DRAFT

California Victim Compensation Board

Open Meeting Minutes

March 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 Amy Tong, Secretary of the Government Operations Agency, at 400 R Street, Room 330, Sacramento, California, on Thursday, March 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. Approval of the Minutes of the January 16, 2025, Board Meeting

Member Becton moved approval of the Minutes for the January 16, 2025, Board Meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 2. 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.)

She further reminded those in attendance that if they wished to offer public comment regarding items 6 through 11, there would be a separate call for public comment when the item was heard by the board.

Margaret Petros appeared via Zoom and pointed out that the California Victim Compensation Board requested $4.435 million in additional funds to fill seventeen positions in the 2025-2026 fiscal year and ongoing. Ms. Petros explained that the stated reason for filling these positions, being to meet the appeals’ workload in the legal division due primarily to the backlog of appeals following the Mothers Against Murder v. CalVCB decision, is misleading. She explained that this is misleading considering CalVCB’s history of excessive denials and delays has gone on for decades and is not because of the Mothers Against Murder judgment. Ms. Petros further stated that her claims are backed by the number of denials by CalVCB provided on the request. She feels that if CalVCB is awarded the requested funding to fill vacancies within the legal division, that it would be rewarding CalVCB for failing to provide timely support to victims. She asked that CalVCB support victims asking for compensation in the first place, instead of increasing staffing to keep up with the increase in appeals.

Ms. Petros also expressed her dissatisfaction with CalVCB’s “Informal Hearing” letters, as she stated that there was never a hearing provided, as required by the statute. Ms. Petros concluded by thanking the Board for hearing her comment.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Petros for her comment.

Item 3. Executive Officer Statement

Ms. Gledhill began by acknowledging the upcoming agenda item to approve the latest cycle of Trauma Recovery Center (TRC) grant awards. She noted that the Board received the highest number of applications and the largest amount of funding ever requested for a program that has a diminishing funding source.

Ms. Gledhill acknowledged the challenge the Board faces and the difficulty in understanding the statutory framework that dictates how the funding can be awarded. Ms. Gledhill noted that CalVCB staff have worked diligently to score the applications and to develop the recommendations that the Board will consider, and there was multiple funding scenarios evaluated, with a focus on providing enough funding for organizations to be successful.

Ms. Gledhill acknowledged again the challenge that the Board is faced with, and that the problem of inadequate funding will not be going away any time soon. This is a result of Proposition 36 having an impact on Proposition 47 funds that support the TRCs. She continued, stating the Board does not know what will happen in the future. As a result, CalVCB has begun having conversations internally and with the administration about how to manage the TRC grant funds and resulting awards moving forward. Ms. Gledhill expressed her commitment to continuing the conversation and expressed her understanding of the importance of this topic.

Ms. Gledhill continued, updating the board on the Forced and Involuntary Sterilization Compensation Program. The request for additional reviews was due to the Board by January 1, 2025, and the board has completed all the additional reviews received. Out of the 52 requests received, an additional 11 claimants were compensated with the statutory payment of $35,000.

Ms. Gledhill explained that on February 14, 2025, CalVCB published notice of its proposed rulemaking for the victim compensation regulations, as was approved at the January Board meeting. Written comments from the public will be received through April 1, 2025. There has also been a request for a public hearing where additional comments on the regulations can be provided. By statute, that hearing will be scheduled for a date after the close of the written comment period.

Moving on, Ms. Gledhill noted April is a busy month for CalVCB as it is both Sexual Assault Awareness Month and National Crime Victims’ Rights Week which is April 6, 2025, through April 12, 2025. CalVCB is conducting its annual denim drive and is partnering with Empower YOLO who helps sexual assault and human trafficking victims with a 24-hour crisis intervention emergency shelter and other resources. All donations will be greatly appreciated. Ms. Gledhill reminded everyone that April 30, 2025, is Denim Day.

Chair Ravell thanked Ms. Gledhill for noting that there will be continued conversation regarding funding for the TRCs. He acknowledged that the work is extremely important to the communities and there is never enough funding for everyone. He continued, stating having a better understanding of how the program works would be very useful.

Member Johnson echoed the sentiment that it may be a tough road ahead for the TRCs. As Ms. Gledhill noted, Proposition 36 is going to depreciate the funding that the board receives. The programs will continue to suffer and will need additional support. Member Johnson explored briefly the additional conversations being had by the administration and praised those conversations for already occurring. However, Member Johnson noted that it is important to have TRCs included in the conversation, giving their insight into what they need and to create a strategy moving forward.

Ms. Gledhill stated she would be happy to continue the ongoing conversation regarding funding TRCs and will make information available to the Board.

Member Johnson thanked Ms. Gledhill and further noted that in approximately one year from now, when the next funding cycle comes, he hopes the Board is best informed to support the TRCs at that time with the limited funding provided.

Ms. Gledhill and Chairperson Ravell thanked member Johnson for his comments.

Item 4. Legislative Update

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

Ms. Cardenas stated the legislature’s deadline for bill introductions was February 21, 2025, and mentioned a few key bills that are being followed.

Ms. Cardenas explained the first bill is not included in the written report as it was amended from a spot bill this week. AB 1100 by Assembly Member Sharp-Collins would make significant changes to victim compensation statutes. The bill would eliminate involvement in the events leading to the qualifying crime and lack of cooperation with law enforcement as reasons for denial of an application. It would expand the forms of evidence that can verify a qualifying crime in lieu of a police report and prevent CalVCB from seeking other information about eligibility from third parties if one of those forms of evidence is submitted. It would also expand compensation for income loss to include individuals who were not employed at the time of the crime and guarantee a minimum level of compensation based on full-time employment at minimum wage.

Ms. Cardenas also discussed SB 490 by Senator Umberg, which would make changes to the process for considering the claims for compensation of erroneously convicted individuals. The bill would provide the Attorney General and district attorneys with additional time to file an objection to a claim for compensation and allow them to rely on evidence solely in the trial record. It would also prohibit compensation to those currently serving a sentence for another serious or violent felony and require awards of compensation to first go to pay any outstanding restitution orders owed by the claimant.

Ms. Cardenas next discussed AB 379 by Assemblymember Krell, which would require CalVCB to award grants to community-based organizations that are led by survivors of sex trafficking or that are guided by substantial survivor input and that provide direct services to vulnerable individuals in areas with a high concentration of sex trafficking. Grants would be funded from the Survivor Support Fund as established by the bill. The bill also would create an additional fine of $1,000 for certain crimes of solicitation of prostitution and loitering with intent, and it would require those fines to be deposited in the Survivor Support Fund.

AB 1213 by Assemblymember Stefani, Ms. Cardenas explained, would provide that a victim restitution order shall have priority over any other debts, liens, or monetary judgments.

Finally, Ms. Cardenas continued, SB 470 by Senator Laird would delete the January 1, 2026, sunset date on current provisions governing the use of teleconferencing for public meetings by a state body, extending indefinitely the current teleconferencing requirements.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Cardenas for the update.

Chairperson Ravell had a question for Ms. Cardena regarding AB 1100. He wondered if this bill does become law, would that mean in some cases federal funding might not be available?

Ms. Cardenas confirmed that she does believe that to be the case but did mention she and her staff learned about the bill on the Monday afternoon before the board meeting and as such, did not have enough time to analyze the implications of the bill.

Member Johnson asked if AB 379 has an appropriation attached to it or if that would be done through the budget separately. Ms. Cardenas responded by explaining the source of the funds would come from the additional fine for loitering of $1,000. Currently, there is no additional appropriation outside of creating that new fee.

Member Johnson and Chairperson Ravell thanked Ms. Cardenas for answering their questions.

Item 5. Contract Report

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

Ms. Ramirez stated CalVCB is seeking approval to move forward with a new contract for Language Services. The contractor will provide certified translation and interpretation services, ensuring equal access for all applicants, including those with limited English proficiency. This request includes additional funding to accommodate the increased translation needs relative to in-person appeal hearings. CalVCB requested approval to solicit interest for a 36-month term, with a total amount not to exceed $300,000.

