DRAFT

California Victim Compensation Board

Open Meeting Minutes

July 16, 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, July 16, 2026, at 10:07 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 thanked the Board members and began by highlighting a couple of items that were also included on the Board’s agenda.

First, Ms. Gledhill reported that the Governor’s final 2026-27 Budget included $12.5 million in additional, one-time funding for Trauma Recovery Centers (TRCs). It also included funding for TRCs to provide flexible emergency cash assistance and for the UC system to provide training and technical assistance. Ms. Gledhill added that CalVCB was not involved in this additional funding being inserted into the budget, but CalVCB welcomes the ability to fund more TRCs. She added that CalVCB continues to believe that a long-term and stable funding solution will be necessary to avoid this scenario in future years.

Ms. Gledhill reported there will also be a presentation and information about geographical distribution of TRCs and funding, as requested by the Board.

Ms. Gledhill alerted the Board that staff would be seeking approval for Mental Health Regulations later in the agenda. She explained there was a 45-day period for the public to comment on the proposed regulations, which concluded on March 30, 2026, and a public hearing was held on May 7, 2026. She said if the Board approves finalizing these regulations, the Program staff will return in September with updates to the Mental Health Guidelines. She added that both the regulations and the updated guidelines would need to be effective at the same time, which she anticipates would go into effect on either October 1, 2026, or January 1, 2027, depending on the Office of Administrative Law’s (OAL) review timeline.

Ms. Gledhill next updated that the State Controller’s Office (SCO) shared the final Audit Report related to its review of the TRC program and added that there were no findings or recommendations for CalVCB. She said that the SCO concluded that CalVCB disbursed and expended Proposition 47 grant funds in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, as well as grant requirements.

Ms. Gledhill went on to discuss that CalVCB recently completed a six-week engagement with the California Department of Technology (CDT) to develop a modernization roadmap based on CalVCB’s current application and billing processes. She said CDT is currently working on the deliverables, which will help as CalVCB begins its efforts to modernize the system of record. She added that CalVCB expects to soon release a Request for Information as the next step in this process.

Ms. Gledhill then thanked CDT for their partnership in completing this sprint and providing valuable information and insights to the organization. She also thanked the CalVCB staff who worked closely and many long hours with CDT to walk them through the requirements and processes so they could better understand CalVCB’s system of record.

Ms. Gledhill continued, stating that in August, she will be attending the California District Attorney Association’s annual conference to present an update on CalVCB and answer any questions from the members at the event. She said she would also be meeting with Victim Advocates through the California Crime Victim’s Assistance Association’s advocate training session to answer questions and collaborate on how to best to support victims across the state as they apply for compensation.

Ms. Gledhill next reported that on July 1, 2026, the Attorney General of the State of California released updated crime data for the 2025 calendar year, which aligns with the preliminary FBI data that she shared with the Board in May. She noted that the overall violent crime rate in the state of California decreased by 10% in 2025 compared to 2024. The homicide rate decreased almost 19% and the robbery rate decreased 20%. California’s homicide rate now stands at 3.5 per 100,000 residents, which is the lowest rate recorded since statewide reporting began nearly six decades ago. This is fantastic news for public safety in the state of California. Ms. Gledhill acknowledged that CalVCB knows that will have a corresponding impact on application and compensation numbers, so we will continue to monitor these trends so that it can be put into the proper context when applications come into the system.

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

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gledhill and acknowledged the information on the crime rate and the funding for the TRCs was terrific news. He added that the Board is aware the [TRC] program has significant needs that cannot be met entirely so it was great that CalVCB was able to get a little more of that need met across the State.

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

Member Johnson commented that he shared the Board’s excitement about the additional funding for the TRCs, and he was happy to see the community’s advocacy seems to have paid off, and now a number of TRCs can remain open that would have otherwise been shut down.

Item 2. Legislative Update

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

Ms. Cardenas stated the Legislature is currently on summer recess and returns on August 3, 2026, for the final month of the legislative session. Only one bill that impacts CalVCB is still active.

