DRAFT

California Victim Compensation Board

Open Meeting Minutes

January 15, 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, January 15, 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, Andrea Burrell, was also present and recorded the meeting.

Item 1. Executive Officer Statement

Executive Officer Lynda Gledhill greeted the members of the Board and attendees of the Board meeting and began her remarks by noting that last week the Governor’s January budget was released. Ms. Gledhill explained the January proposal does not have a direct impact on CalVCB, but it did state that the Administration intends to build on this budget proposal in the May Revise to identify a way to balance the budget for the next two fiscal years. Ms. Gledhill reported that CalVCB will continue to monitor any changes, such as cuts or savings that need to be made.

Ms. Gledhill said that most importantly for the Board, in the January budget was the projection on the Prop 47 savings. With the Prop 47 projection, the restitution fund and other savings, CalVCB estimates that there will be about $10.5 million for the Board to award in March to Trauma Recovery Centers (TRCs), which should equate to four to five organizations receiving funding. As a result of the publication of the Notice of Funda Available, CalVCB received 42 TRC applications. Of the 42 applications, nine are existing TRCs, five are former TRCs, and 28 are new organizations. Ms. Gledhill stated that this means that all nine existing TRCs whose grants end on June 30, 2026, applied for a consecutive grant. Ms. Gledhill added that five of the six organizations that did not receive consecutive funding last year also applied. 

Ms. Gledhill acknowledged there is not enough funding for all existing organizations, let alone all the organizations that expressed interest in this grant opportunity. Ms. Gledhill thanked the board for all the conversations last year about the TRC grant administration process. Ms. Gledhill stated CalVCB is aware that stakeholders from the National Alliance for Trauma Recovery Centers have expressed interest in convening a working group to further discuss the grant administration process. However, CalVCB believes this working group concept is redundant to recent efforts, especially given the funding circumstances and the need for any significant changes to be made via the legislative process.  Ms. Gledhill added that the inclusion of a Board member on the working group also raises concerns about conflicts of interest in Board members voting for the TRC award. Ms. Gledhill stated that CalVCB remains committed to helping the Board navigate this process and understands that it will be difficult. Ms. Gledhill concluded by adding that the Board will continue to have this conversation in March.

Ms. Gledhill next updated the Board regarding the issue of attorney fees that was discussed at the November Board meeting. Ms. Gledhill explained that CalVCB has been diligently working to establish a way to pay attorney fees using only state general fund dollars. This is necessary because new federal grant requirements disallow attorney payments for undocumented immigrants. Given that it is not a condition of eligibility, and CalVCB does not ask for immigration status, the solution will need to apply to all attorney payments.

Ms. Gledhill continued, stating CalVCB has been able to work with the Department of Finance and the State Controller’s Office to establish the mechanism for paying these fees. There has been almost daily back and forth with these entities to find a solution and implement it. Ms. Gledhill stated that, unfortunately, we are not there yet. The total attorney fee payments to date are $11,745.48. More than $11,600 is for an individual attorney who has expressed extreme hardship due to these payments being delayed. Ms. Gledhill stated that CalVCB understands this impact. However, Ms. Gledhill stated she believes it is very important that we get this right, as we know we will be audited by the federal government and CalVCB wants to be sure there is a clear line of how these payments are being made. Ms. Gledhill added that the lawsuit regarding the conditions of the grant is still ongoing. Ms. Gledhill assured the Board that CalVCB remains in communication with Attorney General’s Office on this topic and the litigation.

Ms. Gledhill next shared that the regulatory package that was approved by the Board in November was approved by the Office of Administrative this week. This means that the revised regulations will take effect on April 1, 2026.

Ms. Gledhill noted that a new regulatory package for CalVCB’s mental health billing practices is on the agenda for this meeting. The draft regulations represent current Mental Health Guidelines that have been vetted with stakeholders over the years prior to being presented to the Board for adoption, most recently in November 2022. Ms. Gledhill explained that, if approved, CalVCB will begin the regulatory process with the Office of Administrative Law, which will include a 45-day public comment period. Ms. Gledhill added that the team has completed the review of applications and bills associated with the suspended 90-day billing rule. More than 2,200 bills have been reprocessed and 30% of those bills were returned from the appeals process. Ms. Gledhill expressed that, overall, the progress made has been significant and has allowed CalVCB to resolve 566 appeals.