Ms. Ramirez further outlined the second item CalVCB is seeking approval for is to procure a single Information Technology contract that replaces three separate service contracts for software that offer document scanning capabilities for the Compensation and Restitution System (CARES), as well as on-call support for troubleshooting, updates, and maintenance to ensure uninterrupted operation. CalVCB requested approval to initiate a solicitation for a 36-month term, with a total value not to exceed $375,000.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Ramirez. Member Johnson moved to approve the two contract items presented by Deputy Chief Officer Shawn Ramirez and Member Becton seconded the motion. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 6. Proposal to Approve Fiscal Year 2025-26 Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards

The Proposal to Approve Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards was presented by Deputy Executive Officer Katie Cardenas.

Ms. Cardenas explained CalVCB is charged with administering the Trauma Recovery Center (TRC) grant process. TRC grants are awarded on a two-year cycle and there is no limit to the amount of funding that can be requested, and there is no guarantee of funding regardless of whether the TRC was previously funded or not.

In this cycle, qualified applicants requested over $60 million in grant funds, and even with the addition of savings from prior year funds, there is only approximately $18 million available to distribute.

For this grant cycle, CalVCB introduced the Notice of Funds Available, or NOFA, in December and received applications from interested organizations. A webinar was also hosted in December to walk organizations through the NOFA process. In January CalVCB responded to questions from applicants and posted the answers on its website to ensure fairness in the process.

The application scoring process is consistent with previous Board-approved practice. CalVCB takes the minimum qualifications as outlined in statute and grantees who meet the minimum qualifications are scored. Further, consideration is given to things like geography, and how quickly the organization would be able to get up and running as a TRC. These scores are then used to develop the recommendation for the Board.

Although there are clusters of Trauma Recovery Centers across the state, CalVCB has no control over who applies for the grants or where they are located. In developing this recommendation for the Board, CalVCB did consider options to maintain or provide services in as many geographic areas as possible given the amount of funding available, the amount of funding requested, the number of applicants who applied, and the scores the applicants received.

There is difficulty maintaining the grant administration for this important work due to the disproportionate increase in the number of applications against insufficient funding to accommodate the requests. 40 organizations applied for TRC funding this year, the highest number ever since the inception of the program.

The only guaranteed funding for the TRC program is $2 million that comes from the Restitution Fund. Additional funding comes from the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Fund. In this cycle, as in the past few years, there is also one-time funding from the state’s General Fund appropriated in the Budget Act of 2022.

The funding recommendation this year also includes prior year savings. An unintended consequence of the $13.3 million General Fund allocation to increase TRC grant awards was that TRCs were not able to spend all the money they received. Since the General Fund dollars begin to expire this year, CalVCB performed a full accounting of TRC funding to identify any extra dollars that can be used to fund TRCs in this cycle and help victims. CalVCB recommended that the Board use this funding—about $5.5 million—to maximize the number and amount of awards this cycle. By doing so, CalVCB will reach approximately $18 million dollars to grant in this cycle.

The numbers for the Safe Neighborhoods and School Fund and the General Fund included in the Board members’ binders reflect budget estimates. CalVCB will receive final funding numbers with the release of the Governor’s revised budget in May.

CalVCB received $60 million in requests from qualified applicants but estimates that there will be $18 million to distribute. This is the largest gap between available funding and requests in the history of TRC grants.

Of the 40 applicants, there were 31 organizations that met minimum qualifications, with scores ranging from 35 to 84 points out of 100. Nine applicants were disqualified because they did not meet the minimum qualifications outlined in state law.

Thus, CalVCB is again at a crossroads where there is not enough funding to allocate to all applicants. Accordingly, CalVCB again explored ways to equitably fund as many applicants as possible. Given that the scores were so far apart, a tiered approach that grouped similar scores was applied. 

CalVCB’s funding recommendation uses a similar methodology as approved by the Board in March 2023. Specifically, the recommendation the Board adopted included capping the maximum funding at $2.2 million for the two-year cycle and then placing each TRC in a tier commensurate with the score they received. A funding percentage is also applied to each tier. The $2.2 million is based on CalVCB’s estimate that TRCs generally need approximately $1.1 million each year to be successful.

This funding methodology is necessary because CalVCB could not even fund all of Tiers 1 through 3 if CalVCB granted the amount that the organizations requested. The final bar chart shows that CalVCB can grant funding to Tiers 1 through 3 only after applying the $2.2 million cap and funding each tier at a given percentage.

Although the monetary cap and the tiered funding methodology are not in statute, they provide a fair methodology for granting money to the most qualified applicants given the finite amount of funds available.

It is also important to share that, even after maximizing all available funds, there is not enough funding for all the existing TRCs as shown on the  slide. CalVCB also does not have the statutory authority to only fund existing TRCs. 

After thoughtful consideration, CalVCB recommends funding 11 TRCs who each landed in tiers one, two and three. This recommendation includes funding nine existing TRCs and two new TRCs.

This recommendation prioritizes giving organizations enough money to successfully operate based on what they requested and the $1.1 million benchmark for success. TRC organizations need to have enough funding to be functional. Overall, CalVCB believes that this recommendation is fair and financially feasible.

CalVCB’s recommendation also meets the objective of providing TRC services across the state. If the board adopts this recommendation, CalVCB will fund TRCs in the Bay Area, and Northern, Central, and Southern California regions. Ms. Cardenas recognized that CalVCB continues to have limited representation in Central California with just one organization in Gilroy but noted the existing TRCs not recommended for funding are in the Bay Area and Southern California.

Ms. Cardenas explained this recommendation was not reached without much consideration. CalVCB staff ran a multitude of alternate scenarios, each of which resulted in reducing the awards so significantly that TRCs would likely not be fiscally operational. For example, CalVCB considered funding Tier 4, which includes ten additional applicants who scored between 61 and 66 points. These applicants requested $15 million collectively.

However, to make this scenario work, Tier 1 applicants would only receive 75 percent of their requested award up to $2.2 million and Tier 4 applicants would only receive 50 percent. This spreads the funding too thin for the TRCs to be successful and some TRCs would likely not be able to meet statutory requirements at this level of funding.

All of this is to say that CalVCB didn’t arrive at the final recommendation lightly and understands that communities with existing TRCs that are not recommended for continued funding will be impacted. However, it is believed that this recommendation is the best to balance the viability and success of TRCs who received higher scores and are recommended for funding.

CalVCB staff requested the Board approve the Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards as recommended and further authorize staff to increase or decrease the awards as necessary to reflect the funds available following release of the Governor’s revised budget in May.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Cardenas and asked if there was any discussion regarding the proposal to approve Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Trauma Recovery Center grant awards from the Board.

Member Johnson asked Chairperson Ravel if it would be possible to hear from the stakeholders first. Chairperson Ravel asked the Board if this would be allowed or if this was out of order. Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier clarified that this proposition would be out of order unless a motion is on the table, which could be withdrawn or amended following information from the stakeholders.

Chairperson Ravel again asked the Board if there was any further discussion and noted that there is one region not represented in this proposal, the Central Valley. He continued by asking Ms. Cardenas if there are other existing TRCs in the prior year’s funding track that are in that region.

Ms. Cardenas responded that there is still the central California pilot program that is operational and believes the program will expire as the general fund dollars will expire in September.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Cardenas and responded that CalVCB is in an extremely difficult position, as are the TRCs, because of the limited funding available to meet the need. Further, it is challenging to distribute the funds fairly, both geographically and recognizing existing TRCs and the needs in the various communities.

Member Johnson echoed Chairperson Ravel’s sentiment that it is difficult for CalVCB and is a very difficult process for the TRCs as well. Member Johnson noted that these are proposed awards, but that they could be less, depending on final funding. He further mentioned that this puts the awarded TRCs in an even more uncertain position. Continuity is important here for TRCs and the two-year funding process, with funding awarded every year is a dislocation in the process. Member Johnson pondered on whether it would be possible to regulate the process in some way, for example, awarding funding every two years rather than every year to avoid the uncertainty for the TRCs.

Member Johson asked if there was any way to avoid the uncertainty for the TRCs. While the Board is not able to, per statutory requirement, only award existing TRCs, Member Johnson questioned if it could be possible to give existing TRCs a greater preference to promote continuity. Member Johnson noted the good work CalVCB is doing and understands that the scoring process is an intricate one and does not want to cast shade over the process. He also expressed the importance of further discussion regarding the funding of TRCs and the scoring of applicants.