AB 2297 by Assemblymember Stefani is currently on the Senate Floor awaiting its final vote. That bill would require defendants who participate in diversion programs to pay direct restitution to their victims. Those restitution orders would also reimburse CalVCB for expenses that have already been paid on behalf of a victim.

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 renewal contracts for printer and document imaging maintenance as well as CalVCB’s learning management system. The report also includes some of the Criminal Restitution compact agreements which support the imposition of restitution.

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

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

Item 4. Public Comment on Items Not on the Agenda

The Board opened the meeting for public comment and Ms. 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 Jake Wolf, who appeared in person. Mr. Wolf started by saying that even though he knew members of the Board in other fashions, he appeared today strictly as a parent. He continued, stating that he currently has an appeal before the Board, but he wanted to come and address the Board in person, since he had the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Wolf thanked the Board for the opportunity and for their time and service. He added that he could not imagine having to do this for a living and hearing the things that they hear, so he sympathized with that and thanked them from one public servant to the other. He continued that it truly is service and while people talk about the public part all the time, the servitude portion is rarely spoken about and so he thanked CalVCB for their service.

Mr. Wolf stated that his daughter was murdered in 2022. She was the first fentanyl murder in California state history, and the first of many more to come. He reported that she was only 15 years old and was a legally vulnerable minor whose age and developmental capacity should be given significant mitigating weight. He said the Board’s own regulation recognizes that a victim’s age, physical condition, and physical state are relevant mitigating factors. He added that his daughter’s case was unfortunately the first of what has become many fentanyl murders in the state of California’s history.

Mr. Wolf continued that this case presents an opportunity to recognize a stark reality and being a public servant himself, he understands that sometimes it takes time for policy to catch up to law. He added that sometimes things do not fit in the neat, little boxes that are drawn whenever public policy is made.

Mr. Wolf said that this was not just for him and his family, who have significant expenses for mental health treatment, but for the people who come after him that will likely have a similar situation. He requested that the Board consider the facts. He added that either way the Board chooses to rule on the appeal, the members will still have his utmost respect and support in any way, and he will hold no animus. He wished for the Board to make the proper decision, specifically, the one that is the correct one.

Mr. Wolf concluded by thanking the Board.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Wolf for his testimony and expressed on behalf of the Board how sorry he was for the horrible loss that Mr. Wolf and his family suffered.

Item 5. Approval of the Minutes of the May 28, 2026, Board Meeting

Chair Ravel asked the Board if there were any discussions, additions, or corrections to the Minutes for the May 28, 2026, Board meeting. There were no comments or questions, so Chair Ravel called for a motion to approve Item 5.

Member Johnson moved for approval of the Minutes for the May 28, 2026, Board meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Becton.

Board Liaison Andrea Burrell, then called for any public comment on Item 5. There being no questions or public comments, Chair Ravel called for a vote to approve Item 5. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 6. Analysis of Geographic Distribution of Trauma Recovery Centers and Funding

The Analysis of Geographic Distribution of Trauma Recovery Centers and Funding was presented by Deputy Executive Officer, Katie Cardenas.

Ms. Cardenas started by saying this Board item includes two parts. She said the first part was regarding enacting the Budget Act and noted she would be asking for a motion before she moves on to the second part, which is about CalVCB’s geographical analysis of Trauma Recovery Centers (TRCs).

She said that she shared the same sentiment as Executive Officer Gledhill that CalVCB appreciates the additional one-time funding for the TRCs that will allow more victims to receive services. This funding will allow existing TRC’s who were not recommended for a consecutive grant in March to receive their requested amount, or $2.2 million, for two years, whichever is lower.

Ms. Cardenas explained that the Budget Act language is very specific about how the funding must be allocated. It allocates $11 million to existing TRCs awarded funding for the 2024-25 and 2025-26 fiscal years who applied but were not recommended for funding. This equates to four currently funded TRCs who are recommended to receive $8.3 million.

