DRAFT

California Victim Compensation Board

Open Meeting Minutes

November 20, 2025, 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, November 20, 2025, 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 stated she first wanted to update the Board on the federal lawsuit. Ms. Gledhill explained in late July the federal government posted the Notice of Funding Opportunity for the federal Victims of Crime Act compensation grant. On August 18, California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a coalition of other states in filing a lawsuit challenging the new grant requirements. Despite the government shutdown, CalVCB was able to accept its grant in October, before the deadline.

Ms. Gledhill stated there is a condition in the grant that disallows attorney payments for those who are representing undocumented immigrants. Given that immigration status is not a condition of eligibility, nor does CalVCB ask for immigration status, the solution for CalVCB is to make sure all attorney payments are not paid through the federal grant. Ms. Gledhill explained that CalVCB is working with the Department of Finance to carve out General Fund dollars that can be used for this purpose. Given that this is a process and a change in how CalVCB has previously operated, there will be a delay in those payments. CalVCB will continue to work to find an appropriate solution, as this is the best way to ensure CalVCB’s grant is maintained and that the federal grant monies are not used for any disallowed attorney payments.

Ms. Gledhill also provided an update on CalVCB’s appeals backlog. Since the inception of the in-person hearing requirement, CalVCB has offered 694 hearings, 119 people requested a hearing and approximately 60% have attended those hearings, while 40% have failed to appear. Ms. Gledhill stated CalVCB has been hiring to fill the 17 positions it received as part of this year’s budget. To date, we have hired 5 new attorneys and two support staff and have active ongoing recruitments for the remaining attorney positions. In addition, as part of the regulatory changes that we will submit to the Board in January, CalVCB has been reevaluating and assessing the 90-day mental health billing rule, which required bills to be submitted within 90 days of the date of treatment. Ms. Gledhill continued, stating that as part of that process, more than 800 bills have been re-evaluated and reprocessed, and 85% of those bills were returned from the appeals process. As a result, staff have been able to move a significant workload out of that part of the process. Ms. Gledhill stated that this continues to be a major effort within CalVCB to manage the appeals’ workload and to make sure everything is being done to process appeals as quickly and timely as possible.

Ms. Gledhill noted that a follow-up item to the July Trauma Recovery Center (TRC) informational item is included on the agenda as requested by the Board. This item summarizes feedback from the July Informational hearing and provides new information for the Board’s consideration. Ms. Gledhill stated that since the September meeting, CalVCB did post the TRC Notice of Funds Available for the Fiscal Year 2026-27 grants and held a webinar to walk potential applicants through the document. Over 70 individuals attended that webinar. CalVCB received 46 questions about the grant process. The answers to those questions were posted on CalVCB’s website on November 13. Based on this attendance and the number of questions that were received, CalVCB is anticipating a high number of applicants this year. Ms. Gledhill continued, saying that CalVCB will wait for the NOFA to close in December, before the holidays, and will have an update on the TRC grants at the January Board meeting. 

Ms. Gledhill noted that October was Domestic Violence Awareness Month and CalVCB was honored to work with state and local partners to raise awareness about the help available to these victims. CalVCB hosted an informational webinar moderated by the Executive Director of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence that was well attended. Ms. Gledhill added that State leaders from the Department of Justice, Secretary of State’s Safe at Home Program, and the Department of Social Services joined her in sharing how different state programs help domestic violence victims.

Ms. Gledhill said that she is proud to share that CalVCB employees and our partners donated thousands of toiletries and other items to a domestic violence shelter in Marysville called Casa De Esperanza. At the beginning of November, Ms. Gledhill joined CalVCB staff to drop off these items and take a tour of the facility.

The Executive Director of Casa De Esperanza expressed her sincere gratitude for the donations, highlighting they are especially meaningful this year since prices are higher and their community was impacted by the federal government shutdown.

Ms. Gledhill thanked the Board and stated she would be happy to answer any questions.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gledhill and expressed his appreciation for Ms. Gledhill and CalVCB’s assistance in the community for Domestic Violence Awareness Month as it truly is some of the community’s most vulnerable victims in the state. Chair Ravel stated that it is great work that is being done in that space.

Chair Ravel indicated he had a few questions for Ms. Gledhill.

