DRAFT

California Victim Compensation Board

Open Meeting Minutes

May 28, 2026, Board Meeting

The California Victim Compensation Board (Board) convened its meeting in open session upon the call of the Chair, Gabriel Ravel, General Counsel of the Government Operations Agency, acting for, and in the absence of Nick Maduros, Secretary of the Government Operations Agency, at 400 R Street, Room 330, Sacramento, California, on Thursday, May 28, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Also present was Member Evan Johnson, acting for, and in the absence of, Malia Cohen, Controller. Appearing via Zoom was Member Diana Becton, District Attorney.

Executive Officer Lynda Gledhill, and Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier, attended in person at 400 R Street, Sacramento, California. Board Liaison, Andrea Burrell, was also present and recorded the meeting.

Item 1. Executive Officer Statement

Executive Officer Lynda Gledhill welcomed Board members and attendees and opened her report by acknowledging recent mass violence incidents in California. She referenced a hit-and-run incident in Oakland that resulted in three fatalities and multiple injuries, as well as a shooting at an Islamic center in San Diego that resulted in three deaths and impacted numerous community members, including children. Ms. Gledhill reported that CalVCB responded to both incidents by conducting outreach to affected communities, ensuring awareness of available services, and offering assistance. She noted that CalVCB continues to communicate with community partners regarding potential support for victims.

Ms. Gledhill reported that the Governor released the May Revision of the Budget on May 14, 2026, which included an increase in Proposition 47 funding sufficient to support an additional Trauma Recovery Center (TRC). She noted that an agenda item later in the meeting would address this funding opportunity. She also reported that, at the Board’s request, CalVCB is evaluating regional TRC and crime data and will present information regarding the geographic distribution of TRCs at the July Board meeting.

Ms. Gledhill provided updates regarding recent audits and reviews. She shared that the federal Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) conducted an on-site monitoring review in February and subsequently informed CalVCB in April that the review was completed with no findings, confirming the Board’s compliance with federal grant requirements. OVC also identified several California practices as noteworthy, including the public awareness campaign, Advocate Portal expansion, and ongoing outreach and communication efforts.

Ms. Gledhill described a California State Auditor (CSA) report that was released in April regarding state and local restitution collection processes. The review included CalVCB and resulted in no findings or recommendations for the Board. She stated that the CSA found CalVCB provided valid legal bases for claim denials and that most denials resulted from insufficient evidence of injury or a qualifying crime. The report also confirmed that the Restitution Fund will require General Fund appropriations to remain solvent and found that CalVCB’s administrative costs are comparable to those of the Franchise Tax Board and have not adversely affected victim compensation. Ms. Gledhill stated that the absence of findings or recommendations reflects CalVCB’s commitment to compliance and accountability.

Ms. Gledhill highlighted CalVCB’s outreach efforts, noting that in-person outreach activities have increased significantly and already exceed the previous year’s total. She also reported that CalVCB has identified law enforcement liaisons within 96 percent of California law enforcement agencies, which is expected to improve the Board’s ability to obtain documentation needed to verify crimes.

Ms. Gledhill provided an update on regulatory activities, reporting that the appeals and income loss regulations adopted by the Board in November 2025 became effective on April 1, 2026. She further stated that the Board previously authorized staff to begin the rulemaking process for revisions to the mental health regulations. Minimal public comment was received during the comment period and at the May 7, 2026, public hearing. The proposed regulations will be returned to the Board for consideration and adoption.

Ms. Gledhill shared several highlights from April activities. She noted that April marked National Crime Victims’ Rights Week and Sexual Assault Awareness Month and that she participated as a panelist at an event hosted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Office of Victim and Survivor Rights and Services. She also reported that CalVCB hosted a partner webinar attended by more than 150 participants and collected more than 250 donations through its annual Denim Drive benefiting the Rape Crisis Center at Tri-Valley Haven in Livermore. In addition, CalVCB held its annual in-person all-staff meeting on Denim Day.

Ms. Gledhill related that she attended the annual conference of the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards and was re-elected to the organization’s board. She noted that conference discussions focused on best practices, emerging issues, and technology solutions affecting compensation programs nationwide. She added that CalVCB recently began a six-week engagement with the California Department of Technology to develop a modernization roadmap aimed at improving efficiency, user experience, and technology infrastructure while reducing operational risks and inefficiencies. She stated that staff will continue to update the Board as the effort progresses.

Ms. Gledhill next shared that the preliminary 2025 FBI data from California law enforcement agencies indicates violent crime decreased by nearly 10% compared to 2024. She noted that reductions were reported across several categories, including homicide, robbery, and aggravated assault. Ms. Gledhill stated that the decline in violent crime may be contributing to reduced application volume and that CalVCB will continue monitoring these trends.

Ms. Gledhill concluded her report and invited questions from the Board.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gledhill for her report, particularly the update regarding CalVCB’s response to recent mass violence incidents. He also expressed appreciation for the additional Proposition 47 funding identified in the May Revision and stated that he looked forward to discussing Trauma Recovery Centers later in the meeting. Chair Ravel noted the positive audit results, commented favorably on the progress of the regulatory process, and acknowledged the decline in violent crime as a positive development.

Chair Ravel invited questions or comments from Board members regarding the Executive Officer’s Report.

Member Johnson expressed appreciation for CalVCB’s response to recent mass violence incidents and commended staff for their efforts to support affected victims and communities. He also acknowledged the responsiveness of state agencies in addressing such events.

Item 2. Legislative Update

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

Ms. Cardenas stated the Assembly and Senate Appropriations Committees heard suspense file bills this month, which determined whether the bills moved forward or were held in the committee due to their cost. This affected two keys bills that CalVCB has been following.

AB 1716 by Assemblymember Stefani, which would have expanded CalVCB reimbursement to include tuition payments, was held on the suspense file and will not move forward this year. 

AB 2119 by Assemblymember Jackson would have required CalVCB to collaborate with the California Department of Public Health to develop educational materials. That bill was also held on the suspense file and will not move forward this year. 

AB 2297 by Assemblymember Stefani has already progressed to the Senate where it has been referred to the Public Safety Committee. That bill would require defendants who participate in diversion programs to pay direct restitution to their victims.

Ms. Cardenas concluded by saying she would be happy to answer any questions.

Chair Ravel thanked Deputy Cardenas and asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board members.

Item 3. Contract Report

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

Ms. Ramirez stated that the contract report was solely informational and includes contract extensions, mail services, operational equipment, as well as continued information technology services.