Ms. Cardenas reported there are three former TRCs that served victims in Southern California who also applied in this cycle but were not included in CalVCB’s recommendation because they don’t meet the requirements of the Budget Act and there is not sufficient funding.

She reported that it would take almost $14.5 million to fund the existing and former TRCs but given the very precise allocation formula in the Budget Act, it does not appear possible for the Board to apply a broader interpretation.

Ms. Cardenas went on, noting that the National Alliance for Trauma Recovery Centers (NATRC) stated in their advocacy materials that this funding was meant to sustain five TRCs that were at risk for closure. The fifth is the USC TRC, for which the Board previously approved funding. The Budget Act directed this TRC to be brought up to its full funding request of $2 million.

Ms. Cardenas said in order to avoid disruption of services to victims for these five TRCs, she requests that the Board approve the grant term to start on July 1, 2026, and run through June 30, 2028.

Ms. Cardenas continued that the Budget Act also allocates funding for Flexible Emergency Cash Assistance for 22 TRCs and the UC TRC Technical Assistance Program. She said CalVCB is currently working on updating these agreements from the previous documents which were authorized by the Budget Act of 2022. She requested Board approval to ensure that when these documents are approved and signed by both parties, they can go into effect immediately.

Ms. Cardenas requested the Board approve the staff’s recommendation to award the TRC grants for July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2028, as authorized in the Budget Act of 2026, as well as the Executive Officer’s execution of the Flexible Emergency Cash Assistance Program (FECAP) grants for 22 TRCs and the Executive Officer’s execution of the UC Technical Assistance Program contract. She then asked for a motion.

Chair Ravel thanked Deputy Cardenas and asked if there was any discussion regarding the enactment of the General Fund Budget Act language from the Board. With no comments from the Board, he asked for a motion to approve Item 6.

Member Johnson moved to approve Item 6 and clarified that it was only for the first part regarding the approval of staff’s recommendation to award the TRC grants for July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2028, as authorized in the Budget Act of 2026; as well as the Executive Officer’s execution of the FECAP grants for 22 TRCs and the Executive Officer’s execution of the UCTAP Contract. Member Becton seconded the motion.

Chair Ravel then called for any public comment before the matter was brought to a vote.

There being no questions or public comments, Chair Ravel called for a vote to approve the first part of Item 6. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Ms. Cardenas then continued with the second part of the Board item that was requested by the Board at the March meeting. She thanked the Board for their continued interest and engagement regarding TRCs, acknowledging that they are a critical resource for victims. She also recognized her team, who put significant effort into improving their current process following the feedback they received last July. She said that a lot of time and resources went into reviewing data, considering alternatives, and preparing the analysis for the Board and that she is grateful for the team’s efforts and dedication.

Ms. Cardenas went on to explain that in March, the Board requested additional information about whether places with higher crime rates were being appropriately considered, about regions without TRCs, and the impact on victims if the current methodology is changed. She said this Board item includes background information regarding TRC statutory requirements, how the current grant process meets those requirements, and context regarding TRC service areas.

Ms. Cardenas said she wanted to reiterate the statutory language which states, “The Trauma Recovery Center sites shall be selected by the Board through a well-defined selection process that takes into account the rate of crime and geographic distribution to serve the greatest number of victims.”

Ms. Cardenas added that as part of their analysis, staff considered the presence of multiple TRCs in a county has not been proven to be evidence that there are sufficient TRC services available. Many victims in highly populated areas still go without access to services due to a higher number of violent crimes compared to the capacity of the organization.

Ms. Cardenas stated they have also provided key statistics to help frame this conversation. The data shows that CalVCB has historically had the most TRCs in regions and counties with the highest total number of violent crimes.

Ms. Cardenas noted the Board requested alternatives to the current approach for considering geography when allocating funding and this item provides three alternatives. She said each alternative includes potential benefits and consequences for consideration, and they have included the steps the Board would need to take to implement any of these alternatives.

Ms. Cardenas explained that the first alternative is to incentivize applicants to create geographically disbursed satellite services by awarding additional Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) points. The second alternative is to award additional points for establishing a TRC in counties or regions without one. The last alternative is to implement regional NOFAs.