First, on the federal lawsuit, Chair Ravel stated that Ms. Gledhill mentioned a carveout for payment for attorney’s fees. He asked if Ms. Gledhill knew how common it is for that to be part of a claim and annually, the average for what that amount might be? Ms. Gledhill responded that it is not extremely common and it ends up being approximately $100,000 per year.

Second, Chair Ravel asked with respect to the appeals backlog, while he appreciates the efforts to hire and streamline the process, if Ms. Gledhill had a sense of whether that backlog is continuing to grow. Ms. Gledhill responded that the backlog is not continuing to grow, though it is not significantly decreasing either; however, staff is making a dent.

Member Johnson asked Ms. Gledhill to go over the numbers of those who have appeared and those who have failed to appear. Ms. Gledhill responded that staff are still working to best collect this data so that there are more solid numbers; however, for those that requested a hearing, 60% appeared at the hearing and 40% failed to appear. Ms. Gledhill stated that if there is some issue that comes up where they are unable to attend the hearing and they communicate that with staff, then a request to reschedule the hearing is granted. Member Johnson thanked Ms. Gledhill and asked her to re-state the number of applicants that were offered a hearing versus how many accepted a hearing. Ms. Gledhill responded that 694 were offered a hearing and 119 requested a hearing.

Member Johnson thanked Ms. Gledhill and mentioned that these metrics are likely helpful in managing this exceptional workload and stated he appreciated the work being done to try to address the backlog, while it will be a continuing issue that is being addressed from multiple fronts. Ms. Gledhill thanked Member Johnson.

Chair Ravel thanked Member Johnson and asked the Board if there were any additional questions and no additional questions were asked.

Item 2. Legislative Update

The Legislative Update was presented by Deputy Executive Officer Katie Cardenas.

Ms. Cardenas stated since the Board last met, the Governor concluded his actions on bills for the year. Ms. Cardenas highlighted two bills that CalVCB has been following and that have been signed by the Governor.

AB 1213 by Assemblymember Stefani provides that a victim restitution order shall have priority over any other debts, liens, or monetary judgments.

SB 470 by Senator Laird extends the current provisions governing the use of teleconferencing for public meetings by a state body until January 1, 2030.

Ms. Cardenas stated she would be happy to answer any questions.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Cardenas.

Item 3. Contract Update

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

Ms. Ramirez stated that the Contract Report was informational only and offered to answer any questions the Board had regarding the items listed in the report.

Chair Ravel asked the Board if they had any questions.

Member Johnson stated that there was one contract that looked like it was an extension which was about a $3 million extension. Member Johnson clarified whether that extension must come before the Board for approval, as it is over the $300,000 cap. Ms. Ramirez clarified that no funds were extended, but rather this was an existing contract where only the term and duration were extended.

Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier added the contract previously came before the Board for consideration and approval.

Item 4. Trauma Recovery Centers – July Informational Meeting Follow-Up

The Trauma Recovery Centers July Informational Meeting Follow-Up was presented by Deputy Executive Officer Katie Cardenas.

Ms. Cardenas stated that she is presenting this informational item as requested by the Board to follow up on the July 17, TRC meeting. That meeting involved both a discussion of the projected funding cuts for TRC grants and several suggestions from stakeholders on how to change the grant administration process. Ms. Cardenas continued, stating in response to that meeting, CalVCB took immediate actions to address stakeholder feedback by giving applicants 60 days instead of 45 days to complete their applications, moving the Notice of Funds Available or NOFA timeline up so the grant is due before the holidays, and making significant changes to improve the clarity of the NOFA using plain language.

Ms. Cardenas added that this board item includes additional options for future consideration if the funding projections improve. Specifically, this item details options for a definition of an “existing TRC” including several factors to consider regarding this definition. It also includes background information about TRC performance metrics including some current limitations regarding reliability and accuracy of data. Lastly, it includes a summary of policy options. Staff did note in their analysis that many of these proposals are similar to the Sexual Assault Services Program—or SASP—grant administered by Cal OES. The SASP grant requirements are codified in state law and therefore, for the TRC grants it would also be appropriate for policy changes to be considered by the Legislature.

Ms. Cardenas stated she would be happy to answer any questions the Board may have.

Chair Ravel thanked Deputy Cardenas for the work that both she and CalVCB have done and the care that has been taken and thought that they have put into responding to the stakeholders’ comments, as well as the zeal and interest of our advocacy community in helping to improve the process. Chair Ravel continued, stating together the process is being made better, recognizing that the funding outlook is very grim.