Ms. Gledhill switched gears, indicating that January marks Human Trafficking Prevention Month. It is important for CalVCB to recognize the strength of survivors and highlight the resources available to help them rebuild their lives. Ms. Gledhill stated that California accounts for an estimated 14% of human trafficking cases in the U.S. To spread awareness of support available for victims, CalVCB developed new fact sheets, along with a social media tool kit. Ms. Gledhill reported that CalVCB is hosting a webinar next week so that advocates can learn more about the specific program benefits. Joining will be partners at Volunteers of America, who will share their firsthand experience helping victims. Additionally, Ms. Gledhill stated she is meeting with leaders of human trafficking victim support organizations to discuss opportunities for collaboration and partnership.

Ms. Gledhill added that in speaking with these folks about the work that they do, the average age of the human trafficking victim is as low as twelve years old. Ms. Gledhill stated that these victims could have the ability to have their bills paid for the rest of their life, up to the $70,000 maximum benefit limit, depending on what the benefits are, which could make a real difference in the lives of these victims if they are able to seek the support services that CalVCB offers. CalVCB believes this is an important way that the organization can be helpful. Ms. Gledhill added she is appreciative of the team and everyone’s work within the organization to make sure that we rally around these victims, particularly in January, but of course all year long. Ms. Gledhill stated she would be happy to answer any questions. 

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gledhill and added that he understands the predicament she is in with the January budget. Chair Ravel said it sounds like some hard choices are going to need to be made on the TRC’s. He stated he appreciates the engagement on the proposed working group and that he supports the position Ms. Gledhill put forward at the Board meeting. Chair Ravel expressed that having staff continue to do the work up and then the advocates can advocate when the suggestions come forward to the board is the right way to go. Chair Ravel also commented on the attorney fees issue and stated it is also a very difficult predicament. He expressed his sympathy both with the situation that CalVCB is in as well as with the representative. Chair Ravel committed to do whatever can be done to help move that along with the Department of Finance, and also stated that Member Johnson, who is with the State Controller’s Office, is willing to help to get some relief to the claimants as well as the advocate.

Ms. Gledhill expressed her gratitude to Chair Ravel for his comments and offer of assistance. Ms. Gledhill stated she has reached out to the Government Operations Agency on this issue and has considered reaching out to Member Johnson more than once and will do so if needed. Ms. Gledhill said that at this point it seems like what is needed is for those two entities to come to an agreement, which is certainly not something that the Board nor CalVCB can control, although there have been attempts to facilitate. Ms. Gledhill stated that efforts will continue with what has already been an almost daily conversation.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gledhill and congratulated staff on the regulation package as well, with noted there were only minimal changes from the OAL, which speaks volumes to the great work that staff are doing.

Chair Ravel asked the Board if they had any questions.

Member Johnson asked Ms. Gledhill for a reminder on the timeline for the TRC funding announcement. Specifically, at what point in the process do the TRC’s find out that they are potentially listed for an award.

Ms. Gledhill stated that it will become part of the March Board meeting. Ms. Gledhill explained that it would be part of the Board agenda package and the Board meeting would be the final decision. Ms. Gledhill also added as a reminder that CalVCB always asks the Board to allow CalVCB to adjust the amount based on the May Revise because often the Prop 47 savings number will change slightly either up or down. Ms. Gledhill stated that then usually she reports back to the Board what that adjustment was and what that allowed CalVCB and the Board to do regarding the grants. Ms. Gledhill explained that the TRCs will know at the March Board meeting what the Board has to consider and what it approves.

Member Johnson then clarified that the decision would then get posted ten days before the meeting. Ms. Gledhill confirmed this was correct. Member Johnson added that he is trying to be cognizant of the process, the opportunity for dialogue around the proposed allocations, and allowing enough time for adjustments as needed following that meeting if there is a substantive or substantial discussion about the proposed funding. Member Johnson clarified that he wants to be sure that there is enough time in the process to have a back and forth if there are any adjustments necessary.

Ms. Gledhill stated that as discussed last year, it is always possible for the Board to tell CalVCB to do something different and CalVCB would need to come back and/or schedule another Board meeting. Ms. Gledhill added that there are different ways to go through the process, but because these contracts take effect on July 1, 2026, it is incredibly important for CalVCB to get it as close to the March Board meeting as possible. Ms. Gledhill explained the reason why this is done at the March Board meeting is because it does take time to go through the contracting process. Ms. Gledhill added that CalVCB wants to make sure that everything is in place so that the contracts are effective on July 1, 2026.