Ms. Ramirez concluded that none of the items need approval, but she was happy to answer any questions.

Chair Ravel thanked Deputy Ramirez and asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board members.

Item 4. CalVCB Public Awareness Campaign Final Report

The CalVCB Public Awareness Campaign Final Report was presented by Deputy Executive Officer, Katie Cardenas.

Ms. Cardenas introduced CalVCB’s marketing vendor, Civilian, Inc., to share the results of their $3 million Awareness Campaign. Ms. Cardenas explained that CalVCB received funding in the Budget Act of 2022 to conduct a statewide marketing campaign with a focus on underserved populations. CalVCB has been working with Civilian, Inc. since August 2023 on the planning and implementation of the campaign.

Ms. Cardenas shared the advertisements started in April 2024 and concluded in February 2026, and they are proud of the results of this campaign, which increased statewide awareness, especially among underserved populations.

Ms. Cardenas then introduced the team from Civilian:

• Travis Kushner, who is CalVCB’s account lead and marketing professional with Civilian. Mr. Kushner has 16 years of experience managing complex integrated campaigns and also worked with CalVCB on an engagement in 2021 and who also oversaw this campaign.
• Camellia Mortezazadeh, who is Civilian’s Director of Strategy and Insights. Ms. Mortezazadeh brings deep Public Health expertise and a specialty in working with diverse communities and crafting integrated and effective strategies.
• Lisa Welborn, who is Civilian’s Director of Media Services. Ms. Welborn oversees all paid media investment for the agency, has more than 20 years of experience, and specializes in audience-first planning and media measurement. Caiti Franscell, who is a Senior Project Manager with 8 years of experience and who has helped successfully shepherd CalVCB’s Public Awareness Campaign through its completion.

Ms. Cardenas then turned the presentation over to Mr. Kushner, who appeared via Zoom.

Mr. Kushner introduced himself as the Account Director at Civilian and then acknowledged the rest of his team: Camellia, Lisa and Caiti. Mr. Kushner added that Civilian was honored to manage this important campaign helping victims of crime and their support networks become aware of the vital help that CalVCB can provide. He stated that he was excited to share the report with the Board, which covers the full performance of the Public Awareness Campaign, and he would welcome questions following the presentation.

Mr. Kushner explained that the goals of the campaign were clear- to increase awareness of CalVCB among underserved and hard-to-reach communities across California and support an increase in CalVCB applications over time. The audiences were primarily victims of violent crime and their support networks. The secondary audience was the Institutional and formal support, and referral networks for victims of violent crime. Mr. Kushner noted that before the campaign was launched, they had to get a detailed understanding of their benchmarks statewide. He then turned deferred to Ms. Mortezazadeh to discuss the detailed understanding of the statewide benchmarks prior to the campaign.

Ms. Mortezazadeh appeared via Zoom and stated she was going to walk the Board through a refresher of the campaign strategy which began with a pre-campaign survey with 600 diverse Californians sampled across the state, all of whom were low income, meaning they had a household income of $75,000 or less. Within that data set, 21% self-identified as a victim of violent crime, and about 31% self-identified as part of a support network for a victim of a violent crime.

The benchmark survey confirmed a significant awareness gap among Californians regarding CalVCB services. For example, only 25% of respondents had even heard of CalVCB prior to the campaign, which really highlighted the need for statewide public education efforts. More than half of the respondents in the survey were either unsure or misinformed about what CalVCB actually provides, which reinforced the importance of clear, accessible messaging.

Trust and confidence were also key barriers with many Californians who were uncertain whether CalVCB could help them financially after experiencing violent crime. But importantly, 58% of the survey respondents expressed interest in learning more about CalVCB, which demonstrated a strong opportunity for engagement through outreach and education for the campaign. Ms. Mortezazadeh added that these findings are really important because they helped shape their targeted campaign strategy, which focused on awareness, trust building, and improving understanding for underserved communities.

Ms. Mortezazadeh then discussed how these findings helped crystallize what their campaign strategy was, with four key objectives: raising awareness, building trust, inspiring engagement, and improving understanding of the application process. Every media and creative decision aligned with these objectives and was tied to measurable performance indicators. This campaign was key at successfully positioning CalVCB as a credible and accessible support resource for victims of violent crime and their networks, whether that is their family, their friends, or people in their lives. Educational messaging really helps simplify what a complex application process might be and reduce those barriers to engagement. Ms. Mortezazadeh explained they built a strategy that balanced broad statewide outreach with targeted outreach to priority populations to make sure they were reaching the people who are most likely to benefit from CalVCB’s services. They designed a campaign that was not just there to generate impressions or get people to see things, but to really drive meaningful engagement and then drive that long-term application growth. She then turned it back to Mr. Kushner.

Mr. Kushner then talked about how Civilian measured success. While the main measure of success was driving a measurable shift in that awareness survey, they had a number of other layers to the overall campaign measurement. The team measured extensive media metrics and those represented their day-to-day proxy for awareness and gave them levers to optimize the campaign throughout the flight. Mr. Kushner further explained that those response metrics also helped them understand and optimize the education and engagement layers of the campaign. Finally, they tracked application starts and applications received. Mr. Kushner stated that while they understood that these metrics take a longer period of time to meaningfully shift, they still used them to ensure that the campaign was functioning and delivering at all layers of the funnel.

Mr. Kushner then provided a snapshot of the timeline for orientation purposes, before going into campaign delivery details. The campaign launched back in April of 2024 with an always-on baseline presence. Then throughout the flight, they had several key events as that baseline media sustained.

In August of 2024, the first emphasized market flight increased media, specifically in Kern County. From October to November of 2024, they launched an influencer test pilot. In January 2025, they adjusted channel weighting and creative in response to the Los Angeles fires. In May to August of 2025, they optimized creative copy and visuals to prevent performance burnout. Then in August to October of 2025, it was their heaviest period in market with an ethnic media campaign, a low-income media layer, and emphasized markets all running simultaneously.

Mr. Kushner explained that the campaign wrapped in February 2026, and the post-campaign survey was launched to measure that impact. He then handed it over to Lisa Welborn to talk about how they reached their audiences and campaign performance.

Ms. Welborn, who appeared via Zoom, discussed how Civilian intentionally reached under-represented and hard-to-reach communities through a very deliberate and data-driven approach leveraging various targeting methods. She first described a geographic standpoint. She said that Civilian identified priority counties and used crime to application data from the Office of Data and Innovation to help determine those areas.