Chair Ravel asked if the Board had any questions or comments for Ms. Cardenas.

Member Johnson stated he echoes the Chair’s sentiment. Member Johnson expressed this is really excellent work pulling it together and providing the summary. Member Johnson stated that, as the Chair mentioned, he also appreciates the efforts going into being responsive to stakeholders and the Board members.

Member Johnson asked about future changes based on potential policy changes or shifts within this program. More specifically, Member Johnson asked when thinking about higher policy proposals that are in this update, would those conversations come later after the funding levels for the next year are known, or what would be the process following the changes that were already made?

Executive Office Lynda Gledhill responded it is believed that the best way to make policy changes to the program would be through statute. This is because the statute for this program is quite detailed in terms of outlining the requirements for a Trauma Recovery Center. Ms. Gledhill continued, expressing that if there is a mechanism for legislative change then that would be the appropriate venue. The question that could be discussed, explained Ms. Gledhill, is how the Board and staff would proceed with implementation. Ms. Gledhill stated that CalVCB staff has made changes to the program to make it easier to understand and hopefully work better. In addition, CalVCB staff believes that any significant changes that the Board would want would most appropriately be put into a statutory change, which could be with or without additional funding. However, without additional funding, CalVCB is very limited in what can be provided to this program.

Chair Ravel thanked Member Johnson and asked the Board if there were any additional questions.

Member Diana Becton echoed her gratitude to the team for their responsiveness to the issues that were raised, and the thorough analysis of what the ramifications would be of each suggested change. Member Becton added that she felt it was a strong showing of being responsive to the communities that are most affected and that she is very appreciative of all the information that was provided.

Chair Ravel thanked Member Becton for her comment.

Item 5. 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.)

Attorney Michael Siegel appeared in person. Mr. Siegel stated he has been practicing law for more than 40 years. He expressed he has gotten along well with most CalVCB administrations, including this one, over the years and has been successful in getting information and getting things processed. Mr. Siegel explained that approximately three weeks ago, he stopped getting mail from the California Victim Compensation Board, including attorney’s fees and notices of payments for his clients. He expressed his ethical duty to respond to problems in a timely manner, and he stated he does not know when he is going to get the letters about awards or issues with applications. Mr. Siegel stated he is particularly worried about the fact that his income stopped about three weeks ago and he has been calling the Board since he realized that it was not just a temporary glitch, which was approximately two weeks ago, and he has gotten very little response. Mr. Siegel stated he sent emails and left messages and only found out yesterday that the pause in payments is a result of the federal grant. He explained he looked up the federal regulations and found nothing about attorney fees in the regulations from last year and just today found out why, which is the Department of Justice grant conditions.

Mr. Siegel stated he appeared in person and not via Zoom for two reasons. First, this is serious and it is important that this gets fixed for his clients and for himself. The second reason is he hopes he can meet with legal staff while he is present if they have time to talk about some issues.

Mr. Siegel stated that the limit on attorney representation is being challenged by 21 attorneys general. He questioned whether, if a stay were issued, would that immediately stop the process and the projected delay? Mr. Siegel expressed his understanding that the Board cannot answer at this time as it is not an action item; however, he explained he is raising this issue in hopes that they are successful in the litigation and that it will change things.

Finally, Mr. Siegel asked CalVCB to expedite the process that they are implementing to resolve this and asked why the notices of payments to or on behalf of his clients have stopped and whether this is all victims or if it is just victims represented by attorneys where communications have stopped. Mr. Siegel stated he believes after hearing the numbers presented at this Board meeting that he may be one of the few representing CalVCB clients and stated he is glad to meet the Board. He hopes that CalVCB will  somehow process at least the payments to the providers and the reimbursements for the victims, though he cannot tell if that is being held up as he is not currently receiving any notices. Mr. Siegel encouraged the Board to get the process moving for his clients and all victims’. He finished by expressing his frustration that he did not receive advance notice that this would be occurring, if staff knew in advance that there would be delays and processing problems. He believes that a warning call could have been provided to him. As a result, Mr. Siegel stated he could have planned better for cashflow in his firm. Mr. Siegel thanked the Board and stated if any legal staff are available to talk, he would be available until the end of the Board meeting. 