Ms. Cardenas reported that as part of their research, the team also met with the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee at the request of Member Johnson to learn more about their process for considering geography in distributing bonds and tax credits for housing projects. As part of this conversation, it was noted that the Committee is distributing significantly more funding, which allows them to develop a more nuanced formula that considers geography as well as earmarking funding for specific needs. 

Ms. Cardenas shared that after this thorough review, CalVCB continues to support their current process and believes it meets the statutory requirements regarding geographic distribution. The process aligns with the statute by evaluating each applicant’s ability to serve the greatest number of victims, while also considering geographic location and crime rates. As such, CalVCB recommends that the current competitive process, modeled after statutory requirements, be maintained.

Ms. Cardenas concluded by saying she was available to answer any questions.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Cardenas and the team for preparing the alternatives and for carefully thinking through it to help the Board weigh the pros and cons of each alternative, while including the existing process. He said he thinks they all wish that there were sufficient resources to fund all the TRCs, but that just is not the case. Chair Ravel added that ultimately, he thinks it is a question of resource allocation, and although the statute recognizes that geographic diversity and crime rates ought to be considered, he believes the primary goal is to serve the greatest number of victims. He added that when you have the bulk of the population in two major central areas, that it stands to reason that those would be more highly represented.

Chair Ravel then opened it up for comments, questions, and discussion from the Board.

Member Johnson asked if he could speak. He echoed Chair Ravel’s sentiments and commended staff for their work. He acknowledged that the team already had a full workload and expressed appreciation for the additional effort required to provide the Board with the information and resources presented. Member Johnson added that the information was extremely helpful in guiding future decisions, particularly because the policy issues involved were not easy. He said that having the data available would support a vigorous and rigorous discussion by the Board.

Member Johnson said that after reviewing the information, one issue that stood out to him was the continued under-representation of the TRCs in the Central Valley, which is not due to lack of violent crime.

Member Johnson referenced Appendix A in the information Ms. Cardenas provided and identified Fresno as an example. He noted that the data showed approximately 6,000 violent crimes, one million people, and nine applications for TRCs, but no TRCs had been awarded. He stated that Kern County appeared to face a similar situation. He acknowledged that Kern County previously had access to a satellite TRC but noted that the analysis indicated a satellite location may not provide the same level of support or resources as a fully funded, traditional TRC. He added that that satellite model was a valuable temporary support measure when it was piloted and expressed appreciation for that effort.

Member Johnson also referenced Sacramento County, noting that the county has one TRC and that continued support for the center was encouraging. However, he noted that the data reflected six applications for TRC funding, with one TRC ultimately funded.

Member Johnson stated that he understood funding decisions were, to some extent, based on the numbers and available data, and that the goal under the statute is to provide support to the greatest number of victims. However, he noted that geographic diversity is also specifically identified in statute and should be an important part of the Board’s consideration as it moves forward.

Member Johnson acknowledged that even with multiple TRCs in the Los Angeles area, the centers may not be able to meet the full need in that region. At the same time, he expressed concern that victims in areas such as Fresno may have no TRC nearby to provide services. He stated that the data supported a concern he had held for some time that the Central Valley continues to lack adequate TRC representation despite a demonstrated need for services.

Member Johnson asked Ms. Cardenas whether there were unique barriers facing TRC applicants in the Central Valley. He again referenced the nine applications submitted in Fresno County during the three-year period and noted that none had received funding. He asked whether staff could identify why those applications had not been successful and whether there were specific barriers that could be addressed as potential TRCs apply for funding, development, or expansion. He also asked where the Board could provide support to help overcome those barriers.

Ms. Cardenas stated that in reviewing the applications, what staff see most frequently is the lack of clinical ability for the organizations that apply. She continued that there have been several reports about the Central Valley having shortages of hospitals and clinical staff, which are commonly reflected in the applications.