Member Becton echoed the comments already made by the Member Johnson and Chair Ravel. There is no perfect formula for evaluating TRCs, she explained. When it comes time to evaluate and fund TRCs, the Board is reminded all over again how difficult a process it is for CalVCB and for the TRCs. It is extremely difficult to come up with scoring criteria that are fair for everyone. However, it is also important to hear from the stakeholders to understand the impact of the process and to get input on anything that could or should be considered to streamline the process that has not been already. While CalVCB does not have the power to know how much money is to be awarded, Member Becton expressed her preference to hear from the stakeholders and to get their input on the process.

Chairperson Ravel called for a motion to approve item 6. Member Becton moved to approve the item, with the understanding that the motion could be amended after the stakeholders are heard. Chairperson Ravel seconded the motion with the same understanding brought by Member Becton regarding potential amendment.

Chairperson Ravel asked for public comment and Teddie Valenzuela appeared via Zoom to provide information. Teddie Valenzuela stated they are part of Amanecer, a TRC which is in downtown Los Angeles. Amanecer has had their TRC grant since 2021 and has been well known, well respected and made many referrals. While it may be challenging to meet the demand Amanecer is faced with, they will try their best. Ms. Valenzuela continued by stating that when Amanecer received their first grant back in 2021, they received the full $2.5 million allowed. While it took a while for Amanecer to ramp up, by the second round of funding in 2023, Amanecer TRC was up and serving the area in need. Ms. Valenzuela explained that in the 2023 funding cycle, while Amanecer TRC did not get the full $2.5 million they previously were awarded, they received $2.1 million and were able to operate off that amount ever since. Amanecer has been able to service over 100 clients and they currently have 64 active clients.

However, Ms. Valenzuela expressed that during this 2025-2026 funding cycle, Amanecer TRC was proposed to receive a grant award. This was disheartening for Amanecer’s staff and community that the TRC services. If Amanecer TRC was able to be awarded even half of the $2.1 million they were previously awarded, at $1 million, Amanecer would at least be able to provide a service to the community. She requested the Board reconsider their decision and advocated that Amanecer Community Counseling be able to continue providing the well-needed services to the community that they are known for in the area.

Finally, Ms. Valenzuela thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak and asked the Board if the reason behind why Amanecer lost their funding this round is because of lack of comment during the March 2023 Board meeting, which addressed the same issues being addressed now. She asked if the fact that Amanecer spoke at this board meeting would be considered when determining funding for the following year’s grant cycle.

Chairperson Gavel thanked Ms. Valenzuela and mentioned that further discussion regarding her question would continue once every public commentor is heard.

Martha Wade, the founder and executive director of A Quarter Blue Trauma Recovery Center in Orange County, California, appeared via Zoom. Ms. Wade stated that A Quarter Blue’s funding was also cut one hundred percent through this funding cycle. Four years ago, when A Quarter Blue was first recognized and funded as a TRC in the 2021-2023 funding cycle, she remembered listening to TRCs who had not had their grant renewed. Those TRCs expressed their frustration at that time and Ms. Wade stated she remembered thinking nothing is guaranteed and that one must apply for the grant and if the grant does not come through, it must always need to be ready to sustain itself even when a major funding source does not continue their financial investment.

However, Ms. Wade expressed that after working as a TRC for the last four years she understands their shock and concern, which A Quarter Blue is feeling now. Once A Quarter Blue was funded by the state, the TRC believed that more diverse funding would follow, though the average donor across California and America does not want to align themselves with something so dark, Ms. Wade explained.

Moreover, A Quarter Blue would have been pleased to receive a portion of the funding they requested. Ms. Wade expressed that when a TRC is funded and increases their work in line with the TRC model, the community becomes dependent on the services provided. Courts and the Children’s Hospital of Orange County, among others, have come to depend on A Quarter Blue to take over where they are unable to meet crime survivors’ needs.

Ms. Wade outlined that A Quarter Blue is the sole TRC within Orange County and instead of the decision being to fund a different TRC in Orange County, the result leaves Orange County and its surrounding areas without a TRC. Ms. Wade expressed her hurt for the community surrounding A Quarter Blue and asked that the needs of crime survivors being treated at existing TRCs be considered. Ms. Wade explained A Quarter Blue was not told where their application for funding fell short by CalVCB. Ms. Wade asked the Board to consider making site visits and talking to the people and staff at A Quarter Blue, as well as other TRCs, before making funding decisions. In the future, Ms. Wade pled with the Board not to leave victims without a center to provide services. Ms. Wade thanked the Board for their time and consideration.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Wade for her time and testimony.

Stacey Wiggall, the director of training and technical assistance for the National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers (NATRC) who represent 59 TRCs in 15 states, with 24 of those being in California, appeared via Zoom. Ms. Wiggall expressed her appreciation of the Board’s investment in the TRC program and the adoption of the UCSF TRC model for serving survivors of violence that the National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers developed, as well as the continued funding of the program after the passage of Proposition 36. The NATRC with the help of California TRCs would love to contribute to finding additional funding for TRCs, Ms. Wiggall explained.

In contrast, the issue with this funding cycle is the 6 established TRCs that have not been recommended for funding in this cycle, Ms. Wiggall noted. This has a devastating impact on the communities and people they serve. The opening of TRCs is an investment in the community as well an investment in time to get the TRC up and running and providing services to the communities. Without these TRCs, the communities are left with service gaps. The opening and closing of TRCs is an inefficient use of the grant funds and while there is a need to expand the network of TRCs, survivors are losing out when the TRCs they depend on, that are well-established, close.

Ms. Wiggall offered NATRC’s support in collaborating with the Board and CalVCB staff to share examples of statutory support from other states as well as to share examples of grant scoring options from other states. Ms. Wiggall thanked the Board and asked them to reconsider the staff recommendation regarding TRC funding.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Wiggall.

Brina Tyra, the administrative director and emergency physician of the All of You TRC appeared via Zoom. All of You TRC was one of the TRCs that scored well and are recommended for funding. However, Dr. Tyra shared that each year, the TRC funding process is heart wrenching. The TRCs sit at the Board meeting and listen to the same conversations about funding. Moving forward, Dr. Tyra explained it would be helpful if the Board and the TRCs could come together to possibly reconceptualize how this funding is administered. Just as medical care is necessary continuously to maintain the health of the public, keeping the existing and functioning TRCs open and available for victims continuously is something that should be thought of the same way. Dr. Tyra continued stating it could be worth it to conceptualize the funding of TRCs as continuous medical care. Collaboration between the community, the TRCs and the Board could be helpful to possibly brainstorm what a new model could look like as well. Dr.  Tyra thanked the Board.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Dr. Tyra.

Margaret Petros appeared via zoom. Ms. Petros stated the TRCs do important work and she hoped to see more data on this issue. Ms. Petros further stated her suspicions were confirmed that no follow up was being done regarding why some TRCs are not being funded. As Ms. Wade expressed earlier that no one followed up with why no funding was provided to A Quarter Blue. Ms. Petros asked the Board to please consider changing their processes regarding this issue.

In addition, Ms. Petros pointed out a grant to the District Attorney’s Office of more than $2 million. She asked the Board what business the district attorney’s office has in treating victims and if this would be considered a conflict of interest. She expressed her opinion that giving a grant to the District Attorney’s office could create problems. She further asked what Diana Becton thought about this grant to the District Attorney’s Office. Ms. Petros thanked the Board.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Petros.

Diana Guerrero, the senior director of Amanecer TRC appeared via Zoom. Ms. Guerrero echoed the other TRCs’ sentiments of the importance of supporting and sustaining existing TRCs that have established relationships with the community and victims. At Amanecer, the TRC fills in a much-needed gap for their clients and she expressed that come June, Amanecer will no longer be able to provide that service to their clients. When looking at the process as a whole, it is not aligned with the practice of TRCs, Ms. Guerrero explained. Ms. Guerrero stated that Amanecer was also awarded the Central California Pilot program and was informed they were no longer able to reapply for that grant as well. She expressed concern that it does not seem like the current practice of funding TRCs is the best practice and asked that the decision to defund Amanecer be reconsidered.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Guerrero.