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Siegel for traveling to the Board meeting to meet with them and his advocacy for victims. Chair Ravel stated he understands that it will take some time to get this issue sorted out with the DOF and to segregate the funds, but that he agrees with Mr. Siegel that whatever can be done to expedite it should be done so that this unfortunate decision by the federal government does not impact our communities more than necessary.

Chair Ravel directed his statement toward Ms. Gledhill and stated, while he does not want to put her on the spot now as the details may not be currently known, perhaps information can be provided later about whether or not claims are being held up.

Member Johnson expressed his appreciation to Mr. Siegel for coming to speak with the Board today and asked that the Board stay informed to the extent that information is available at the next board meeting as it would be great to know that and be aware of the status.

Chair Ravel thanked Member Johnson.

Mechiel Taylor appeared via Zoom and asked whether now would be the appropriate time to comment on the meeting minutes. Ms. Gauthier commented that the meeting minutes are an action item and so the appropriate time for comments on the minutes would be during the separate call for public comment when that item is being discussed. Ms. Taylor thanked the Board and said she will just move on to her general comments.

Ms. Taylor stated that her first comment comes after reflecting on the meeting minutes. For future, in-person appeal hearings, she would like to request that the Board consider softening the hearing room just a bit. Ms. Taylor clarified that by softening, she means during the in-person hearings adding a couple boxes of Kleenex and having a seating arrangement that does not make a victim feel more isolated. Ms. Taylor stated that a single table with three people sitting in chairs on one side and a victim placed on the other side of a table can feel quite adversarial and be intimidating when anxiety is already high.

Ms. Taylor asked the Board if mental health professionals are part of the CalVCB team, especially to facilitate processing of claims that include emotional or mental injuries. Ms. Taylor also stated that the average victim does not know about court proceedings or about federal rules of evidence, both of which influence case outcomes. Ms. Taylor continued, stating that she assumes CalVCB makes some decisions on applications based on court records and court rulings, but asked how CalVCB ensures a fair evaluation of applications for individuals who are not represented either by an attorney or an advocate.

Ms. Taylor next offered recommendations on data to include in future annual reports. Ms. Taylor stated that it would be interesting to see denial and acceptance rates for victims who have advocates versus those who do not have advocates. Also, Ms. Taylor added, it would be interesting to see the declination numbers for victims who were represented by counsel during any court proceeding versus those who were not represented. Ms. Taylor finished by stating she can only imagine the tremendous effort that goes into reviewing every single application.

Ms. Taylor continued, stating that since the legal department has been working to improve the language in applicant correspondence. Ms. Taylor asked the Board to please consider increasing transparency in the program by adding a few short paragraphs to the CalVCB webpage that discuss how precedent, the rules of evidence, and court records play a role in the decision-making process. Ms. Taylor further explained that some people might find this information useful as it could be a way to further describe application requirements while allowing victims to determine their own eligibility at a glance.

Ms. Taylor also gave a shoutout to Ms. Petros and Mr. Tonoyan as she has listened to their comments for approximately the last two years and she expressed her appreciation for both and expressed her appreciation for the Board’s time today.

Maragaret Petros, victim advocate, appeared via Zoom. Ms. Petros stated she had planned to save her comments for the regulations portion of the meeting, though she cannot help but to say thank you to Ms. Taylor. Ms. Petros stated everything Ms. Taylor said is so important. Ms. Petros expressed her opinion that Ms. Taylor is the type of person that is needed to work at this agency to make systematic changes that have been needed for 60 years that the program has been in place. Ms. Petros explained that not only are the hearings intimidating, but they are also run by an attorney, so there is a crime victim trying to fight a licensed attorney and nowadays, she hears that there are two attorneys at the in-person hearings. Ms. Petros asked the Board to please think about that. Ms. Petros stated that years ago a hearing officer told her and her client that the threshold of this agency is higher than the criminal court. Ms. Petros stated that this is the mentality and in a case where a jury found the killer guilty within three hours, CalVCB found the victim to be at fault. Ms. Petros stated that changes are a must and urged the Board to please listen, Ms. Petros thanked the Board.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Petros.

Item 6. Approval of the Minutes of the September 18, 2025, Board Meeting

Member Johnson moved approval of the Minutes for the September 18, 2025, Board meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Becton. Ms. Burrell called for public comment.