Ms. Cardenas added that the Central Valley tends to score lower in the clinical criteria, as two of the qualification questions address that. One is the ability to have a multi-disciplinary team with a psychiatrist, psychologist, and a social worker. She said it is typical that they lack either a psychologist or psychiatrist.

Ms. Cardenas then referenced Appendix C and noted that the data there showed that several applicants were disqualified, and it was for the lack of a psychologist or psychiatrist in their application.

Ms. Cardenas continued that the assertive outreach is pseudo-clinical where, on average, they see lower scores in the Central Valley applications. So added that in terms of supporting an organization to be more competitive, there would need to be a focus on finding that clinical expertise in an appropriate organization that could support the TRC model.

Member Johnson asked whether CalVCB staff or Board members could play a role in helping potential TRCs build the capacity needed to successfully apply for funding. He asked whether CalVCB could help identify where additional capacity is needed and assist potential applicants in strengthening their applications, including developing the skills, resources, and organizational capacity needed to operate a TRC.

Executive Officer Gledhill responded that there were two issues to consider. First, she explained that the TRC model is established in statute and was designed with very specific requirements regarding the types of entities and professionals that must be involved in providing services, including psychologists and psychiatrists. She noted that although current staff and Board members were not involved when the model was originally established, those requirements were included in statute for a reason and continue to guide how TRCs must operate.

Ms. Gledhill stated that because the TRC model and its requirements are set by statute, there may be limits to what CalVCB or the Board can do to help potential applicants build the capacity needed to qualify for funding. She suggested that it may be more appropriate for interested groups and organizations to consider how they could help support communities that currently lack the resources or infrastructure needed to establish a TRC.

Ms. Gledhill also referenced Ms. Cardenas’ earlier comments regarding reports of hospitals closing in the Central Valley. She stated that these broader health care challenges may affect whether communities have access to the professionals, organizations, and other resources required under the TRC model. Ms. Gledhill noted that CalVCB is not in a position to address the overall health care infrastructure in the Central Valley and stated that these regional challenges may be reflected in the grant applications CalVCB receives.

In summary, Ms. Gledhill explained that the lack of TRCs in certain areas may reflect broader challenges within the local health care system, rather than simply an issue with the grant application process itself.

Member Johnson responded that, as Board members, part of their responsibility is to review the process used to allocate TRC funding and ensure that it meets statutory requirements and is applied fairly. He added that, from the Controller’s Office perspective, fiscal responsibility and oversight are also important considerations. At the same time, he stated that the Controller’s Office brings an equity lens to its work and considers whether communities throughout the state have access to the resources they need.

Member Johnson stated that, in his view, it was not enough to simply conclude that applications from certain areas did not meet the necessary requirements and continue to see the same funding outcomes. He expressed hope that there was something the Board or CalVCB could do to address the issue and improve access to TRC services in underserved areas.

Member Johnson acknowledged that the Board should not recommend funding for TRCs that do not have the capacity to meet the requirements established in statute or provide a level of services victims need. He stated that he was mindful of that concern as the Board considered the three alternatives presented by staff.

However, Member Johnson reiterated his concern that there must be more that can be done beyond determining that applicants do not meet the funding criteria, particularly if that results in communities in the Central Valley continuing to have little or no access to TRC services. He stated that he hoped the Board could consider ways to address that gap while still ensuring that funded TRCs meet the statutory requirements and have the capacity to properly serve victims.

Ms. Cardenas responded that CalVCB offers applicants an opportunity to review their applications with staff after the application period has closed and the Board has made its funding decisions. She explained that these discussions are offered after the process is complete to ensure fairness to all applicants and allow organizations to understand where they received lower scores and what they could do to improve future applications.

Ms. Cardenas noted that several organizations have reapplied for TRC funding in later grant cycles. She stated that she would need to follow up with the Board to determine whether any of those organizations had accepted CalVCB’s offer of technical assistance following an unsuccessful application.