Member Johnson stated he appreciates that sentiment and that is precisely what he is getting at. Member Johnson added that if the Board finds out ten days before the meeting about the proposed awards and is told that this has to happen quick otherwise the TRCs will not get their funding in time, it does not allow for a lot of discussion. Member Johnson stated that he wants to be sure that there is time for dialogue if there is feedback rather than saying “This is baked because we do not have a lot of time to change it.”

Ms. Gledhill explained that this is all speculative but given the amount of money that CalVCB is anticipating and what CalVCB thinks is necessary to be a minimally viable grant amount for TRCs to be successful, whatever tweaks need to be made to be could probably happen.

Member Johnson stated again he wanted to make sure that a conversation is being had about this process and that he is on record with his concern and making sure that there is an opportunity for back and forth while still meeting the needs of the TRCs and the time their timeline for receiving funding and CalVCB’s timeline for the grant making process. Member Johnson stated that the timeline is tight and it has been in the past, and there is not much he believes that can be done about that, though he wants to be cognizant of the fact that there could be a call for a meeting right afterward or a follow up discussion depending on the tone and tenor of that conversation and what the Board determines is needed.

Ms. Gledhill stated that she is committed to making sure the Board can have a thorough conversation and arrive at the conclusion that it is reflective of their preferred direction. Ms. Gledhill assured Member Johnson that everything that needs to be done will be done, to make that happen.

Member Becton added her appreciation for the working group as she believes that will go a long way toward accountability and transparency.

Item 2. Legislative Update

The legislative update was presented by Deputy Executive Officer Katie Cardenas.

Ms. Cardenas stated the Legislature began its session on January 5. As of today, no new legislation has been introduced that would impact CalVCB. However, CalVCB staff are still tracking three two-year bills that remain from 2025.

The first is SB 490 by Senator Umberg which would have affected the process for erroneous conviction claims. That bill was amended to an unrelated subject on January 5 and is no longer related to CalVCB.

CalVCB staff are following two other bills that stalled in 2025 and which must be advanced by January 30 to remain active in 2026. AB 1100 by Assemblymember Sharp-Collins would make several changes to victim compensation statutes. AB 938 by Assemblymember Bonta would expand the circumstances under which certain victims can have sentences vacated. Neither bill has been set for a hearing, and CalVCB staff do not anticipate that either bill will move forward by the deadline to proceed this year.

Item 3. Public Comment

The Board opened the meeting for public comment and Ms. Burrell 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.)

Melissa Corona appeared via Zoom on behalf of the Martinez family, who is the family of victim Johnny Martinez. She described herself as a member of the Martinez family and Johnny’s “aunt.” She watched him grow up and therefore has a vested interest in his future. She stated that a lot of their community was with them online today. Ms. Corona said she was hopeful to address VCB today and was thankful for the opportunity.

Ms. Corona relayed that on September 8, 2023, Mr. Martinez was helping his cousin move into his first home in South Sacramento. He was awaiting the birth of his first child. At approximately 10:00 p.m. that night, a car full of known gang members drove by and fired 17 rounds at Mr. Martinez and his two cousins. Mr. Martinez was left paralyzed and one of his cousins did not survive. As a result, Mr. Martinez was not present for the birth of his first child.

Ms. Corona stated that if anyone on the Board has suffered anything like that, they must get what that feels like. Though Ms. Corona expressed that it is not what she is appearing on behalf of the Board about today. Ms. Corona stated she is appearing before the Board to thank CalVCB for the work that CalVCB does and asked who can be addressed for accountability as the incident was on September 8, 2023, their application was submitted in November 2023, and they received an approval letter from CalVCB. Ms. Corona stated this letter of approval gave the Martinez family immense hope as it was one of the first bright moments since the incident. However, since receiving the letter of approval, the family has not received any phone calls, answers, or updates, nor a list of requirements or guidelines on the timeline the family would need to follow. Ms. Corona stated that the Martinez family has only been told that the application is “pending review.” Ms. Corona requested to know who to reach out to regarding what more can be done and what further information can be provided to assist with CalVCB’ s decision, as the family has exhausted every resource at their disposal and have had to rebuild their home.