Mechiel Taylor appeared via Zoom and wanted to clarify her comment as stated in the meeting minutes. Ms. Taylor stated that the meeting minutes read that the hearing officer is an attorney. She does not know if that is true. Her comment about the hearing, clarified Ms. Taylor, was that there were three individuals in the room with her. Ms. Taylor stated the hearing officer stated the titles of the individuals in the room, which were hearing officer, trainee, and attorney.

Ms. Taylor thanked the Board.

Chair Ravel acknowledged Ms. Taylor’s correction to the minutes.

Ms. Gauthier clarified and asked the Chair if the modification would be to delete the parens and the words, “an attorney?” Chair Ravel agreed and stated, alternatively, the minutes could say that it was represented to her that it was an attorney, either of those two would be consistent with what Ms. Taylor stated.

Ms. Gauthier asked if Member Johnson would like to modify his motion. Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes with the modification proposed.

Ms. Gledhill asked Member Johnson which modification he would like to approve, whether to delete the words “an attorney,” or to modify it so that it is clear that it was represented to Ms. Taylor as an attorney.

Member Johnson stated that the Board may need clarification from Ms. Taylor.

Ms. Taylor appeared via Zoom and clarified that there were three individuals in the room, the hearing officer, who did not say that she was an attorney, even though she might have been. Ms. Taylor stated she did not know. Ms. Taylor wanted to clarify that there were three individuals in the room, there were not two individuals in the room. Ms. Taylor stated it would be nice to know whether the hearing officer was in fact an attorney but was unsure whether the Board could comment on that.

Ms. Gauthier clarified with Ms. Taylor that she stated earlier that there were three people in the room, one who was introduced as the hearing officer, then there was an attorney and also a trainee. Ms. Gauthier asked Ms. Taylor is that was correct.

Ms. Taylor stated that was correct.

Chair Ravel stated the modification then would need to be that the hearing officer, an attorney, and a trainee were present.

Ms. Gauthier asked Member Johnson if that modification was agreeable to him, given that it was his motion.

Member Johnson stated he agreed with the motion as amended, and Member Becton seconded the amended motion.

By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion with the proposed modifications passed.

Item 7. Proposed Board Meeting Dates for Calendar Year 2026.

The Proposed Board Meeting Dates for Calendar Year 2026 were presented by Executive Officer Lynda Gledhill.

Ms. Gledhill stated that CalVCB maintains the cadence of once every other month on the third Thursday, with the exception of May 2026 for upcoming Board meetings. In May 2026, the Board meeting was moved to the fourth Thursday of the month to accommodate scheduling. Ms. Gledhill stated she is happy to answer any questions regarding the proposed 2026 calendar.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gledhill for changing the proposed date of the May 2026 meeting.  Chair Ravel asked the Board if there were any additional comments from the Board.

Member Johnson asked to clarify the pertinence of some of the proposed dates as he received them on Friday night at 11:00 p.m., so he was unable to verify the Controller’s schedule. Member Johnson stated that there are a few dates that conflict with her calendar, though he acknowledged she does not always attend. Member Johnson stated he wanted to understand if there is a need for a future change on the calendar, is that possible, or are the dates firm once set at this meeting.

Ms. Gauthier stated that the dates are not firm once set and in compliance with Bagley Keen, we can notice any meeting with ten days’ notice. Ms. Gauthier stated that this agenda item is an attempt to accommodate that planning process for everyone, but of course dates are subject to change if there was concurrence by the Board that it was necessary to change a meeting date.

Member Johnson stated that the motion will be made at some point, but go ahead and move to approve these, recognizing that there are a couple of conflicts on the Controller’s side, but it is not known if they will present a challenge yet.

Chair Ravel thanked Member Johnson and asked Member Becton if she had a comment as well.

Member Becton stated she has a flight that is returning on May 27, 2026, and it is international, so she has a little bit of concern about any changes to that flight that could possibly affect her availability for the May 28, 2026, proposed Board meeting date. Member Becton stated that currently she should be available but wanted to raise that issue now.

Member Johnson moved to approve the Proposed Board Meeting Dates for Calendar Year 2026, Member Becton seconded the motion. Board Liaison Andrea Burrell called for public comment on this item, and no public comment was offered.

By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 8. Request for Authority to Conclude the Rulemaking Process for Amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 640, et seq.)