Ms. Welborn stated that the campaign ran across multiple languages – primarily English and Spanish, but also Tagalog, Chinese, Vietnamese, Hmong, Hindu, and many others. From culturally relevant media partners to hyper targeted zip code strategies and demographic and behavioral data, every element of this plan was intentionally designed to connect CalVCB with the communities that really need it most.

From April 2024 through February 2026, the campaign delivered approximately 280 million impressions. Ms. Welborn explained that “impressions” means the ads were either viewed or displayed 280 million times across all their paid media placements. They also delivered 48 million impressions to Spanish language Californians across their paid media channels.

Ms. Welborn further explained that one of the most important indicators here is engagement quality. She referenced a presentation slide where it showed 1.58 million clicks to the website, which she explained really demonstrated strong audience interest and action-taking behavior after their audiences were exposed to the campaign messaging.

Ms. Welborn reported that Civilian also achieved approximately 65% reach among their audiences in key counties while maintaining an average frequency of eight exposures per person. This balance of broad reach and repeated exposure was especially important for an awareness campaign of this nature. Ms. Welborn added that repetition helps reinforce that message recall and build trust, especially among audiences who may be unfamiliar with CalVCB services.

Ms. Welborn announced that the campaign drove 1.6 million new users to the website and more than 9,000 high intent users who clicked the “Application Start” button. She noted that this is another indicator that demonstrated the campaign was not only generating awareness but also motivating meaningful action.

Ms. Welborn next broke down the performance data into the key focus areas that Mr. Kushner was talking about. The first key focus area was Kern County. She stated that they chose this county because of the gaps they saw between crime impact and application rates.

In Kern County, they delivered 21.5 million impressions, using streaming audio, billboards, radio, and digital out of home. Their team was also able to secure a lot of added value for CalVCB across their billboard placements, as that extended campaign visibility by 44%. She reiterated that the strategy there really combined broad awareness with targeted outreach, especially to Spanish language and equity-focused communities.

Civilian had a similar key focus in Los Angeles (LA)as well. This was their largest focus market and there they delivered 53 million impressions through billboards, streaming audio, radio, and digital out of home. Ms. Welborn noted that they have campaign or performance data that shows billboards were the primary source of awareness. So, given that billboards were the primary awareness driver, and, in this market, they were able to secure added value, that extended their visibility by 30%. Like the results in Kern County, their strategy in Los Angeles combined broad reach with targeted outreach to Spanish language, urban, and LGBTQIA+ audiences, which helped them connect to more communities with CalVCB services.

Ms. Welborn then discussed another key market in San Diego. She reported that Civilian delivered 15.6 million impressions through billboards, streaming audio, radio and digital out of home. They again found that billboards drove the broad awareness in this market, while audio and digital really helped to extend that reach among their multicultural and priority audiences. There they secured 11% added value on their billboards showing an increase in overall visibility.

In addition to those specific market efforts, Civilian also launched a campaign specific to ethnic media. They knew one of the campaign’s most important priorities was making sure that they were reaching those underserved and multilingual communities, which included African American communities, in a way that really felt trusted and culturally relevant. Ms. Welborn continued that they also had some very specific partnerships with Tagalog, Chinese, Vietnamese, Punjabi, Hmong, Hindu, and those African American media outlets. Through those partnerships, the campaign delivered 23 million impressions and more than 72,000 clicks. They also found it interesting that paid social performed especially well for this campaign where they saw it exceed all the typical awareness benchmarks.

Ms. Welborn explained what really stood out was the value of working with the trusted, in-language partners and tailoring their creativity for each audience, which she said helped them to build stronger awareness, accessibility, and trust among Californians who can benefit from CalVCB services.

Mr. Kushner resumed the presentation and said he wanted to add a little visual context to the numbers that Ms. Wellborn had just presented. He referenced their ethnic media performance and that they wanted to show what it looked like in market. The creative featured imagery aligned with the audience they were reaching and was translated into multiple languages in order to speak directly to that target audience.

Another piece of that puzzle was their instructional How-To videos. Mr. Kushner said they worked with CalVCB to break down the complicated steps of starting an application. They provided support on storyboards, B-roll, voiceovers, and helped advise on scripts, ensuring they all met a sixth grade reading level. Then they translated them into 16 different languages. The creation of these videos is in progress and will be available on CalVCB’s website as soon as they are completed.

Ms. Welborn then explained they had one last effort that was focused on low-income audiences. She referenced a slide that highlighted the campaign and their outreach to low-income Californians. She explained that they targeted households whose household income was $75,000 or less across 15 key areas, and overall, they delivered 22 million impressions through channels like display, paid social, and Native advertising. This campaign also saw that paid social performed really well.

The campaign achieved a 1.27% click-through rate, which is what shows the percentage of people who clicked on their ad after seeing it. Ms. Welborn explained it is a way that they measure engagement with the campaign. But at 1.27%, it shows strong engagement and message resonance among low-income communities.

Mr. Kushner then did a deeper dive into the campaign’s performance and showed some slides for visuals. He said that when the LA fires hit, the team knew they needed to be thoughtful and responsive with their strategy. In January 2025, they made the decision to delay their LA Market Media flight, which was originally scheduled for March 2025, but they pushed that flight much later in the year to August, once conditions and messaging in the LA area were appropriate. In the leadup to that in February of 2025, the team paused any creative in and around the LA market in their baseline campaign that included the word “Rebuild.” They noticed that it was causing confusion, especially among fire-impacted communities where that term carried an unintended and new meaning. So, they initiated a creative refresh and looked at their messaging to ensure it was as clear, direct, and sensitive as possible. The goal was to remove ambiguity and keep the focus on support and accessibility.

Mr. Kushner continued, this was where the creative pivot was taken even further. The visual refresh adjusted and updated the creative while staying totally true to the original intent and testing results. This new creative was clearly a part of the same campaign, but it gave the audience something new to react to. He added that performance backed up this move with key performance indicators  continuously increasing following the roll out of the new creative. Mr. Kushner then handed it back to Ms. Mortezazadeh to discuss a recap of the findings from the post-campaign survey, which was the ultimate measure of their success.