Vince Chong, a co-director and Trauma Surgeon at Safe Harbor TRC appeared via Zoom. Dr. Chong explained that Safe Harbor was one of the TRCs that was recommended to be defunded four years ago over what was understood to be a technicality of the TRC’s application. Dr. Chong expressed his gratitude to the Board and community for Safe Harbor’s ability to revise its application in order to keep its doors open. In the years since, Safe Harbor has been able to serve as a fundamental resource for the community that has been burdened with violence and crime. Dr. Chong further explained that he agreed with those TRCs that spoke previously and recommended a new model of funding be created and that he supports the idea of further funding existing TRCs that have already created a need within their communities. Dr. Chong thanked the Board.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Dr. Chong.

Kate McLachlan appeared via Zoom in support of A Quarter Blue as a former recipient of services. Ms. McLachlan expressed her dissatisfaction with the Board’s decision to defund A Quarter Blue and implored the Board to reconsider. Further, Ms. McLachlan testified that her family went through an extremely traumatic and tumultuous period in their lives when their nine-year-old son was identified as the victim of a pedophile. Ms. McLachlan expressed that in the five years after this event, the support that was offered to them by A Quarter Blue was like family from the start. It is imperative, she explained, that families are provided with this type of support when navigating this type of situation to heal from some of the darkest crimes and times confronting a person. Ms. McLachlan expressed the importance of hands-on, face-to-face therapy that occurs outside of the home, which helped her, as a victim’s parent, from going into deep depression triggered by the ordeal. She further stated that she was in no position to provide her child with the support he needed through his trauma, which is why it is dreadful to hear that the A Quarter Blue will not be further funded. She stated her belief that it is incredibly important that families have access to A Quarter Blue. Ms. McLachlan asked the Board to reconsider and revise this decision so that families who have yet to find A Quarter Blue have the opportunity to do so.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. McLachlan and gave his sincerest apologies for the horror that she and her family suffered.

Ed Buchanan, who oversees Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency (BOSS), a TRC in Oakland, appeared via Zoom. Mr. Buchanan explained that BOSS is the first TRC in the history of Oakland. Unfortunately, BOSS was not considered for a grant for this new funding cycle. Mr. Buchanan asked the Board why the BOSS TRC was not funded as this was not communicated to Mr. Buchanan or BOSS. Mr. Buchanan further expressed that a TRC in Oakland is extremely important as different types of violent crimes are increasing, showing further need for assistance to victims of these crimes. The data shows that helping people with violence intervention and mental health support is a way to help reduce crime in the community. Mr. Buchanan continued, stating that it makes no sense to strip people within these communities of these resources. He also asked the Board what plan B is for the Oakland community, now that the BOSS TRC is no longer getting the funding needed to provide support to the community. Mr. Buchanan thanked the Board for their time and asked them to reconsider their decision.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Mr. Buchanan.

Elizabeth Rivas, the clinical director of A Quarter Blue, appeared via Zoom. Ms. Rivas explained that many people have already spoken about the TRCs’ point of view regarding the defunding of these various TRCs. However, Ms. Rivas stated that the victim’s viewpoint must be considered as well. She noted she is a licensed marriage and family therapist who works with these victims every single day, The majority of A Quarter Blue’s clients are children who have been victims of sexual abuse. Ms. Rivas questioned how A Quarter Blue is supposed to turn their backs not only on the victims that they treat, but also the Orange County community, as they are the only TRC in the area. Ms. Rivas asked the Board to reconsider the decision to defund A Quarter Blue, and added that if TRCs are not available, what is to be done about the young children to whom they are providing services? She asked the Board to think about the victims when determining funding. Ms. Rivas thanked the Board.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Rivas.

Donald Frazier, the chief executive officer of BOSS, appeared via Zoom. Mr. Frazier said he speaks on behalf of the victims the BOSS TRC serves and on behalf of the staff of BOSS and the community as well. Mr. Frazier explained that when the BOSS TRC was awarded a grant several years ago, Oakland had never had a trauma recovery center. However, Oakland has the third highest incidents of violent crime in the state of California, where most crime victims of shootings and homicide are Black people. Mr. Frazier continued, explaining that more than 50% of crimes are not reported. There are many victims that will not be able to do anything if the BOSS TRC is not around, because these victims do not report their crimes. Mr. Frazier asked the Board to understand the reason why the BOSS TRC asked for this funding. He explained that there is no service for these victims in the Oakland community and that it is extremely important that these people are given an opportunity to heal from their traumas. Mr. Frazier thanked the Board.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Mr. Frazier

Rebecca Nussbaum appeared via Zoom on behalf of Community Resource Centers Trauma Recovery Center. Community Resource Centers TRC was a newly funded TRC in 2023 but were not recommended for funding this time around. Ms. Nussbaum explained that the decision to not continue funding this TRC is devastating after spending an ample amount of time on staff training, opening new offices, etc. The amount of time it takes to train staff, get the TRC up and running, and create relationships with the community survivors and community partners, among other things, is significant. Ms. Nussbaum wanted to echo the sentiment that the opening and closing of TRCs is an inefficient use of funds and creates unnecessary gaps in services and is destabilizing for a non-profit organization. Ms. Nussbaum further outlined that other state funders have five-year funding cycles and urged the Board to reconsider their process to ensure continuity of care for survivors and stability of organizations.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Nussbaum.

Arturo Covarrubias appeared via Zoom and wanted to underscore the statements made by other TRCs about the inefficiency of starting and stopping TRCs. It takes months to hire and train staff, and it is a long process, he explained. Mr. Covarrubias was part of the Long Beach Recovery Center which received a 40% reduction in funding. Mr. Covarrubias further outlined that it then takes even more time to reduce staff and reduce the services which take away from the focus of serving clients. Mr. Covarrubias continued offering that starting and stopping TRCs is a huge waste of funds, so it makes sense to use those limited funds the best way possible. Mr. Covarrubias continued stating that while per statute, there are things that the Board is unable to approve, there were things such as the tiering process that was not a part of statute that the Board was able to consider. Mr. Covarrubias asked the Board to reconsider their decision and thanked the Board for their time.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Mr. Covarrubias.

Ms. Cardenas spoke in response to the public’s comments and echoed that CalVCB is disheartened by the funding situation as well. Ms. Cardinas added that CalVCB would obviously like to fund all available and existing TRCs. However, the funding situation, as presented by Executive Officer Gledhill, is unfortunately not promising in outlying years either. CalVCB understands the frustrations of these organizations and if there was funding available, CalVCB would fund them. Ms. Cardenas emphasized that CalVCB understands how difficult this is for those organizations that are affected by the current recommendations.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Cadenas and added that this is not a situation anyone wants to be in and asked if there are additional comments from the Board.

Member Johnson asked if an existing facility applied for funding and a new facility applied for funding and for whatever reason, the new facility outscores the already established facility, is there a way to give an example of if any weight is given to the facility that already has an established infrastructure and clientele?

Ms. Cardenas responded, explaining the different tiers as not qualified, less qualified, qualified and highly qualified. To get into the highly qualified rank, a TRC must show that they can begin providing services within the first thirty days. Fifteen existing TRCs reapplied for funding this cycle, the ones that scored well were able to demonstrate that they were able to provide services within 30 days. Thus, the existing TRCs were able to score higher than new TRCs if they were able to demonstrate that and communicate through their applications. There is also a question on the application that asks the TRCs their ability to serve the largest geographic region, which could cause a TRC that is not already in existence to score higher, if they can show a need within that region.

Member Johnson responded to Ms. Cardenas noting that it seems as if an existing TRC would score higher than a non-existent TRC in all the categories Ms. Cardenas described. Member Johnson followed up asking Ms. Cardenas if this is not always the case, from her experience. Ms. Cardenas responded, stating that this is not always the case. She also added that CalVCB did their due diligence in trying to communicate the requirements that were needed both in the NOFA at the Board’s recommendation last year, as well as hosting a webinar where CalVCB walked through the NOFA with the TRCs and allowed them to ask questions about the process, which CalVCB answered and publicly posted on their website. Ms. Cardenas included that CalVCB has done what they can to set up the TRCs for success and to receive higher scores, however, there are some TRC organizations that do not communicate the need in their area for a TRC or the ability of the TRC to get up and running within 30 days. This is an objective scoring process and the TRCs must show their ability to do so to score well.