Mr. Martinez has lost his full-time employment, making it difficult to make car payments, rent payments, and utility payments without the support of the community. Ms. Martinez reiterated that she wishes to have a conversation with someone that can advise the Martinez family on what can be expected next. Ms. Corona concluded her statement by saying she respects and appreciates the work that CalVCB does, and she does not mean any disrespect, but she is pleading for any information for the family so she can see the family’s eyes light up again, as they deserve a bright light after what they have been through, and she feels that CalVCB can provide that for them.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Corona for her advocacy and for appearing on behalf of the Martinez family. Chair Ravel offered his apologies to the Martinez family for the horrific crime that they experienced. Chair Ravel further asked that staff please follow up with Mr. Martinez and his family about the status of the claim.

Chair Ravel then motioned for Michael Siegel, Esq., who was in the audience, to come to the podium to speak. Mr. Siegel stated that he had been at the Board meeting a couple of months ago where he told the Board about the dire circumstances he is in given the delay in receiving attorney fees, and two months later, his situation is even worse since he has still not received any money. Mr. Siegel said he appreciates the update and knows that CalVCB is working hard, but there is still no immediate resolution and that is not helping. Mr. Siegel said the last information that he got was that CalVCB was still working on it, and they hoped to have it resolved soon, but that he should not expect to see any payments until February, which would total four months. Mr. Siegel begged CalVCB to do whatever it can to keep the issue moving along. Mr. Siegel said he appreciates the Controller’s Office and suggests that maybe there is an “inside track” there that could help push it along. Mr. Siegel also suggested if someone had “ins” with the Governor’s Office and could get the Governor to lean on the Department of Finance perhaps it would get things moving.

Mr. Siegel continued stating that he was not clear why this became an issue in the first place. Mr. Siegel referred to a copy of the budget that he was holding and said it mentioned several line items (General Fund, Restitution Fund, and a Federal Trust Fund), which he said suggests that federal money is in a separate category already. He acknowledged that this may not be true, but that is what he gathers from looking at the budget. Mr. Siegel noticed that some of the members were possibly shaking their heads, so he said he was sure the Board would address that.

Mr. Siegel then held up a stack of documents bound together by a binder clip and stated that he was holding numerous Client Notification letters, where awards were given to his clients. He pointed out that, based on those, he receives attorney fees. Mr. Siegel stated that some of the letters go back two or three years and it is not clear to him why the current federal problem with attorney fees is affecting awards/payments that date back that far.

Mr. Siegel then held up a thin stack of documents and stated that the stack represented the volume of Client Notification letters that he had been receiving every week up until last October. Mr. Siegel said that now he gets “dribbled-in pieces of paper,” which he is not sure if he was or was not supposed to get any, because it is not  clear. Mr. Siegel explained that he would get those notices and it triggered a payment. Mr. Siegel thought he was not going to be getting any notices, but he was, so he pointed out there may be some sort of glitch in the system since he is still getting some notices, but he is confused whether he should be getting some, all, or no notices.

Mr. Siegel concluded by saying he needed to make an appearance even though he knew there was not anything the Board would be able to do today. He said he appreciated the Martinez family that spoke is going through the same thing he is and CalVCB should help them too. Mr. Siegel thanked the Board for listening and hopes the issue can move forward.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Siegel for coming in today and for his years of advocacy. Chair Ravel sympathized with the position Mr. Siegel is in and said he is personally committed to doing whatever he can to get this moving.

Next, the Chair called on Ms. Rodriguez. Ms. Rodriguez then introduced her husband, Jose Rodriguez.

Mr. Rodriguez introduced himself and stated that he is originally from California and is a victim of crime due to being stabbed by a homeless transient. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he was being kidnapped on the bus, and as the homeless person was about to stab another child. Mr. Rodriguez said he went through “the process” where he ended up in San Bernardino County asking for help from the “Victims of Crime,” where he was told that he would receive some money. Mr. Rodriguez said he told them he was not sure how that worked, but he did not have any money to pay them back. Mr. Rodriguez admitted that he did not know much about the story because his wife dealt with “them.” Mr. Rodriguez did not clarify who “them” was. Mr. Rodriguez then stated that he told a woman who he believed was named Wendy Salas that if he “needed to go through this” that he would call her up to the Board to make it clear that he told her that he was not going to pay back the money he received and he did not have money. Mr. Rodriguez said, “At least you guys are getting stalled out like I did since 2013.” Mr. Rodriguez stated that until today, the only resolution he got was that he must pay the Board money, every month. Mr. Rodriguez further stated that if his appeal does not go in his favor, he is going to push for the Board to be “diminished” and there isn’t anything for anyone but stalling.