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

Ms. Schaps stated she is seeking authorization for staff to conclude the rulemaking process for a set of proposed regulatory revisions.

These revisions affect 26 regulations that fall into two main categories. Revisions to CalVCB’s hearing procedures for all types of claims, and revisions to the victim compensation regulations for income loss and emergency awards.

As set out in the current regulations, the hearing procedures were complex, disjointed, and difficult for applicants and advocates to navigate. CalVCB currently has three different categories of regulations addressing these hearing procedures. Some that apply to all types of claims, some which apply only to Victim and Good Samaritan claims, and others that apply to Penal Code (PC) section 4900 claims.

This complicated structure creates significant confusion as to which category of regulations apply to each type of claim.

For example, the general hearing provision in Section 617.1 for public hearings does not clearly state that it applies primarily to PC 4900 hearings, not victim compensation hearings, which are confidential by law. As a result, applicants, representatives, and members of the public often struggle to determine which rules apply to which type of hearing and therefore frequently do not understand the necessary procedural steps in obtaining a hearing and presenting evidence and testimony.

The need for clarity became even more apparent after the court ruling in Mothers Against Murder vs. California Victim Compensation Board, which invalidated Section 647.20.1. This regulation, which was adopted in 1999 and last amended in 2009, allowed hearings to be conducted on the written record alone. The court disagreed with this approach and required CalVCB to offer oral hearings to applicants whenever staff recommended a denial of eligibility or reimbursement.

Following the ruling, CalVCB immediately changed its practices. CalVCB now offers live hearings in every case where staff recommend a denial. Applicants with pending denials are notified and given the opportunity to participate in a hearing and offer testimony and documentary evidence.

The ruling made it necessary to revise our governing regulations to reflect the change in our practices. These proposed regulations, therefore, repealinvalidated section 647.20.1, eliminateoutdated and conflicting provisions, clearly separate the procedures applicable to each type of hearing, and restructure Article 5.2, which expressly applies to victim compensation claims, to create a clear, straightforward, and applicant friendly framework.

These changes ensure fairness, transparency and compliance with the court directive, while making the hearing process more accessible to crime victims and their representatives.

The second major set of revisions concerns the income loss and emergency award regulations. The current regulations are fragmented and difficult for the public to understand. Requirements are spread across multiple sections, leading to repeated requests for additional information that may delay compensation.

Revised section 649.32 consolidates all income loss requirements in one place and significantly expands the categories of individuals who may qualify. Under the revised regulations, applicants with documented job offers, gig workers, and other non-traditional workers may now be eligible for income and support loss.

The proposed regulation also liberalizes what types of documents may be submitted as evidence of income loss. Applicants may verify income loss through wage statements, payroll records, or direct deposit information. Employed individuals now have three options to verify employment including 1) tax returns; 2) EDD records; or 3) verification of income from the employer. A disability statement is still required, but the revisions clarify what that statement must include, and which providers may complete it. While tax returns remain the primary source of verification for self-employment, the revisions broaden acceptable sources of verification and include removing the requirement that all tax returns come directly from the Franchise Tax Board.

The initial draft regulations were presented to the Board in January 2025 and published for public comment in February 2025 for a period of 45 days. CalVCB received numerous written comments and held a public hearing in June 2025, where additional oral comments were received. After reviewing the feedback, staff made targeted modifications that provide additional clarity to the proposed regulations.

Staff proposed modifications to three substantive regulations – Sections 649, 649.8 and 649.32 – in response to public comments. The changes removed CalFresh and CalWorks from the list of reimbursement sources when calculating income loss, restored the term “applicant” to ensure all eligible individuals may request emergency awards, and clarified income loss availability by specifying when disability statements are required and what documentation applicants must provide for time missed due to crime-related appointments. The changes also confirmed that appropriately licensed out-of-state providers may certify a disability.

All of these changes were noticed for a 15-day comment period in October of 2025. Two additional comments were received and, after review and consideration, staff determined no further modifications were necessary.

Staff respectfully requested authorization to conclude the rulemaking process and submit the final rulemaking package to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for review. Ms. Schaps acknowledged that, If authorized, CalVCB will submit the complete package required by OAL to conclude the rulemaking process. Once submitted, OAL will review the package for compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and OAL regulations. If OAL approves the package, they will file the regulations with the Secretary of State and the regulations will become effective at the next OAL quarterly effective date, which is expected to be April 2026.