Chairperson Ravel echoed the sentiment that the TRCs brought forward this year and in past years how destabilizing and inefficient it is to have the disruptions to funding. Chairperson Ravel asked if a statutory amendment would be needed to shift to a five-year funding cycle. Ms. Cardenas affirmed that it does seem like there would need to be a statutory amendment and that there would be some administrative challenges as well. Ms. Cardenas continued by explaining that the reason CalVCB runs on a two-year funding cycle is because of the limited funding itself. CalVCB gets the appropriations each year from the Restitution Fund, the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Fund and then in recent years, the General Fund, which is expiring this year. With the two-year funding cycle, CalVCB believes the funding goes farther, as CalVCB can grant fewer organizations, but the grants are larger. If the funding cycle were to move to a longer funding cycle, CalVCB believes it would become more competitive and the awarded TRCs would receive smaller awards, which they would then have to make last longer.

Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier added that the awards might be somewhat speculative at that point, given that CalVCB does not know what the projections for the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools funding would be in outlying years. Therefore, it would likely require amendments to each of those contracts every year when that funding comes through.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Gauthier, noting that that is a good point. Chairperson Ravel added that even in the staff recommendation, the figures are projected and actual amounts are not yet available. Trying to scale that out for an even longer period could be challenging without a more stable source of funding.

Member Johnson stated that he is on the Affordable Housing funding Board as well. He explained that the Board was faced with a similar issue in that the requests for funding went up, however, the funds available for distribution did not go up in commensurate fashion. This caused the Board to reevaluate and create a competitive scoring process. In addition, they set up a pool for new developers that was a known pool that had a spot for new developers but also recognized existing developers and their ability to compete amongst themselves for funds in a larger pool. Member Johnson encouraged the Board to think about developing a way they can support the development of TRCs in underserved areas while also making sure that there is continuity of funding for existing TRCs, which seems to be of paramount importance for continuity of service to the communities in need.

Chief Executive Officer Gledhill added that the Board is committed to having a continued conversation about the issues presented. She noted however that with the diminished funds that CalVCB has, which are expected to get smaller, not all existing TRCs will be funded, much less new ones created. A decision is going to need to be made at some point if additional funds are not procured from some other reliable source.

Member Johnson stated that last year there was concern about the amount that each TRC was funded as it may not be enough to keep them afloat. Member Johnson asked Ms. Cardenas if a small amount of funding for a TRC versus no funding would allow the TRCs to possibly get funding elsewhere. The thought being that a TRC being funded by CalVCB has given them credibility to seek out other funding from another source.

Ms. Cardenas explained that the TRCs applying for funding must meet the statutory requirements even if they are funded. The statutory requirements require TRCs to be a multidisciplinary team of a psychiatrist, psychologist and a social worker. In addition, to funding those positions, TRCs must also be able to fund staff, pay rent, etc. When CalVCB looked at possibly funding into further tiers, it appeared that giving less funding to more TRCs would be setting them up to not meet those required statutory requirements.

Ms. Wade appeared via Zoom and responded to Ms. Cardenas by explaining, in her experience working at a TRC that had their funding cut 64%, they were still able to make it work. Having the stamp of approval from the state recognizing that they are a state endorsed TRC was one of the reasons they were able to stay afloat. Even though their funding ran out before the two-year grant ended, they were able to find funding from other sources. Ms. Wade explained that A Quarter Blue was recognized by the Orange County Trial Association as an important part of their work because A Quarter Blue was an official TRC. This allowed A Quarter Blue to receive funding from the Orange County Trial Association’s fundraiser, where 100% of the proceeds went to funding A Quarter Blue. Ms. Wade also recognized the importance of TRC fundraising as well.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Wade.

Mr. Frazier, who appeared via Zoom, wanted to echo Ms. Wade’s sentiment that while the BOSS TRC was extremely underfunded during the first round of funding, they made it work by finding other sources of funding. He explained that if the BOSS TRC was funded, even at a lesser amount, they would be able to make it work.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Mr. Frazier

Member Becton appeared via Zoom and asked what type of time constraints are put on the funding of TRCs as she felt that the suggestions heard during the meeting are worth considering, however, there may not be enough time to do so.

Chief Executive Officer Gledhill responded explaining that the recommendations made during this Board Meeting would be considered in how CalVCB structures the awards for the next funding cycle as these grants start July 1, 2025.

Member Becton thanked Ms. Gledhill for her clarification and stated that the stop-starts of the TRCs that were mentioned by many commenters were extremely heart-wrenching. Member Becton hoped that for the next funding cycle, the Board and CalVCB could take that issue specifically into account. In addition, being receptive to thinking about other methods that may be helpful to administer this funding, with the TRCs being part of the conversation. Member Becton recognized the work that CalVCB has done regarding this funding cycle, however, many TRCs expressed that it was not communicated to them why they were not funded in this cycle, so Member Becton suggested possibly setting up a process where TRCs in this position are notified of their shortcomings, if there is not a process in place already.

Member Becton also commented and responded to Ms. Petro’s previous remark on District Attorney offices being involved in the advocacy for victims. Member Becton stated that she would be open to explaining further how involved District Attorney offices are in the advocacy of victims and how common this is.

Ms. Cardenas clarified in response to Member Becton that CalVCB does reach out to TRCs regarding their applications and the reasons for why they were or were not recommended for funding.

Member Johnson expressed his concern that CalVCB approved the funding of new TRCs and then again in a couple of years, those TRCs may not have funding to continue functioning because of the decrease in funding available.

Executive Officer Gledhill responded that CalVCB does recommend and encourage TRCs to seek other sources of funding as government funding is variable. This is a catch 22 of sorts as CalVCB wants to fund TRCs that can serve regions that are not being served currently and also wants to fund TRCs who are and have been established through the scoring process. Ms. Gledhill emphasized the need to adhere to the scoring process to be fair and to follow statute.

Ms. Wiggall appeared via Zoom and reiterated that funding two new TRCs amid the current funding environment could be a setup for continuing the cycle of opening and closing of TRCs. As has been heard, this greatly affects the communities these TRCs serve. While having a tight timeline to work with, Ms. Wiggall urged it may be worth considering whether this is also the moment to change that point in the cycle because the Board has heard the TRCs’ willingness to try to make it work, even with less funding. Ms. Wiggall further commented while TRCs all recognize the need to address the sustainability of funding and to look for additional sources of funding, it is a very challenging time to do so. Ms. Wiggall also asked the Board, again, to consider whether this is the time to change the cycle of opening and closing TRCs.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Wiggall and said there has been compelling testimony indicating the need for TRCs and the Board to come together to brainstorm an ongoing process that would work better for everyone going forward, while understanding the serious limitations on funding that CalVCB and the Board are faced with now. Chairperson Ravel asked that this be considered before the next NOFA is issued and in time, if needed, to seek legislation to allow CalVCB to do so.

Chairperson Ravel asked if the Board is prepared to vote on the motion today or if there was a desire to send it back to staff for additional work.

Member Becton appeared via Zoom and moved to amend the motion to include an opportunity for discussion for future allocations and some of the issues that were raised at the Board meeting. Member Becton pointed out that in the chat (online via Zoom), there are many TRCs stating that they did not get adequate information about what they could have done to improve their chances of getting funding. It is important that the Board and CalVCB are open to rethinking the way that TRCs that have not been recommended for funding are notified about their shortcomings, like possibly having one-on-one meetings with those TRCs. Additionally, rethinking the way allocations are made as to whether the Board and CalVCB should be funding new TRCs and then setting them up to be defunded in the future when the funds get tighter and tighter. Member Becton clarified that she would amend the motion to have a conversation about the next funding cycle, the process of scoring, and the method used to distribute the funds.

Chairperson Ravel stated the motion on the table is to approve the proposed staff awards, subject to a later conversation on improving the process to take place with the Board, CalVCB, and the stakeholders.

Member Johnson seconded the motion, adding that he felt disinclined to send the motion back to CalVCB staff as they did their job. Member Johnson explained the process must be made fair and clear so to avoid the stop and start of funding for TRCs. Member Johnson expressed that he is hopeful that anyone who did not receive funding for this funding cycle will come back next year with the revised process.