Ms. Mortezazadeh stated that because of their campaign, more Californians know about CalVCB and are taking action because of it. She explained that they conducted a post-campaign evaluation survey in February 2026 to assess changes from their campaign baseline. They found in less than 2 years, the campaign significantly increased awareness among low-income Californians from 25% awareness to 31%. This represents a statistically significant lift. She added that it may not seem like a lot, but to remember they’re talking about low-income Californians in these specific 15 counties that they saw the disparity between crime rates and CalVCB applications. So, in just this short amount of time, the team saw a huge increase in awareness, and they also saw increases specifically to Hispanic audiences, which went up to 27% from 22%, while Black and African American audiences increased to 37% from their baseline at 25%. She expressed again that they are talking about a very short amount of time, as they typically do not see these kinds of results in public awareness campaigns. Usually, these types of results take years and years to get. Ms. Mortezazadeh continued that Civilian is very proud of these results, which really demonstrated the impact of awareness campaigns when you put in the effort as they really do change perceptions and awareness.

Ms. Mortezazadeh reported that victims of violent crime demonstrated particularly strong recall of the public awareness campaign, with 59% recalling at least one campaign advertisement. Among surveyed demographic groups, 46% of Hispanic respondents and 44% of Black and African American respondents recalled at least one campaign advertisement.

Ms. Mortezazadeh reported that exposure to campaign messaging increased trust in CalVCB services. Eighty percent of respondents who were aware of the campaign indicated they believed CalVCB could provide financial assistance. She further reported that 72% of campaign-aware respondents took some form of action after seeing campaign messaging, including engaging with social media content, sharing information with others, visiting the CalVCB website, or pursuing the application process.

Ms. Mortezazadeh stated that these results demonstrate the campaign’s success in achieving broad audience reach, increasing awareness of CalVCB services, and generating meaningful engagement. She noted that the findings serve as an important indicator of the campaign’s effectiveness and return on investment.

Ms. Mortezazadeh pointed out that it’s important to know that this campaign, and importantly the State’s investment, proved effective while also providing valuable insights for future outreach. They know that this campaign successfully increased visibility and public recognition of CalVCB across California. They know their paid media, as presented by Ms. Welborn, proved effective. Many of the survey respondents cited billboards, digital advertising, social media, and the influencers they used as their primary sources of awareness, showing these were resonant. Civilian had a lot of culturally relevant and multilingual outreach strategies that really proved to be essential for reaching our underserved communities effectively. She added that you have to try new things, especially when you’re making government campaigns.

Survey findings confirmed that their priority audiences, including victims, most particularly in their support networks, found that the campaign was credible, supportive, inclusive, and motivating. Ms. Mortezazadeh added that Civilian specifically asked them about those words, and the audiences said that is how the campaign made them feel. She added that she believes this campaign is a strong foundation for future CalVCB outreach efforts, particularly to strengthen public trust and to deepen understanding of available victim supports, services, and benefits. She noted that there’s still a lot more work to do, but this really sets them up with a strong foundation for the state. She then turned it back to Mr. Kushner.

Mr. Kushner reported that they can clearly state the CalVCB Public Awareness Campaign achieved its primary goal of increasing awareness with significant gains in key metrics and strong engagement, particularly in priority audiences. He continued that they saw a statistically significant awareness increase driven by limited budget and targeted investment. Most importantly, more victims of violent crime are now more aware of CalVCB, and performance metrics improved throughout the life cycle of the entire campaign.

Mr. Kushner concluded by saying there are opportunities for additional growth and their full report provided to the CalVCB team provides a host of recommendations for future campaigns. He then said he was happy to answer any questions.

Chair Ravel thanked the Civilian team and asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board.

Member Johnson spoke and thanked Civilian for the excellent presentation and for the excellent work. He commented that it looked like a great ability to communicate and reach out to those who have been affected by violent crime, or those in populations that are disproportionately affected by violent crime, so he was glad to see that there is great awareness associated with their campaign.

Member Johnson continued, stating that there did not appear to be a corresponding increase in applications that came through CalVCB during the campaign, but there seemed to be an increased awareness of the program. He asked if anyone from Civilian or CalVCB could share their thoughts on why the campaign didn’t convert to increased applications.

Ms. Cardenas responded by noting Ms. Gledhill’s earlier statement that crime rates are going down, which they know is a contributing factor. She also mentioned that one of the slides during the Civilian presentation on post-campaign awareness showed a decrease in government trust is more broadly affecting people’s desire to apply for CalVCB benefits. In fact, it replaced “complexity of the application process” as the leading concern among the post-awareness survey of court respondents. So, the two biggest contributing facts are the decrease in violent crime rates and  the lack of trust in government.

Member Johnson said he agreed but added that he thought it was surprising that they did not see an increase but noted that the overall trend in distrust is increasing so that could possibly be affecting it.

Ms. Gledhill responded and said that the hope is that the impressions leave someone with the idea that CalVCB’s services are out there for them, whether or not they immediately click the “Apply” button, but more that it is in the back of their head that they could share with a neighbor or friend, or take advantage of the services in the future. She acknowledged that she understands the concern on the application click-through, but the Board hopes it leaves enough of an impression in the community that over time, they will see more applications.

Mr. Kushner agreed with Ms. Gledhill’s comments and added that the focus of the campaign was building awareness to plant the seeds, that would then trickle down to an increase in applications. He continued that he understands for CalVCB there is a long application window from an event to when you must apply. So Civilian viewed an immediate shift in applications as a secondary (or lagging) indicator overall, as they focused on making sure the community understands the resource exists.

Member Johnson agreed that awareness of the program is the most important aspect so that people know if something does happen or if they find themselves in those circumstances, there is a resource for them, so he appreciates that being the focus and added it was more just curiosity as to why it may have happened.

Member Johnson then asked the CalVCB team if they have seen any impact when talking with applicants, or if there have been any mentions of the campaign during conversations the staff has had with applicants.

Ms. Cardenas responded that there is not much data from the applicants themselves, but from their county partners, they were seeing the ads which were driving communications with them. She added that CalVCB approached a portion of the campaign in coordination with those needs, especially the ethnic media pieces in terms of looking at the demographics and understanding where the crime was occurring and where they needed to support folks in other languages. She added that they worked with Civilian to make sure they had the resources available on their side so when they launched those ad campaigns, they were able to support folks. All the translation efforts that CalVCB has been making recently were done in coordination with this campaign, so that those resources were available when the ads went live.