Mr. Rodriguez concluded by asking the Board to let him know and he hoped that he could bring Wendy Salas so she could tell the Board what she was told by “them” after she “had to leave the room because she was not sure what to do” and “they just came in with a bunch of people talking about ‘sign’ and ‘they’ kind of pushed her in that manner too because she wasn’t too sure of what she was doing” because it was possibly her first couple of years at the job, but admits he could be mistaken.

After a few seconds of silence, Mr. Rodriguez then said, “Hello? Are you guys there?” Chair Ravel then acknowledged and thanked Mr. Rodriguez for his comments. Mr. Rodriguez then said, “Just a comment, huh? No question?” His wife, who introduced herself as Frances Rodriguez, came on the line and stated she was a victim of two crimes in 2013 while on a public bus.

Ms. Rodriguez described the first incident, which was in the Inglewood jurisdiction, and at the time she was applying to become a social worker. She explained that she had gone through the application process and she was assaulted by 3 women on September 16, 2013, which is Mexican Independence Day. Ms. Rodriguez said the women called her “white” and beat her up as she was protecting their toddler and claims the incident was on camera. Ms. Rodriguez said every time she requested to see the video footage to see why she was assaulted and for an explanation of her injuries, “they” kept giving her a VCD form and other “different things.” She explained that she pushed through that because at the time she was fighting an eviction that ultimately happened because of the assault. Ms. Rodriguez stated that she was transferred to Centinela Freeman hospital where she developed clostridium difficile. She said on the day of her eviction hearing, her doctor was begging her to go to the hospital because she had a fever of 103. She said she was still evicted even though the house was red tagged in Los Angeles County.

Ms. Rodriguez then described a second incident that occurred three months later in December 2013, and she still “pushed forward” because she was born in East Los Angeles and she has worked for the City of Los Angeles as a LAPD 9-1-1 dispatcher, and for the City of Southgate as a Police Records Specialist. She said she knew something was wrong when she received “the letter.” Ms. Rodriguez recalls that she was homeless and was interviewing with LA County. She had scored 100% on her interview and was going to pick up her paperwork from a LA County Public Services office, where they offered her a position. On the bus ride back from picking up this paperwork, Ms. Rodriguez said she was stabbed in the face, sexually assaulted as her breast was exposed to a double-decker bus on Line 204 on Gage and Vermont. Ms. Rodriguez also claimed the bus driver would not stop the bus for three stops while she was fighting for her life, as they attempted to stab her on her head 7 times. She said that in 2025, the suspect was re-sentenced and had 8 years reduced from his sentence, which according to the District Attorney was due to a proposition and for the State to save money. Ms. Rodriguez said she was laughed at by the suspect at the hearing.

Ms. Rodriguez described that for three years she pushed forward and got an education for which she is now $7,000 in debt. She said in her mind, if it were not for this attack, she would not be in debt, because she had to retake classes. Ms. Rodriguez stated that she is at the end of her financial aid PELL grant, which she must repay to the state every month, which she questioned why. She said she had sent some emails that she wanted to read aloud during the Board meeting, but instead, she wanted to beg the Board to add her to the agenda, so she can show how there is no procedure, no systematic process, no timeline as Ms. Martinez had mentioned, and she referenced Mr. Siegel wanting to be paid the legal fees that he is requesting.

Ms. Rodriguez went on to say she had requested legal advice when her rights under Marcy’s Law were violated. She said she went to San Bernardino County several times to file a complaint but was “rejected” and had to go to the courthouse across the street, where a judge listened to her story and the judge called the District Attorney to explain that she had a right to be there as a victim of crime and she was not a criminal. Ms. Rodriguez said she has been treated like a criminal since the first day she got stabbed on December 27, 2013, and her ID was taken by Transit Services. The Transit Services Officer kept her ID and three months later, when she was homeless again, she received a denial letter from LA County Department of Public Social Services for the job she had applied for due to an accusation of welfare fraud, which she says she was never accused or convicted of. Ms. Rodriguez said she replied to the letter within a week and then felt invisible after that as she never got a response. Ms. Rodriguez pointed out that there has been 11 years since the crime happened and therefore she has missed out on half a million dollars which was stolen from her family due to the “complicit criminality,” which she wants to stop.

Ms. Rodriguez said she hoped the Board would take her testimony as truth, as she has been proven by San Bernardino courthouse in a separate civil case, to have valid and reasonable testimony. She said Judge Khan can attest to her personality, and she would be happy to provide witnesses who can attest to how much she and her husband have suffered. Ms. Rodriguez explained that their children were minors at the time of these incidents and have experienced homelessness three times because of the lack of respect, lack of action, and the misdirection from the Victim Board’s advocates in both Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County.