Chief Counsel Gauthier reiterated the motion pending before the Board – to approve the TRC grant awards as recommended and to grant the authority to increase or decrease the awards as necessary to reflect the funds available following the release of the Governor’s revised budget in May, as well as direction to staff to look at processes and engage stakeholders for future TRC grants. By unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

The Board reconvened its meeting after a five-minute break in open session upon the call of the chair at 11:53 a.m.

Item 7. Request for Authority to Conclude the Rulemaking Process Following Modifications for Amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 640, et seq.)

The Request for Authority to Conclude the Rulemaking Process Following Modifications for Amendments to the California Code of Regulations was presented by Senior Attorney Laura Simpton.

Ms. Simpton stated she is seeking authorization for staff to conclude the rulemaking process following modifications to the regulations governing claims by erroneously convicted persons under Penal Code section 4900 (PC 4900), as well as the updated form to submit a PC 4900 claim.

The project was prompted by two events. The first was new legislative changes to the procedural and substantive basis for resolving these claims as a result of SB 78 in January 2024. The second was an exponential increase in claims received but only a slight increase in the number of claims approved.

The proposed amendments to the regulations in Sections 640 and 645 as well as the revised claim form included both substantive and stylistic changes to comply with current law and clarify the process to obtain relief, especially for claimants representing themselves. When drafting these proposed regulations in June 2024, CalVCB reached out to various stakeholders including the Attorney General and Innocence Project and incorporated the feedback that was received, which was solely from the Attorney General.

In July 2024, the Board authorized staff to commence the rulemaking process. Staff submitted the initial rulemaking package to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), which was published on August 9, 2024, and a 45-day public comment period commenced. The public comment period ended on September 23, 2024, and no comments or requests for a hearing were received.

Ms. Simpton continued, stating that in November 2024, the Board authorized staff to conclude the rulemaking process. Staff submitted the final rulemaking package to OAL in December 2024. In January 2025, after several informal discussions with OAL, it was determined that one substantive modification and three non-substantive modifications were necessary.

Ms. Simpton briefly summarized the four modifications:

• The first and sole substantive modification applies to Section 642.1, subdivision (d) concerning withdrawal of a claim. This modification adds a sentence to clarify when a claimant’s response must be received by the Hearing Officer before the underlying claim may be deemed withdrawn.
• The second and non-substantive modification applies to Section 640, subdivision (e)(3) concerning the type of content within the Attorney General’s response that may be considered by the Board, without imposing any obligation upon the Attorney General to provide that content. The modification clarifies that the Board may only consider evidence and argument of injury for a claim that falls under the mandated approval provisions, whereas the Board may additionally consider evidence and argument of guilt and innocence for all other claims.
• The third and non-substantive modification applies to Section 642, subdivisions (a)(3) and (a)(4). The modification inserts the phrase, “pursuant to” before statutory citations that serve as examples of deficient claims.
• The fourth and final modification, also non-substantive, applies to Section 645, subdivision (a), concerning the Hearing Officer’s proposed decisions for 4900 claims. The modification inserts a cross-reference to Section 619.3, which is a regulation that generally applies to proposed decisions for all types of claims processed by CalVCB. Section 619.3, in turn, references Section 619.1, which enumerates the required content and permissible considerations for all proposed decisions and decisions by the Board.

Ms. Simpton concluded by noting that to pursue all four of these proposed modifications, staff withdrew the final rulemaking package from OAL on January 22, 2025, and resumed the rulemaking process. On February 5, 2025, CalVCB posted notice of all four modifications on its website. Because these modifications were sufficiently related to the original proposed regulations, only a 15-day public comment period ensued. On February 20, 2025, this additional public comment period concluded, with no comments received or any request for a hearing.

As a result, staff requested the Board’s adoption of the proposed regulations, as modified, and the revised claim form. Staff further requested the Board’s authorization to conclude the rulemaking process. With the Board’s approval, staff will submit these documents to OAL as part of the final rulemaking package. OAL will resume its review of the submission and, if approved, the proposed regulations will become effective on July 1, 2025.

Seeing no other comments or questions from the Board, Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Simpton and called for a motion on item 7.

Member Johnson moved to approve staff’s conclusion of the rulemaking process following modifications 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.

Ms. Burrell asked if there was any public comment on this item. None was offered.

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

Item 8. Richard Almeda (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

The Penal Code Section 4900 claim of Richard Almeda was presented by Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier.

On November 7, 2023, Richard Almeda filed an application with the California Victim Compensation Board as an erroneously convicted person. The application is based on his 2018 conviction for assault with a deadly weapon causing great bodily injury, which was reversed on appeal without a finding of factual innocence. The claim seeks $187,040.00 for 1,336 days imprisonment. The Attorney General objected to the claim, arguing that the evidence fails to prove Mr. Almeda’s innocence by a preponderance. As explained in the Proposed Decision, the claim is recommended for denial as Mr. Almeda 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). Throughout the proceedings, Mr. Almeda is represented by attorney Chris Clauson. The Office of the Attorney General is represented by Deputy Attorney General Kathryn Althizer.

Chairperson Ravel asked for comment from Mr. Almeda and Mr. Clauson, Mr. Almeda’s attorney, appeared via Zoom. Mr. Clauson stated that he believes the Proposed Decision wrongfully mirrors the trial court’s erroneous felony conviction of Mr. Almeda. Mr. Almeda’s constitutional right to due process and his constitutional right to a fair trial were violated, Mr. Clauson explained. The District Attorney in the underlying trial court was reported to the California State Bar Association for misconduct. Part and parcel of the Attorney General’s argument, the Proposed Decision claims that Almeda’s defense of another was in equipoise at the time of this critical incident.

Mr. Clauson continued by stating if you look at the underlying facts of the case, it is littered with Doug Albright claiming he was checking the baseball bat upon Mr. Almeda and his friend Stice Weatherwax. The trial court was snake charmed, and he implored the Board not to be snake charmed as well. Mr. Clauson argued that two officers testified to Mr. Albright telling them that he was smashing Mr. Weatherwax and then was stabbed. The Attorney General argued that after Mr. Albright check swung many times on Mr. Weatherwax, Mr. Albright then took the end of the baseball bat and slammed it into the chest of Mr. Weatherwax, which resulted in his being stabbed. Mr. Clauson explained that in either scenario, Mr. Albright instituted this deadly weapon into the situation. He continued, pointing out that at page 13 of the petition, Mr. Clauson explained that Mr. Albright testified he was never threatened by Mr. Almeda, that he was not afraid of Mr. Almeda, and that he never saw anything in Mr. Almeda’s hands.

Mr. Clauson stated he felt that the Board, like the trial court, was being snake charmed into believing Mr. Albright’s argument over Mr. Almeda’s. Mr. Clauson pointed out that Mr. Almeda was not charged with burglary, nor trespassing, and additionally that the proposed decision deals with issues that happened after the above-mentioned critical event. Mr. Clauson asked the Board to focus on the facts that occurred during the stabbing, not the facts that occurred after the stabbing.

Mr. Virella, Mr. Clauson’s co-counsel, also appeared via Zoom. Mr. Virella alleged that the Proposed Decision written by Ms. Simpton was riddled with misleading and factually incorrect statements, as well as misstatements of law. Mr. Virella pointed out that on page nineteen of the Proposed Decision, new evidence given by the District Attorney is brought up comparing their evidence with this new evidence, which Mr. Virella and his co-counsel did not have access to. Mr. Virella continued, pointing the Board to page 22 of the Proposed Decision where Ms. Simpton stated that the only way an aggressor can use self-defense is if the initial aggressor communicates to the other party that he wishes to discontinue the confrontation and the other party hears him, at which time the initial aggressor discontinues the confrontation. Mr. Virella alleged this was an egregious misstatement of law, as this is not the only way in which an aggressor may use self-defense. Mr. Virella explained that another way in which an aggressor may use self-defense is if the other party intensifies the confrontation. He continued by stating that any person on the other end of a baseball that is being half swung at is well within their right to self-defense because of their reasonable belief in possible great bodily harm. Mr. Virella thanked the Board.

Ms. Althizer from the Attorney General’s office appeared via Zoom. Ms. Althizer asked that the Board adopt the Proposed Decision and had no further comment.