Ms. Schaps thanked the board and stated she was happy to answer any questions the Board may have.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Schaps for all the work she put into the regulation package. He acknowledged it was a big effort with all the public comments and the number of regulations being amended. Chair Ravel stated the presentation seems like a straightforward cleanup package and expressed his support. Chair Ravel asked if the Board had any other questions or comments.

Member Johnson congratulated the team that worked on the effort and indicated that he understands the work is difficult and is a lot of back and forth and he appreciates the effort that was put in as well as the work with the stakeholders to make sure the team got it right. Member Johnson also stated he appreciated the effort of being responsive to the lawsuit as well as cleaning up the regulations in general, as it is a lot of work.

Ms. Burrell asked if there was any public comment on this item.

Margaret Petros, executive director at Mothers Against Murder (MAM) and the petitioner in the MAM v. CalVCB litigation appeared via Zoom. Ms. Petros expressed her concern that the revised regulations, specifically section 647.21, subsection (c), do not comply with the law or with the writ of mandate issued by the court. Ms. Petros stated the proposed language requires that victims make a second request for a hearing within 20 days even though they have already contested the denial and triggered the assignment of a hearing officer. Ms. Petros said this is not a small issue, it is not harmless and expressed her opinion that it is a direct barrier to justice.

Ms. Petros continued, stating that Government Code section 13959(a) states that when a victim contests a denial, the California Victim Compensation Board shall grant them a hearing. It does not say “may,” or “if they ask twice.” It just says, “shall grant a hearing.” Ms. Petros added, the court in the MAM case ruled that there cannot be these barriers. The agency cannot impose additional steps or create procedural traps that deny victims the right to a hearing once they have requested a hearing. Yet, this regulation does exactly that, according to Ms. Petros. She continued, stating that it forces traumatized victims who have already acted, already contested, already done everything required, to repeat the same request a second time. This creates confusion and it will cause victims to lose rights they were guaranteed by law. Ms. Petros expressed that we know what happens; victims give up, and CalVCB’s workload quietly shrinks. This is not compliance. It is not justice. This is a return to the very conduct the court found unlawful.

Ms. Petros explained that she raised this concern back in April 2025 in writing to CalVCB and then verbally at the June 15 regulations hearing. Through her comments, she told CalVCB that the second request is unnecessary, unlawful, wastes public resources, and directly contradicts the court’s decision, but her comments were ignored. The language remains. Ms. Petros expressed her view that the board members have a responsibility to stop this. She continued, opining that the Board has the authority and the obligation to ensure that these regulations comply with California law, the court’s order, and the legislature’s intent.

Ms. Petros stated a contested denial is a request for a hearing. There is no basis to require it twice. It is a problem. Ms. Petros urged the Board to listen to these concerns as they are very important. Ms. Petros explained she is using this public time to only address this issue, but there were other concerns that she shared with staff in April and in June. Ms. Petros explained she did not want to take too much of the public meeting, but her comments addressed important issues, she believed. Ms. Petros concluded, stating it is really overwhelming and said she is putting out fires every single day to help crime victims with how they are treated by CalVCB. Ms. Petros stated she does not have the time or the resources to address everything.

Ms. Petros additionally expressed her understanding that commissions for wage losses are not going to be considered income subject to reimbursement and asked the Board why that is. There are some crime victims that just receive commissions. Ms. Petros declared that this is an absolute, out-of-pocket loss. Ms. Petros said it is really a concern, and she is sorry to see this happen. Ms. Petros thanked the Board for their time.

In addition to her public comment, Ms. Petros sent an email to the Board outlining similar issues to her public comments and expressed that if section 647.21 (c) is adopted as written, she will consider returning to court.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Petros for her comments. Chair Ravel stated that from his recollection of the MAM decision, it required the applicant to be notified of the opportunity to request an in-person hearing, but not necessarily that they are automatically granted a hearing without a request.

Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier stated that was her understanding of the decision as well. Ms. Gauthier stated CalVCB believes the regulations as proposed are consistent with the court decision. In addition, Ms. Gauthier pointed out that the process CalVCB has developed is an attempt to ensure full and robust due process. Under the new procedure, an applicant is notified of their denial and is given 45 days to appeal that decision. Typically, Ms. Gauthier continued, the appeal form will only state the applicant’s intent to appeal the decision, but little else. Once CalVCB receives the appeal, the matter is assigned to a hearing officer, and they prepare and send to the applicant an “Issues on Appeal” memorandum. The Issues on Appeal memo is a thorough explanation of what the issues on appeal are, what evidence CalVCB has on file, and what the rule of law is.

Ms. Gauthier continued, stating this process has been implemented so the applicant knows when they come to the hearing exactly what they need to do to overcome the issues that led to denial of their claim or bill. Also included with the Issues on Appeal memo sent to the applicant is a Hearing Options form, which is how the applicant advises CalVCB of how they wish to proceed, including options for an in-person hearing, a Zoom or telephone hearing, or a hearing on the written record only. Ms. Gauthier stated the applicant can also notify CalVCB that they would like to withdraw their appeal. She continued, expressing that the process is an attempt to best serve applicants while also managing the administrative workload associated with all the appeals received by CalVCB.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gauthier. Chair Ravel asked if there were any comments or questions from the Board.

Member Johnson moved to approve staff’s conclusion of the rulemaking process for amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 640, 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.

Item 9. Raymond McGinnis (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

The Penal Code section 4900 claim of Raymond McGinnis was presented by Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier.

On February 28, 2024, Raymond McGinnis submitted an application to the California Victim Compensation Board as an erroneously convicted person. The application is based on Mr. McGinnis’ 1999 conviction for felony murder as an accomplice, which was vacated and dismissed in 2021 pursuant to former Penal Code section 1170.95. The claim seeks $1,161,860 for 8,299 days imprisonment. The Attorney General objected to the claim, arguing that the evidence fails to prove Mr. McGinnis’ innocence by a preponderance of murder as it was defined at the time the offense occurred. As explained in detail in the Proposed Decision, the claim is recommended for denial as Mr. McGinnis has failed to meet his burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is innocent of the challenged convictions as required by Penal Code section 4900 (a). Mr. McGinnis represented himself throughout the proceedings and the Office of the Attorney General was represented by Deputy Attorney Generals Jonathan Krauss and Seth McCutcheon.

Chair Ravel asked Mr. McGinnis if he would like to make a comment.

Mr. McGinnis appeared via Zoom and stated that he was unsure if the Board received his letter that he wrote to the Board regarding the hearing that he had on July 23, 2025. Mr. McGinnis stated that Senior Attorney Laura Simpton did not allow his evidence to be presented before the Board. Mr. McGinnis stated that he wrote a letter to the Board to let them know that his evidence consisted of fabrication of evidence to the fact that the DA in this case fabricated evidence to the point where the evidence put him at the scene of the crime, which is how he was charged with the crime. Mr. McGinnis stated that his letter explained that his evidence was not mentioned in Ms. Simpton’s proposed decision. Mr. McGinnis stated he was unsure if the Board received the letter or a copy of the letter.

Chair Ravel stated that the Board had received the letter.

Mr. McGinnis stated that he felt he did not get a fair hearing because if you look at the fabrication of the evidence, the evidence shows that he clearly was not there when the murder happened. Mr. McGinnis stated that when someone is charged with a crime, they are first charged with a police report. Mr. McGinnis continued, explaining that in his case, he was a 16-year-old kid who did not know the law, so it took him a long time to figure out what really happened, so the district attorney in his case fabricated evidence by putting him there doing the murder, and it is traumatizing.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. McGinnis.

Attorney Generals Jonathan Krauss and Seth McCutcheon appeared via Zoom and stated they are prepared to submit on the proposed decision.

Chair Ravel asked if there was any further discussion on this item by the Board.

Member Becton moved to approve Item 9. Member Johnson seconded the motion.

Board Liaison Andrea Burrell called for public comment on this item, and no public comment was offered.

The motion to adopt the Proposed Decision regarding the Penal Code 4900 claim of Raymond McGinnis was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board.

Closed Session

The Board adjourned into Closed Session with the Executive Officer and Chief Counsel at 11:04 a.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) to deliberate on proposed decision numbers 1 through 116 of the Victim Compensation Program.

Open Session

The Board reconvened in Open Session pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) at 11:14 a.m.

Member Becton moved to approve items 1 through 116 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 November Board meeting. Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

Next Board Meeting

The next Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 15, 2026.