Ms. Rodriguez said that it was her testimony and again asked for consideration to be added as a Board agenda item. She then raised a question of allocation and asked if a portion of the amount owed can be allocated and awarded to them as an “administrative error,” which she believes is what she “is paying for.” Ms. Rodriguez mentioned a hearing with the Board in 2020, where the Judge ordered that she and her husband repay $7,000 and $2,000 respectively, and claimed those amounts are basically administrative errors, which they are paying for.

Ms. Rodriguez said she wanted to address this matter with the Board because she felt there have been so many injustices and she “has done nothing to the State of California other than love and give back.” Ms. Rodriguez said she has been a Key Club secretary, a Kiwanis secretary, a minister, and has three degrees from California, but she had to leave California because of what she experienced. Ms. Rodriguez said it was heartbreaking because she felt like she was part of the California legal system given her contributions and felt betrayed. Ms. Rodriguez said she hoped to turn the page and have a different experience moving forward, as she is not here to destroy, only to rebuild because she considers herself a solution and not a problem. Ms. Rodriguez said she did not choose this path of having two incidents in 2013. She asked the Board to imagine if they had this experience.

Ms. Rodriguez thanked the Board for listening to her testimony, expressed her appreciation to the Board for allowing her to have a voice for “the injustices that have been done,” especially because she was targeted. Ms. Rodriguez expressed her grievance about not being able to get copies of forms to file for a restitution hearing that a judge ordered them to have. Ms. Rodriguez said the current agent claimed to have mailed the forms to them because they did not have access to a printer, and when they contacted the agent about sending them again as they did not receive them, the agent said “No” and that was not an option anymore. Ms. Rodriguez offered to send a copy of the email; to show the agent was unwilling to send the forms twice so they could submit another application.

Ms. Rodriguez concluded by saying this was her experience and thanked the Board for listening. Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Rodriguez and said he was sorry for the experiences that her family has had.

Chair Ravel then acknowledged Paloma Bustos wished to speak. Ms. Bustos explained that she is with the Sunita Jain Anti-Trafficking Initiative, which is a program that works to develop and advocate for policies that prevent human trafficking and provides support for survivors. She thanked the Board for recognizing Human Trafficking Awareness Month by sharing the work that CalVCB has been doing and expressed her appreciation to the Board taking the time to highlight those efforts. Ms. Bustos said that last January they released a report with recommendations of what CalVCB can do to improve access for human trafficking survivors, and those recommendations came directly from service providers and survivors with this experience. Ms. Bustos said over the past year they have been grateful to continue having those conversations with CalVCB’ s External Affairs Team around these recommendations.

Ms. Bustos continued, stating that they are encouraged to see steps being taken, including the creation of a Human Trafficking Fact Sheet, an upcoming webinar focused on Human Trafficking, and collaboration with community partners. Ms. Bustos explained that specialized training for human trafficking service providers is so important and it is meaningful to see its progress.

Ms. Bustos said they were thankful for the collaboration and CalVCB’ s continuous effort to improve access for survivors but said, at the same time, there is still more work to be done. She said she looks forward to continuing work together to strengthen the program and to remove barriers for trafficking survivors across California. Ms. Bustos concluded her public comment by thanking the Board.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Bustos for her comments, her advocacy on this critically important issue, and for her partnership with the Board.

Chair Ravel then called on Janelle Melohn, who appeared via Zoom. Ms. Melohn introduced herself as the Senior Director of the National Alliance for Trauma Recovery (NATR) and said that she has spoken before the Board in the past and appreciated the opportunity to speak before the Board again. Ms. Melohn said that she also appreciated the earlier dialogue about their request to have the Board establish a work group. She said she would like to make clarifications around the recommendations and requests the NATR made at the July 2025 Board Meeting. Ms. Melohn credited CalVCB for taking and implementing some of requests and recommendations quickly, and in time for the Trauma Recovery Center grant process this year, which she appreciated.

Ms. Melohn said the NATR had some interaction with CalVCB staff around the time when they were getting training and technical assistance funds from the state. Ms. Melohn stated that she has not spoken with CalVCB as often lately, but she felt like their request for the work group should be separate from the recommendations and requests they have made in the past. Ms. Melohn said she can appreciate that the NATR and the Board have a difference of opinion or varying viewpoints on some of the items. Ms. Melohn added that those may need to be changed in legislation, but she wanted to clarify that what they are really asking for is a good faith partnership to engage in dialogue about the ways that the program can be improved.