Member Johnson said that he appreciated that and thinks the work through the partners is so critical. He noted that there appeared to be some outstanding and sticky barriers at hand. The first is a larger question of trust in government as a helpful entity in people’s lives. The other is that there seems to be a struggle of promoting awareness of the resources available for a victim of violent crime, not just seeing an ad for CalVCB, but having it resonate that if they become a victim of violent crime, that there are resources available for them. He acknowledged that there may not be any recommendations, other than to just recognize the sticky barriers.

Ms. Gledhill responded and acknowledged that there is not an easy elevator pitch or slogan, as CalVCB and Civilian worked very hard to try and figure out the best messaging. She went on to explain it is difficult to describe and break down the layers of complexity of the program, like payor of last resort, or submitting bills so they can get reimbursed, so they continue to think about how to make that message clearer and simpler and reach the people who most need the support. Ms. Gledhill added that this was a $3 million campaign over three years in the State of California, so they were only able to get so far. She reported that they really tried with the Civilian team to focus on areas where they could make the most difference and have the biggest impact.

Ms. Gledhill added as CalVCB moves forward internally as a team, the goal will be to continue to build on this work to the extent they can with their internal resources to see if they can continue with that messaging and working with our partners to make sure they understand how the CalVCB application process works.

Member Johnson inquired what CalVCB is going to do with all the resources, visual graphics, and data infrastructure at this point.

Ms. Cardenas responded that the contract with Civilian ends the following week, so the team has been working closely with Civilian to obtain all the digital assets so they can continue to be used on social media, with CalVCB’s partners, including the instructional videos that they Have been working on. She added that she is excited to share those with the Board when they are done because they do address that next piece of the complexity of the application and they have five different videos that they have scripted. They are all at the sixth-grade level, and they go over how to apply, what the benefits are, what to do if you do not have a crime report, etc. Ms. Cardenas explained they have tried to target issues that they know are pain points for applicants and created these short and simple videos to try and help applicants.

Member Johnson thanked Deputy Cardenas for all of the good work that Civilian and the CalVCB team put in.

Chair Ravel thanked Member Johnson and then called on Member Becton, who appeared via Zoom.

Member Becton said she echoed the acknowledgment of all the work that went into this process and she expressed her appreciation of the outreach to increase community awareness and to build general awareness about the resources that are available through CalVCB, especially in the underserved communities.

Member Becton continued, saying it was good to hear from staff that they are already thinking ahead about some of the challenges that were discovered through this campaign. She said it is impressive that the goal of building awareness was the primary goal, and she thinks the team has done a great job of identifying success in that area.

Member Becton further highlighted the concern of the decreased trust among all government entities in general, not just CalVCB, and that it can be an area of focus. She added she was glad to hear that staff were already identifying it and trying to build resources to decrease the complexity of the process because for the average person who may have suffered from being a victim of crime and also experiencing the trauma of being faced with a complex application process, it can be very daunting. She continued, noting that to the extent that we can begin to concentrate on those areas and build the trust, determine how to hear from applicants, especially those who maybe have gone through the process and who have received benefits that would be willing to discuss their experience and their challenges in the process, it can help CalVCB learn and help improve our processes.

Member Becton concluded by thanking everyone for their efforts and for the results of the campaign.

Chair Ravel thanked Member Becton and said he echoed his colleagues’ commendations. He added that this was an extraordinary effort, and he really appreciated everything that was done to increase awareness of the services that CalVCB offers and the communities who need it most.

Chair Ravel asked about some of the challenges that remain and that the team encountered during the process, but expressed since it was not known if there will be resources to do another project of this nature, he wondered what the CalVCB team is thinking in terms of building on the success of the engagement and keeping it going to the extent CalVCB is able.

Ms. Cardenas replied that CalVCB has pivoted to focus on what we can do with our internal resources, which is the team’s biggest resource, absent a campaign. She continued that this year, the strategic communications plan that they have put forward followed a similar process as Civilian’s, where they are looking at crime data and application gaps, and identifying priority counties. Ms. Cardenas said they are first working with the county partners, like the district attorneys’ offices and community-based organizations and following a similar process to find in-language partners. These outreach efforts are mimicking the success CalVCB saw in the Civilian campaign. She noted Ms. Gledhill’s earlier comment regarding our year-to-date in-person outreach this year having already exceeded what CalVCB did last year, showing they have stepped up the in-person outreach, and the team is making the most of the resources they do have.

Ms. Cardenas went on to explain CalVCB has done a lot of sprints in different areas, with the example that if the team is in San Bernardino for three days, then they will hit as many organizations and make as many presentations as they possibly can. She further noted that they have used similar tactics in San Diego as they used in Los Angeles this year. CalVCB has done a lot of work to identify what the areas and populations are that need to be covered and determining how to do that most effectively and efficiently.

Chair Ravel said it was great to hear that the effort was not just a one-time thing and put on the shelf and thanked Deputy Cardenas.

Item 5. Public Comment on Items Not on the Agenda

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).

Chair Ravel called on Michael Siegel, who appeared via Zoom. Mr. Siegel started by saying he wanted to thank the CalVCB Board and staff, especially for their work in resolving the problem with the Department of Justice and the payment of attorney fees. He explained that since that time, the processing of claims and awards of benefits to his clients has plummeted to about 20% of his income from the previous year, which is unsustainable. Mr. Siegel stated that he believes the problem relates to the new process of the staff or the Board verifying payments to or services provided by mental health providers, as he has been receiving dozens of notices of denials of payments every day due to unsuccessful efforts to reach the claimant to verify the claim or services, and because CalVCB did not receive a call back, could not reach the claimant or perhaps there was a change in the phone number, the claims are being denied. He referenced the distrust in government or that the claimant may not answer the phone in fear of the perpetrator trying to reach them, so the calls are blocked.

Mr. Siegel continued that there is a problem with the mental health providers not receiving the payments, and often the effort is made many months or sometimes years after the services are provided, so people may have moved and cannot be reached. He stated that he is troubled by the prospect that some of these mental health agencies that he works with, deal with this problem in the Hispanic and low-income communities, and face having to close their doors due to not being paid. Or they are paying their staff and then not getting reimbursed later as they had been.

Mr. Siegel stated that he hopes there is another way to verify these services or questioned if it was even necessary. He said he was not sure that the process made sense since the mental health providers are licensed and if there is a suspicion of fraud, then CalVCB should just refer that over to the Board of Behavioral Science Examiners, or the Psychology Board to investigate if there is a problem. He continued that he encourages an alternative approach or to go back to the old system of paying the bills that are incurred, which he believes would save the CalVCB staff time, as their current efforts of making phone calls and trying to follow up, takes time away from processing the appeals, which he stated is another problem.

