Zoom. Ms. Brown stated she urges the Board to adopt the Proposed Decision and expressed gratitude on behalf of Ms. Dorotik to the Attorney General’s Office for its professionalism and non-opposition to Ms. Dorotik’s petition.
Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Brown and asked if Ms. Dorotik was available to speak. Ms. Brown stated Ms. Dorotik was unable to attend the meeting.
Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Brown and addressed Ms. Leal, who appeared via Zoom.
Ms. Leal appeared before the Board and stated that the Office of the Attorney General submits the matter and supports adoption of the Proposed Decision.
Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Leal and asked if there were any questions or discussion from the Board. Seeing no questions, Chair Ravel called for a motion to approve Item 8.
Member Becton moved to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision in the Penal Code section 4900 matter of Jane Dorotik. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson. No public comment was offered. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.
Closed Session
The Board adjourned into Closed Session with the Executive Officer and Chief Counsel at 10:31 a.m., pursuant to Government Code Section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) to deliberate on Proposed Decision numbers 1 through 85 of the Victim Compensation Program.
Open Session
The Board reconvened in Open Session pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) at 10:46 a.m.
Member Becton moved to approve Items 1 through 85 of the Victim Compensation Program. Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board, and the Proposed Decisions were adopted.
Adjournment
Member Becton moved to adjourn the September Board meeting. Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:47 a.m.
Next Board Meeting
The next Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 19, 2026.