Ms. Melohn recited her experience running a compensation program for a state for 15 years, administering grant funds for more than 20 years and, at the State level, holding the equivalent of Director Gledhill’s position in another state. She stated she can appreciate what Director Gledhill and her staff do every day. She said she also believes in the power of good government, and that involves transparency and willingness to listen to folks. Ms. Melohn said it was part of the Board’s mission statement, and it is part of the Board’s core values to collaborate. Ms. Melohn said all they are asking for is a work group that would involve that dialogue, which she did not understand how it could be deemed redundant, given that the process is completely internal right now. She said they are not asking for anything that would bind the Board in any way, but rather the opportunity to truly sit down around the table rather than the back-and-forth at Board Meetings. Ms. Melohn said she hoped that everyone could “roll their sleeves up” and have conversations to discuss different ways to do business from other states’ perspectives, to better understand what Director Gledhill and her staff are experiencing, and to be thought of as partners in how the process could look moving forward. Ms. Melohn stated the meeting would not be to advocate or to try to change anyone’s mind about anything, but rather to have a good-faith, collaborative conversation around how the Trauma Recovery Center grant process and operations could look.

Ms. Melohn said she believes it is the Board and the program’s responsibility to engage with partners and have that type of dialogue. Ms. Melohn reiterated that this was their request, and she does not believe it is a conflict of interest to the Board or anyone else. This is because none of those who have considered sitting in on the work group are any current or potential recipients of Trauma Recovery Center funds in the future. Ms. Melohn also said they are not looking to sit in on the grant review process, only to have an opportunity for dialogue about potential changes and to increase efficiency, which she believes is an important step in all of this. Ms. Melohn said she would like the Board to reconsider taking this process offline so those collaborative conversations can occur.

Ms. Melohn then made a second request to the Board; she expressed she was not sure if the Board could have an impact but explained that the NATR put in a request for information at the beginning of October 2025 for the Trauma Recovery Center Performance Report data. Ms. Melohn said they got a timely response from CalVCB where they requested a check for a flash drive due to the large volume of documents. Ms. Melohn said the NATR responded quickly and submitted the check for the flash drive, which was cashed in mid-October, but to date, they have not received the information. Ms. Melohn said especially considering the funding crisis, that having that information would be helpful so they can showcase the work of the TRCs, while they advocate for additional funding from the legislature for the Trauma Recovery Centers. Ms. Melohn said she hoped the Board could assist in them getting the requested information and given the large volume of information, it will take both the Board and the NATR time to sort through the information, so she would appreciate if the Board could help expedite the request in any way they can. Ms. Melohn then thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Melohn and apologized for any delay regarding the requested documents and said he would make sure that happens. Chair Ravel said he speaks for the Board and CalVCB staff that they are committed to transparency, to partnership and to dialogue on how the program ought to look.

Chair Ravel thanked all the public commenters.

Item 4. Approval of the Minutes of the November 20, 2025, Board Meeting

Member Johnson moved approval of the Minutes for the November 20, 2025, Board meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Becton. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 5. Contract Update

The Contract Update was presented by Deputy Executive Officer Shawn Ramirez.

Ms. Ramirez stated that there was one item for approval, an inter-agency agreement with the California State Controller’s Office in the amount of $340,000 for a three-year term that ends June 30, 2029.

Ms. Ramirez explained this is the mechanism for ongoing and uninterrupted services for our victims pass through program that exchanges information with the Controller’s office for the payment delivery system. The remaining items in the contract report were noted as informational for operational and IT services.

Ms. Ramirez stated she would appreciate the Boards approval.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Ramirez and asked the Board if there was any additional discussion on this matter.

Member Johnsons stated that, because he is a representative of the Controller’s office, he would abstain from voting on this item.

Chair Ravel thanked Member Johnson.

Member Becton moved to approve Item 5. The motion was seconded by Chair Ravel. By a majority vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 6. Request for Authority to Begin the Rulemaking Process for Amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 649.26, et seq.)

The Request for Authority to Conclude the Rulemaking Process for Amendments to the California Code of Regulations was presented by Senior Attorney Katie Rupp.