Mr. Siegel continued to discuss appeals, stating that he has filed numerous appeals, which seem to be languishing. He added that he receives a six-month notice, more often than he receives a resolution. He acknowledged that he was not sure if it was legal or justified, but he encouraged an alternative approach. He said he thinks the “trust in government” issue is probably a factor in why this is a problem. Mr. Siegel said he reached out to upper management recently and explained this problem and got a response, but it was not clear that there was going to be any change. He offered a suggestion about self-verifying by the therapist under penalty of perjury that the services were offered. He further stated that since he is the authorized representative for his clients, theoretically all communication should go through him.

Mr. Siegel offered another suggestion for having contact go through him and suggested he can verify that the services were provided, or he could follow up with his clients, noting that this affects his income and his income is based on the awards made to his clients.

Mr. Siegel said he knew CalVCB was tracking the number of claims that have been denied or approved, but he wondered if they were tracking how many claims were approved but not paid or not completely paid. He figured it would show up in the general numbers of how much has been paid out for clients and claimants, but not necessarily on a per-claim basis. He continued that he would be curious if his experience was reflected in those numbers.

Mr. Siegel concluded by thanking the Board and stating he appreciated the chance to update the Board on where he stands and on this new problem he is experiencing.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Siegel and noted that the Board is aware of the appeals backlog, and he knows that staff have been working diligently to increase the number of attorneys to work on the appeals. He agreed that it is taking too long, but staff is doing everything they can to ameliorate it with respect to Mr. Siegel’s main concern.

Chair Ravel stated that he wanted to seek clarification from Mr. Siegel so he could understand his issue properly. He asked if the issue is that there is now a new process that staff did not previously follow under which behavioral health services are being verified by attempting to contact the claimant, and staff are having trouble reaching the claimant for one reason or another, so the claimants have an approved claim but that piece of the service is not being paid?

Mr. Siegel replied that he wanted to be fair to the staff and that he does not think this is totally new. He said he does believe that staff reach out and do the spot checks that they used to, but he is noticing the increase of denial notices that he receives daily in comparison to the past. He further noted that the bases for the denials are for “failure to verify that the services were crime related.” Then when he tried to follow-up on what that meant, he was told that CalVCB could not verify with the claimant because they could not reach them or they never received a call back. He continued that it is very rare that it was an issue where a claimant did not receive the services, but mostly that CalVCB did not receive a response. So rather than reach out to him or the therapist to verify, CalVCB just made the recommendation to deny payment for the claim.

Mr. Siegel continued that this then requires an appeal which increases the backlog of appeals and also extends the time for resolution for 3-6 months longer before the therapist actually has a chance of being paid, which could be devastating to a business that is trying to operate and serve victims. He added that therapists that cannot survive will close their doors and that is one fewer resource for the victims to receive help, which he feels is counterintuitive.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Siegel for the clarification.

Chair Ravel then called on Margaret Petros, Executive Director  of Mothers Against Murder (MAM), who appeared via Zoom.

Ms. Petros provided public comment regarding CalVCB’s administrative and appeals processes. She expressed concern that CalVCB staff are creating unnecessary work through additional verification procedures. As an authorized representative, she stated that CalVCB has recently begun contacting victims to confirm her authorization to represent them despite signed authorization forms already being on file. She asserted that these additional verification measures are unnecessary and burdensome for both representatives and victims.

Ms. Petros also commented on the recent audit results referenced in Ms. Gledhill’s Executive Officer Statement. She stated that she found it noteworthy that the audits resulted in no findings or recommendations for CalVCB and questioned whether auditors consulted with MAM regarding concerns the organization has raised about CalVCB’s practices. She referenced litigation involving MAM and CalVCB and stated her belief that issues raised through that litigation should have been considered during the audit process. She also questioned whether perspectives from individuals who have raised concerns during Board meetings were considered as part of CalVCB’s public awareness campaign. Ms. Petros stated that in making this public comment, she hopes the public will independently keep a record and ask themselves why this is happening.

Ms. Petros further commented on the agenda item involving proposed decisions following a claimant’s failure to appear or proceed. She noted that approximately 113 claims were listed under the item and stated her belief that the number reflects victims and surviving family members who requested hearings after receiving claim denials. She argued that, rather than providing hearings when denials were contested, CalVCB’s revised appeals process created additional notices, deadlines, and procedural requirements that may have discouraged victims from continuing with their appeals. Ms. Petros stated her belief that some victims became lost in what she described as a complex bureaucratic process and may have abandoned their appeals despite wanting to pursue them.

Ms. Petros referenced concerns she previously raised before the Board regarding the revised appeals regulations and asserted that the number of failure to appear cases demonstrated the consequences of those changes. She urged the Board to reexamine the process and consider whether it creates barriers for victims seeking compensation and opportunities to be heard.

Ms. Petros concluded by thanking the Board. Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Petros.

Item 6. Approval of the Minutes of the March 19, 2026, Board Meeting

Chair Ravel asked the Board if there were any discussions, additions, or corrections to the Minutes for the March 19, 2026, Board meeting. As there were no comments or questions, Chair Ravel called for a motion to approve Item 6.

Member Johnson moved for approval of the Minutes for the March 19, 2026, Board meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Becton.

Board Liaison Andrea Burrell, then called for any public comment before the matter was brought to a vote.

By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed, however due to technical difficulties with Member Becton’s microphone, chief counsel Kim Gauthier asked that the role be called again to be certain all members’ votes were accurately recorded.

The motion was recalled and passed by a unanimous vote of the Board.

Item 7. May Revise Update for Fiscal Year 2026-27 Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards

The Proposal to Approve the May Revise Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards was presented by Deputy Executive Officer, Katie Cardenas.

Ms. Cardenas stated she was seeking the Board’s approval to fund an additional Trauma Recovery Center (TRC), as there was sufficient funding in the May Revised budget to support another organization. She reported that the May Revise provided an additional $738,150 to the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Fund. Ms. Cardenas explained that if you add that amount to the $84,321 that remained from the information provided at the March Board Meeting, there is enough funding for the Board to award a grant to the University of Southern California, which was the next highest scoring applicant.