Chairperson Ravel, seeing no further discussion from the Board, called for a motion to approve Item 8.

Member Johnson moved to approve Item 8. Member Becton 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 PC 4900 claim of Richard Almeda was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board.

Item 9. Kelvin Fuller (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

The Penal Code section 4900 claim of Kelvin Fuller was presented by Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier.

On January 27, 2025, Kelvin Fuller filed an application with the California Victim Compensation Board as an erroneously convicted person. The application is based on Mr. Fuller’s 1985 convictions for rape, oral copulation by force, robbery, and kidnap for robbery with enhancements for personal use of a knife and rape and oral copulation in concert. Those convictions were vacated and dismissed in September 2024. In September 2024, the court also found Mr. Fuller factually innocent of these crimes within the meaning of Penal Code section 1485.55. As mandated by the court order, and pursuant to Penal Code section 1485.55, the Proposed Decision recommends compensation in the amount of $1,727,320.00, which represents $140.00 per day for each of the 12,338 days that Mr. Fuller was wrongfully imprisoned. Mr. Fuller is represented in this proceeding by Joseph Trigilio of Loyola’s Project for the Innocent. The Office of the Attorney General is represented by the Deputy Attorney General Jessica Leal.

Chairperson Ravel asked to hear from Mr. Trigilio first. Mr. Trigilio appeared via Zoom and expressed his gratitude for the outcome of the Proposed Decision and reminded those in attendance of the impact that new evidence has on uncovering the truth that jurors sometimes do not hear, even if there has not been any misconduct. The critical evidence that Mr. Trigilio spoke of was discovered in collaboration with the Los Angeles County Conviction Integrity Unit. Mr. Trigilio expressed his gratitude for their diligence and work in uncovering this new evidence. Mr. Trigilio explained the jury in this case should have heard this evidence 40 years ago and that no compensation can make up for the years that Mr. Fuller lost but the recognition in the Proposed Decision will help Mr. Fuller rebuild his life.

Mr. Fuller also appeared via Zoom. Mr. Fuller thanked the Board, his lawyer and the Los Angeles County Conviction Integrity Unit. Mr. Fuller emphasized the sentiment that time can never be restored or bought, however, this decision to compensate him for that lost time can be a gateway to a new life and new beginning. Mr. Fuller again thanked the Board.

Chairperson Rael thanked Mr. Fuller. He then asked if Ms. Leal had any further comment.

Ms. Leal stated the Attorney General’s office was only involved in the calculation of the compensation and asked that the Board adopt the Proposed Decision.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Leal for appearing before the Board.

Chairperson Ravel, seeing no further discussion from the Board, called for a motion to approve Item 9.

Member Johnson moved to approve Item 9. Member Becton 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 Kelvin Fuller was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board.

Item 10. Glenn Payne (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

The Penal Code section 4900 claim of Glenn Payne was presented by Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier.

On September 23, 2024, Glenn Payne filed an application with the California Victim Compensation Board as an erroneously convicted person. The application was supplemented on October 2, 2024. The application is based on Mr. Payne’s 1990 convictions for lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child under 14 with enhancements for kidnapping for the purpose of committing sexual assault and infliction of great bodily injury. Those convictions were vacated and dismissed in January 2018 following a motion to vacate the conviction based upon newly discovered evidence of actual innocence pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7. As there was no objection filed by the Office of the Attorney General, compensation is automatic under Penal Code section 4900, subdivision (b). Accordingly, The Proposed Decision recommends compensation in the amount of $765,380.00, which represents $140.00 per day, for 5,467 days Mr. Payne was wrongfully imprisoned. Mr. Payne was represented in the proceeding by Linda Starr and Catherine Boyle of the Northern California Innocence Project. The Office of the Attorney General was represented by Deputy Attorney General Caitlin Duprey, though Jessica Leal appeared before the Board.

Catherine Boyle of the Northern California Innocence Project appeared via Zoom. Ms. Boyle explained that they are proud to have worked on Mr. Payne’s exoneration and compensation claim. Ms. Boyle thanked the Board for the opportunity to appear before them and expressed it is truly remarkable that they are at this point as it is a testament to the determination and collective effort of many people over the years to seek justice for Mr. Payne. Ms. Boyle pointed out the efforts of Mr. Payne himself, as well as the justice system’s ability to evolve to be more just. Ms. Boyle explained that Mr. Payne was convicted in 1990 based almost exclusively on the now repudiated microscopic hair comparison expert testimony which provided the link between the alleged incident, the child and Mr. Payne. Ms. Boyle further outlined the only other evidence was the testimony of the two-year-old child which was obtained through leading suggestive unrecorded questioning, which would not have been allowed under current standards. Mr. Payne was the only black man in the neighborhood and the investigating officer admitted the child only said she was hurt by a black man in response to the leading questions.

At trial, Ms. Boyle further explained, the child testified on direct questioning and identified Mr. Payne several times, though the child was unable to be cross-examined. The judge struck the testimony but denied a mistrial; however, it was too late, Ms. Boyle stated the damage was already done. After two full days of deliberations, the court sentenced Mr. Payne to 27 years, though Mr. Payne always maintained his innocence and contacted the Northern California Innocence Project (NCIP) right after they opened in 2002 seeking postconviction DNA testing. NCIP conducted a thorough search, but the physical evidence had been destroyed, and they were unable to locate the trial transcripts. NCIP unfortunately had to close Mr. Payne’s case after which Mr. Payne served his sentence and was released in April 2005. However, Ms. Boyle explained that Mr. Payne had no legal standing to challenge his case and was forced to register as a sex offender. Then, in 2015 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ) repudiated the type of statistical testimony given by the criminalist in Mr. Payne’s case and later concluded that at least 90% of all cases in which the FBI used microscopic hair analysis contained erroneous expert testimony. As a result, the FBI sent letters to all state governors to ensure state criminalists were testifying within the limits of science and if not, to take appropriate corrective action.

Ms. Boyle continued stating that later that year, NCIP-sponsored legislation went into effect, which enabled innocent people to challenge their conviction when scientific evidence has been repudiated by the original expert at trial or undermined by later scientific advances. The legislation now permitted convicted people, no longer in custody like Mr. Payne, to challenge their convictions in certain circumstances. With those changes in the law, NCIP had the tools to challenge Mr. Payne’s conviction, which resulted in his exoneration, though, even at that point, due to the two-year statute of limitations, the NCIP could not seek compensation for Mr. Payne’s situation. In 2020 NCIP sponsored new legislation to extend the two-year statute of limitations to ten years.

Ms. Boyle mentioned that her explanation of the events surrounding Mr. Payne’s case is a summary of all the work that went into Mr. Payne’s case over the years. She went on to thank the law firm of Morrison and Forester and the Innocence Center who partnered with the NCIP to find cases in which the now discredited microscopic hair comparison testimony was a relevant factor and through which the Northern California Innocence Project and the NCIP were able to identify My. Payne’s closed case. She also thanked Santa Clara County Assistant District attorney, David Angel, who conceded that the NCIP’s motion to vacate be granted and Santa Clara County criminalist Mark Maryama, who repudiated his testimony in a declaration. Ms. Boyle went on to thank everyone at the NCIP over the years, whose belief in Mr. Payne’s innocence allowed him to receive justice as well as the law firm of Berlin Cohen, Dave Spense and Janette Martinez for creating Mr. Payne’s special needs trust. Ms. Boyle continued, thanking the District Attorney’s Office and Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier for looking into whether payment could be made in Mr. Payne’s case. She thanked Mr. Payne lastly for never ending his fight for justice or losing any hope through the ordeal. Ms. Boyle pointed out the compensation will provide Mr. Payne with the stability that he has lacked for so long.

Mr. Payne also appeared via Zoom, he explained to the Board that he is very thankful to the Board for the decision and that he never lost faith in his justice.

Ms. Leal stated the Attorney General’s Office recommended the Board adopt the Proposed Decision.

Member Becton moved to approve Item 10. 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 approve the Penal Code 4900 claim of Glenn Payne was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the Proposed Decision was adopted.

Item 11. Zachary Vanderhorst (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

This presentation was given by Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier. Ms. Gauthier gave a summary of the Penal Code section 4900 claim filed by Zachary Vanderhorst.