Ms. Rupp stated she was seeking authorization for staff to begin the rulemaking process for a set of proposed regulations addressing mental health bills.

In 2002, Government Code Section 13957.2(a) was added to statute to extend the provisions authorizing compensation for losses incurred for mental health services. In 2003, the Board underwent the formal rulemaking process to add several regulations to the California Code of Regulations to manage the reimbursement of mental health services through the Victim Compensation Program.

Ms. Rupp explained that in 2006, the Board repealed the regulations in an effort to adopt a more flexible approach to managing maximum rates and service limitations, as permitted by Government Code § 13957.2 (a). The regulations were repealed and concurrently replaced by the CalVCB “Mental Health Guidelines,” which include maximum rates and various service limitations, along with other various guidelines for the reimbursement of mental health services.

The most recent version of the Mental Health Guidelines was adopted by the Board at the November 2022 meeting and filed with the Secretary of State in December of 2022.

As the Victim Compensation Program continues to expand, the segregation of the rates and service limitations from other mental health guidelines is advisable and warranted to avoid confusion, ensure transparency to applicants and providers, and allow the full breadth of public participation in the rulemaking process.

Accordingly, staff propose that any guidelines or service limitations within the existing Mental Health Guidelines that meet the Administrative Procedure Act definition of a regulation be submitted to the Office of Administrative Law to undergo the formal rulemaking process.

A draft of the proposed regulations, Board materials for this item, along with the Public Notice and Initial Statement of Reasons were provided for review and consideration. These proposed revisions are the result of extensive administrative consideration of issues that have arisen in implementing the program under the existing regulations and the Mental Health Guidelines.

Ms. Rupp asked the Board to note there is a minor typo on pages 4 and 5 of the Initial Statement of Reasons, which references section 647.26 instead of section 649.26. The typos have been noted and will be corrected before the final draft is filed with the Office of Administrative Law.

The proposed regulations are a representation of the current Mental Health Guidelines that were previously incrementally vetted with stakeholders over the years, prior to presentation to and adoption by the Board in 2022.

In sum, these proposed regulations are the result of the careful weighing of alternatives, giving full consideration to all feedback, comments, suggestions and proposals from various parties, stakeholders and experts at the time of their initial drafting and adoption.

If the Board approves staff’s request, the proposed regulations and related documents will be submitted to the Office of Administrative Law to commence the official rulemaking process. As part of that process, all stakeholders and the public will be entitled to submit comments during a 45-day period. 

Ms. Rupp said any comments received will be carefully considered and, if warranted, may result in additional revisions. The revisions, in turn, would trigger an additional comment period of 15 days for minor changes or 45 days for major changes. No hearing is currently contemplated but one will be scheduled upon timely request, for a date to be determined after the 45-day comment period concludes.

Once the comment period officially ends and the language of the proposed regulations is settled, staff will return to the Board with a separate request to adopt the regulations and authorize filing the final rulemaking record with the Office of Administrative Law. If granted, the Office of Administrative Law will review the regulations and, if approved, file them with the Secretary of State, with an anticipated effective date of January 1, 2027.

Ms. Rupp respectfully requested the Board’s approval of the draft regulations and authorization to begin the rulemaking process. 

Ms. Rupp stated she was happy to answer any questions the Board may have about this agenda item and Jennifer Rocco, the Deputy Executive Officer of the Program Division, was also standing by to answer any program-specific questions, should the Board have any. Ms. Rupp thanked the Board for their consideration of this matter.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Rupp and stated that by Ms. Rupp’s presentation it sounds like these are requirements that have been in place for several years and they will not be a surprise to any of the affected providers or stakeholders, and this has been discussed with them throughout the process.

Ms. Rupp confirmed that Chair Ravel’s assumptions were correct.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Rupp and asked if there was any discussion regarding this rulemaking package from the Board. Seeing no questions or public comment, Chair Ravel called for a motion to approve item 6.

Member Johnson moved to approve staff’s Request for Authority to Begin the Rulemaking Process for Amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 649.26, et seq.) and to execute and submit any required documents to the Office of Administrative Law. The motion was seconded by Member Becton. 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 10:50 a.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) to deliberate on proposed decision numbers 1 through 71 of the Victim Compensation Program.

Open Session

The Board reconvened in Open Session pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) at 11:00 a.m.

Member Becton moved to approve items 1 through 71 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 Johnson moved to adjourn the January Board meeting. Member Becton seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:02 a.m.

Next Board Meeting

The next Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 19, 2026.