Ms. Cardenas continued that following the March Board meeting, organizations that had applied for a TRC grant, but that did not score high enough to be recommended for funding, were notified of the decision and given contact information to reach out if they had questions or wanted application feedback. The Grant Program section supervisor met virtually with nine organizations to provide feedback and summary scores. Five of those organizations were current or former grant recipients and four were applicants who had not previously received a grant. Ms. Cardenas reported that the Grant team continues to be available to provide feedback to former applicants, so long as a Notice of Funding is available and active.

Ms. Cardenas next shared that in July, CalVCB will be bringing forward the item regarding the geographic distribution of the TRCs that was requested by the Board at the meeting in March.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Cardenas and her staff for their diligence. He then thanked Member Becton for her astute suggestion that the Board hold off on final awards until the May Revised budget data was available, which he believed was the right call. He further commented that it was really good news and he supports the revised awards.

Chair Ravel asked if there were any other comments or questions regarding the revised TRC grant proposal.

Member Johnson asked what the cause was for the increase in funding for the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Fund.

Ms. Cardenas explained that the estimate is developed by the Department of Finance based on the anticipated savings from Proposition 47. CalVCB’s impression was that the savings from Proposition 47 were higher than the Department of Finance had initially anticipated, which was a significant shift.

Member Johnson stated that he was surprised there was such a big shift but was grateful that there was a positive change.

Chair Ravel then asked if there was a motion to approve Item 7. Member Johnson moved to approve the May Revise update for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards, as recommended. The motion was seconded by Member Becton.

Board Liaison Andrea Burrell, then called for any public comment before the matter was brought to a vote.

Seeing no questions or public comment, Chair Ravel called for a vote to approve Item 7. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 8. Gerry Johns (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier presented the Penal Code Section 4900 claim of Gerry Johns. Ms. Gauthier stated that Mr. Johns submitted a claim on July 31, 2024, to CalVCB as an erroneously convicted person. That application was supplemented on September 30, 2024, and October 8, 2024, and was based on Mr. Johns’  1981 conviction for felony murder, which was vacated and dismissed in 2021 pursuant to Penal Code Section 1172.6. The claim seeks $2,075,640 for an unspecified duration of imprisonment.

Ms. Gauthier continued that the Attorney General objected to the claim, arguing the evidence fails to prove by a preponderance that Mr. Johns is innocent of felony murder as it was defined at the time the offense occurred. As explained in detail in the hearing officer’s Proposed Decision, the claim is recommended for denial because Mr. Johns has failed to meet his burden of proof that he is innocent of the challenged conviction as required by Penal Code Section 4900(a). Throughout the administrative proceedings, Mr. Johns represented himself, and the office of the Attorney General was represented by Deputy Attorney General James Spradley.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gauthier and addressed Mr. Johns, who appeared via Zoom, and gave him the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Johns stated that as he presented in his proposed objections to the decision to reject his claim, he had a few questions that he wanted to ask the panel. He said that his overall disposition is that there is a contradiction in terms of what is happening in this instance. Mr. Johns stated there is problem that nobody can clearly clarify the wrongful conviction part of the sentence, specifically with him being a vacatur and the murder not being a factor when he was re-sentenced to the lesser charge which held a maximum of a 4-year term, but he had served 40 years.

Mr. Johns stated the question is whether there is a wrongful conviction of the 36 years that can be considered or accounted for or does that violate the ability for compensation? Mr. Johns felt he should be compensated for the excess 36 years due to the wrongful conviction, as there was a mischaracterization of the facts of the case being a felony murder conviction. He stated he was never charged, convicted, or alleged to have been involved in a felony murder conviction. He continued that the jury never came back and specifically found him guilty of a felony murder conviction, no evidence had been presented by the prosecution, and the Proposed Decision did not point to any significant evidence that would significantly point to the fact that he was never found guilty of felony murder, which at this point is not even a factor. Mr. Johns said the fact of the vacatur of the murder being dismissed means it is erased as if it never occurred, so he does not understand that if he was then re-sentenced to a 4-year term after already serving 40 years in prison, he felt is a wrongful incarceration and therefore meets the standards of Penal Code 4900.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Johns and then invited Deputy Attorney General James Spradley from the Department of Justice to address the Board.

Mr. Spradley stated that unless the Board had any questions, that the Attorney General respectfully submits that Mr. Johns has not established his innocence within the meaning of Section 4900, and asked that the Board adopt the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision in full.

Chair Ravel asked if there were any questions or discussion from the Board. Seeing no questions or comment, Chair Ravel called for a motion to approve item 8.

Member Johnson moved to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision in the Penal Code section 4900 matter of Gerry Johns. The motion was seconded by Member Becton. No public comment was offered. By a majority vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 9. Ramon Del Rio (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier, presented on the Penal Code Section 4900 claim of Ramon Del Rio. Ms. Gauthier stated that Mr. Del Rio submitted an application with CalVCB on December 20, 2023, as an erroneously convicted person. That application was supplemented on May 16, 2024, and based on Mr. Del Rio’s 1977 convictions of two counts of first-degree felony murder, which were vacated and dismissed in 2022 pursuant to Penal Code Section 1172.6. The claim seeks $2,287,180 for 16,337 days of imprisonment.

Ms. Gauthier continued that the Attorney General objected to the claim, arguing the evidence fails to prove by a preponderance that Mr. Del Rio is innocent of felony 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 because Mr. Del Rio 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 administrative proceedings, Mr. Del Rio was represented by Russell Carr, and the office of the Attorney General was represented by Deputy Attorney General, Tami Hennick.

Chair Ravel then invited attorney Russell Carr up to the podium to speak on behalf of Mr. Del Rio.

Mr. Carr thanked the Board for the opportunity to address them today. He stated that he respectfully submits that the Board should exercise its discretion to reject the Proposed Decision from the Hearing Officer dated May 8, 2026. Mr. Carr continued that if the Board is inclined to reject the Proposed Decision, it would conceivably have two options under the governing regulations, specifically section 619.5.

One of the options would be to remand to the Hearing Officer with instructions, or alternatively the Board can consider the evidence that Mr. Del Rio submitted and make a determination that he showed by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not commit the two counts of felony murder. He believes the decision was unsupported by evidence in the administrative record and has several erroneous points, which he pleaded in his brief dated May 19, 2026.

Mr. Carr went on to address the topics in his brief. He reported that on page 23 of the Proposed Decision, the Hearing Officer concluded that there was another inmate named Benjamin Mejia who stated in an audio recording that Mr. Del Rio had hired Mr. Mejia to kill the victims. He said the Proposed Decision states that the audio recording was not admitted in the Administrative Hearing, and he said to use that against Mr. Del Rio was unjust because there is no independent record of it, no transcript of it was admitted at the Administrative Hearing, nor was an original copy of the transcript admitted. He continued that the information came from a 1978 Probation Report and a Sentence Hearing transcript.