On August 15, 2023, Zachary Vanderhorst filed an application as a Penal Code section 4900 erroneously convicted person, which was supplemented on September 29, 2023. The application is based on his 1974 convictions for robbery and rape, and other, related charges. In December 2021, pursuant to a Stipulated Petition for a Finding of Factual Innocence, Mr. Vanderhorst was found factually innocent of the robbery and rape. His claim seeks compensation ranging from $460,180 to $1,225,840 for his erroneous convictions, arguing he would have been released on parole but for his erroneous convictions. The Attorney General objected to the claim on the issue of injury only, contending that Mr. Vanderhorst is not entitled to any compensation in light of the concurrent life sentence he was serving for murder. As detailed in the Proposed Decision, it is recommended that Mr. Vanderhorst receive compensation in the amount of $280, which represents $140 per day for the two days of imprisonment solely attributable to his erroneous convictions. Mr. Vanderhorst was represented throughout the proceedings by Khari Tillery of Van Nest, and Peters LLP. The office of the Attorney General was represented by District Attorney Sharon Loughner.

Mr. Tillery appeared in person. He started by noting Zachary Vanderhorst will be 70 years old in a few months. He was 19 when he went to prison and did not see light again until he was 65 years old. Mr. Tillery further argued that the Proposed Decision highlights every single one of Zachary’s mistakes, dating back to when he was an 11-year-old kid growing up in the Fillmore housing projects. Mr. Tillery clarified that Mr. Vanderhorst is also a victim who was repeatedly wronged by the state. He is the victim of a disinterested public defender who failed to do any investigation in his case who told him he had to plead guilty, or he would face execution, though the death penalty was never on the table. Mr. Tillery explained that Mr. Vanderhorst spent 24 years in prison for a robbery and brutal rape of a stranger with a firearm which he did not commit.

Mr. Tillery continued, arguing Mr. Vanderhorst is entitled to compensation, Mr. Tillery acknowledged, however, that just how much compensation is due is a difficult question to answer as Mr. Vanderhorst was also serving a sentence for a felony murder conviction, which was also vacated. The Proposed Decision argued that regardless of the wrongful rape conviction, Mr. Vanderhorst likely would have served all but two years of his 46-year sentence in prison. In other words, Mr. Tillery continued, the Proposed Decision posits that a brutal stranger rape that Mr. Vanderhorst plead guilty to under extreme duress, for which he consistently asserted his innocence to the parole board, had essentially no bearing on the monstrous amount of time he served in prison.

Mr. Tillery further contended that the preponderance of evidence, which is 50% and a feather, shows that it is more likely than not that Mr. Vanderhorst would have been released but for his wrongful conviction for the 24-year sentence for the robbery and rape he did not commit. Over the course of dozens of parole hearings, the Board found that Mr. Vanderhorst failed to show the necessary insight into his crimes to warrant release, though, how could Mr. Vanderhorst show insight into a crime he did not commit? Mr. Tillery continued, adding Mr. Vanderhorst’s denial of the crime affected the parole board’s repeated denials, as is reflected in the transcripts.

Anyone, Mr. Tillery pleaded, would be weary of paroling someone who was believed to be an unrepentant violent rapist. There is no question that the conviction on Mr. Vanderhorst’s jacket affected the amount of time he served in prison. The Proposed Decision argues that the parole board was permitted to deny parole solely on an inmate’s denial of a crime and cites the Code of Regulations, title 15 section 2234. However, Mr. Tillery argued, this is not what the section says. The section cited states that “the Board shall not require an admission of guilt to any crime for which the prisoner was committed. A prisoner may refuse to discuss the facts of the crime, in which instance, a decision shall be made based on other information available and the refusal shall not be held against the petitioner.” Mr. Tillery argued that does not mean that in a case where they believe someone is guilty of a crime and that person is not showing insight, that they can certainly hold that against the inmate, and they did in this instance. He continued, stating the average lifer spends 23 years in prison, but that hearing officer’s Proposed Decision states that the Board should ignore this data, as there is no evidence to prove that Mr. Vanderhorst was an average lifer. However, Mr. Tillery explained, we are not talking about a sentence on the margins, we are talking about a 46-year term in prison, which is twice as long as the average lifer. Mr. Tillery argued that that extended sentence is because Mr. Vanderhorst was wrongfully convicted of a brutal rape.

Mr. Tillery asserted that evidence was submitted in the form of expert testimony from Charles Carbone, an undisputed expert in California parole law, who provided insight into the parole process and the reasons parole was denied. Including in this case, the hearing officer’s Proposed Decision largely substitutes her own judgment for that of Mr. Carbone, Mr. Tillery explained that the proposed decision argues that the Board should largely disregard Mr. Carbone’s testimony, which stands for the uncontroversial proposition that a violent stranger rape had an impact on Mr. Varderhorst’s sentence. The Board should not ignore Mr. Carbone’s testimony, Mr. Tillery argued, but should treat it as another data point establishing that it was more likely than not that Mr. Vanderhorst spent more time in prison because of his wrongful conviction than he would have if that conviction did not exist.

Mr. Tillery also argued that the Proposed Decision also places great emphasis on Mr. Vanderhorst’s record in prison and highlighted several serious violations over the course of a 46-year sentence in prison. However, there were also long stretches in which he was violation free, notably from 1992 to 2009. Typically, Mr. Tillery explained, the parole board looks favorably on a petitioner who has been discipline free for five years, though this did not matter in Mr. Vanderhorst’s case. Mr. Tillery explained that they are not asking the Board to disregard the felony murder conviction, but rather to place it in context. Mr. Vanderhorst does not need to prove with absolute certainty what the parole board would have done without the wrongful stranger rape on his jacket, he must only show that it is more likely than not that Mr. Vanderhorst would have been released earlier, but for the wrongful conviction. When considering the factual record Mr. Tillery implored, the Board does not have to do what the hearing officer recommends.

Mr. Tillery clarified that there is also something perverse about relying on Mr. Vanderhorst’s now vacated felony conviction, especially after a contested hearing before a superior court judge who found that he was not culpable of that murder and vacated the conviction. Mr. Vanderhorst is not entitled to compensation for that time, but to use that time as a cudgel to prevent him from getting compensation for the 24 years he was sentenced for a rape that he did not commit is wrong. Mr. Tillery concluded that the Board is required to compensate Mr. Vanderhorst for that time, even if it cannot be calculated in a way that is normal for cases likely these. Mr. Tillery pleaded with the Board to adopt the most conservative calculation of time, which would be that Mr. Vanderhorst served 37 years of the 46-year sentence, where Mr. Vanderhorst is entitled to compensation for nine years he spent in prison for a crime he did not commit. Mr. Tillery thanked the Board.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Mr. Tillery and asked if Mr. Vanderhorst was available over Zoom to make a comment.

Mr. Tillery explained that Mr. Vanderhorst was provided the link though he is blind and disabled and that it would be difficult for him to join the discussion today over Zoom.

Deputy Attorney General Sharon Loughner appeared via Zoom and requested that the Board adopt the Proposed Decision.

Chairperson Ravel explained that the claim that Mr. Vanderhorst would have been released earlier than he was, is extremely speculative and not necessarily supported by a preponderance of evidence given not only the Ellis crime that was later vacated, but also the felony murder conviction, as well as the Tera Vista crimes for which Mr. Vanderhorst denied his culpability but was never exonerated. Chairperson Ravel continued, explaining those convictions remain valid and the felony murder law changed retroactively, though at the time, it was considered first degree murder and thus it is extremely hard to determine that Mr. Vanderhorst would have been released any earlier than he was.

Member Becton moved to approve Item 11. Member Johnson seconded the motion recognizing the complexity of the recommendation.

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

The motion to approve the Penal Code 4900 claim of Zachary Vanderhorst was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the Proposed Decision was adopted.

Closed Session

The Board adjourned into Closed Session with the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Counsel at 12:43 p.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) to deliberate on proposed decision numbers 1 through 46 of the Victim Compensation Program.

Open Session

The Board reconvened in Open Session pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) at 12:51 p.m.

Member Johnson moved to approve items 1 through 46 of the Victim Compensation Program. Member Becton 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 March Board meeting. Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 12:51 p.m.

Next Board Meeting

The next Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 15, 2025.