Mr. Carr explained what was notable about those documents was in 2023 the California Court of Appeal analyzed those same documents and said that they fatally undermined each other and they were inaccurate. He said the reason why the California Court of Appeal said this is because in that Sentencing Hearing, Mr. Del Rio’s attorney, Robert May, pointed out all the deficiencies and the inaccuracies in the Probation Report. The prosecutor, Philip Walden, agreed there were inaccuracies, later noting in the 2023 Opinion from the California Court of Appeal, that the documents were unreliable.

Mr. Carr continued, arguing that despite the Court of Appeal already analyzing the documents and providing an analysis on them, the Hearing Officer relied on these two very same documents to say that Mr. Del Rio’s testimony is not reliable.

In addition to the audio recording that was not part of the Hearing Record, Mr. Carr noted that on page 24 of the Proposed Decision, the Hearing Officer stated that if she was going to believe Mr. Del Rio’s testimony, she would have to ignore the testimony of approximately five other witnesses.

Mr. Carr noted that these witnesses did not testify at the Administrative Hearing on September 23, 2025. Additionally, the transcripts of the witnesses’ testimonies were not admitted at the hearing on September 23, 2025. Mr. Carr claimed that for that reason, it is difficult to say that the witnesses’ testimony was credible but Mr. Del Rio’s was not, when the witnesses’ testimony is unknown, since that evidence was not in the record.

Mr. Carr continued that he believes that the Proposed Decision had several erroneous legal statements. One was that Mr. Del Rio was required to prove his innocent under any plausible theory. Statutes, regulations, and the case law governing section 4900 claims, make clear that Mr. Del Rio’s burden is to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he did not commit these crimes for which he served 44 years in prison. Mr. Carr stated that the Hearing Officer said Mr. Del Rio had to prove his innocence under any plausible theory but the difficulty is the Hearing Officer concluded he had aided and abetted the murders, and that was based on this audio recording that was not introduced at the administrative hearing. Mr. Carr argued that Mr. Del Rio  did meet his burden.

Mr. Carr continued, stating the Hearing Officer said the published California Court of Appeal decision from 2023 was not binding on her, and that these proceedings were fundamentally different. He added that Mr. Del Rio never argued that they were identical proceedings, but they should not be viewed on “two separate islands” as they involve the same operative facts.

Mr. Carr went on, noting that Mr. Del Rio filed his Petition under Senate Bill 1437 (SB 1437) to be released because he was not the actual killer. Under section 1170.95, which is now Penal Code 1172.6, the prosecution is required to put up evidence that Mr. Del Rio was the actual killer. Mr. Carr informed that at this hearing, the prosecution stated they did not have evidence of the robbery or of the murder, but the Superior Court stated that Mr. Del Rio still had to be re-sentenced for something, so they decided to re-sentence him for robbery, which Mr. Del Rio thought was unfair, since he did not commit a robbery.

Mr. Carr continued that Mr. Del Rio appealed that decision and when it went up to the Court of Appeal, the court stated that the evidence that the prosecution submitted, which was the1978 Probation Report and the 1978 Sentencing Hearing transcript, was not reliable, and they reversed Mr. Del Rio’s robbery conviction. However, at the hearing on September 23, 2025, where Mr. Del Rio testified, the Attorney General submitted the same 1975 Probation Report and 1978 Sentencing Hearing transcript, and the Hearing Officer stated that those documents rebutted Mr. Del Rio’s credibility. Mr. Carr said he respectfully believes that it is unjust because those documents were deemed unreliable.

Mr. Carr gave an example that Section 641(b) of the Board’s regulations says that even if there is an evidentiary bar like hearsay, the Board can still consider evidence so long as reasonable people would rely on it in serious affairs. He continued that when you have an opinion from the Court of Appeal that says evidence is not reliable, then the Hearing Officer should not have relied on that evidence.

Mr. Carr continued, stating if this Board is inclined to exercise its discretion to reject the Proposed Decision, it could conclude that Mr. Del Rio met his burden, and Mr. Carr would submit that Mr. Del Rio testified at the evidentiary hearing that he did not rob the victims, nor kill the victims, nor hire anyone to kill the victims. He said Mr. Del Rio did not participate in any manner in these crimes. Mr. Carr added that the only forensic evidence that was submitted at trial was a neutronic hair analysis, which was also introduced at the administrative hearing, that showed the hair found at the crime scene on the victim’s watch was not Mr. Del Rio’s. Mr. Carr stated that the Hearing Officer even indicated in her proposed Decision there were no fingerprints or DNA evidence linking Mr. Del Rio to Mr. Mejia.

Mr. Carr respectfully submitted that the Board should exercise its discretion to reject the Proposed Decision. He noted that his client, Mr. Del Rio, was present on Zoom from San Diego and would be happy to address the Board, and that he was open to answer questions as well. Mr. Carr thanked the Board for their time.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Carr and called on Mr. Del Rio to speak, who appeared via Zoom.

Mr. Del Rio stated that he was sentenced and convicted for something he did not do, and he is innocent of the murders of Ronald Watkins and Helen Ross. He further stated that he never communicated with Benjamin Mejia about hiring him to perform the acts he is being accused of. He continued that he has suffered due to the injustices he has experienced and therefore wanted to bring it to the Board’s attention today.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Del Rio and called upon Ms. Hennick from the Attorney General’s office.

Ms. Hennick, who appeared via Zoom, stated that the Attorney General agreed with the Proposed Decision and asked that the Board adopt the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision and offered to answer any questions.

Chair Ravel asked if there were any questions or discussion from the Board. Seeing no questions or public comment, Chair Ravel called for a motion to approve Item 9.

Member Becton moved to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision in the Penal Code section 4900 matter of Ramon Del Rio. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson. No public comment was offered. By a majority vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Closed Session

The Board adjourned into Closed Session with the Executive Officer and Chief Counsel at 11:30 a.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) to deliberate on proposed decision numbers 1 through 195 of the Victim Compensation Program.

Open Session

The Board reconvened in Open Session pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) at 11:35 a.m.

Member Becton moved to approve items 1 through 195 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 May Board meeting. Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:36 a.m.

Next Board Meeting

The next Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 16, 2026.