Ms. Cardenas also addressed concerns regarding an organization’s clinical capacity to operate a TRC. Referring to Ms. Gledhill’s earlier comments, she stated that CalVCB could explore working with the University of California’s Technical Assistance Program to determine whether it could provide additional support on the clinical side. She explained that clinical services are not CalVCB’s area of expertise, but that the UC program may have the appropriate expertise to provide that type of assistance.

Chair Ravel stated that he appreciated that offer.

Member Becton then requested to speak. She echoed Chair Ravel’s comments and thanked staff for the work that went into the TRC review process. She also agreed with Member Johnson’s concerns and stated that it was troubling that a portion of the state does not have access to the services provided by a TRC, particularly given the need for victim services in the Central Valley.

Member Becton stated that she appreciated staff identifying the reasons TRC applicants from those areas received lower scores, including the lack of required team members. She asked whether, now that those barriers have been identified, there may be different ways to support potential applicants and help them meet the requirements.

As an example, Member Becton asked whether a required professional must be part of the team and physically located on site, or whether that person could provide services remotely from another location. She noted that if certain professionals are not available in the region, the Board and staff could consider whether there are other ways to bring those services into the area so that organizations could meet the requirements and qualify for funding.

Member Becton reiterated that it was troubling that an entire region of the state does not have adequate access to services provided by TRCs and encouraged consideration of possible ways to address that gap.

Chair Ravel thanked Member Becton and asked if there was any further discussion on the item.

Member Johnson stated that he thought it would be great to hear from the advocates on the issue, as they are the experts when it comes to the TRC process, how they operate, and what resources are needed. He acknowledged that it is an expertise that the Board does not have. Member Johnson added that he was unsure if it would be appropriate to open it up to potential public comment and then bring it back to the Board to continue discussion. He said it might be helpful and asked if there was anybody present that could speak on this issue.

Chair Ravel stated that they could always bring it back for a discussion before they have a motion, if they decide to have a motion. He then opened it up for public comment, and called on Stacey Wiggall, who raised her hand.

Ms. Wiggall, who is the Director of Training and Technical Assistance for the National Alliance of Trauma Recovery Centers (NATRC), appeared via Zoom. She started by thanking the Chair and the Board for the opportunity to comment. She acknowledged the work of CalVCB and thanked them for their thoughtful analysis of possible approaches to geographic distribution and expanding access to TRC services throughout the state. She stated that NATRC supports expanding access to TRCs in new locations but also recognizes the limits of available funding. She emphasized that expansion should not simply redistribute existing limited resources among a greater number of TRCs.

Ms. Wiggall also addressed Member Johnson’s comments regarding possible barriers for programs in the Central Valley and other areas that may not have the clinical capacity needed to successfully apply for TRC funding. She stated that NATRC has experience working with programs in California and other states that did not initially have the required clinical capacity but were successfully providing other parts of the TRC model. She noted that some are trusted community organizations providing low-barrier services that may be able to add the clinical component needed to successfully implement the TRC model.

Ms. Wiggall offered to work with CalVCB staff through NATRC’s technical assistance efforts to explore ways to help organizations build capacity and strengthen future applications. She also suggested considering the requirement that newly funded TRCs begin serving clients within 30 days of receiving grant funds. She noted that organizations without an existing multi-disciplinary team may need additional time to hire staff and build the clinical capacity necessary to provide services.

Ms. Wiggall further stated that NATRC urged the Board not to change the current scoring process. She agreed with staff’s analysis that expansion should focus on increasing the overall number of survivors served, rather than redistributing existing resources and stated that funding should not be diverted from well-performing TRCs to fund new locations.

Ms. Wiggall concluded by noting that Government Code section 13963.1 gives the Board discretion to establish additional grant criteria beyond those identified in statute. She stated that if additional criteria are adopted, NATRC encourages the Board to also consider demonstrated program performance, quality implementation of the UCSF TRC model, and successful outcomes for survivors when evaluating applications.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Wiggall and commented that it was very informative. He then asked if there were any other comments on this item, and then if any Board member wanted to introduce a motion regarding distribution of TRCs.

Member Johnson asked additional questions regarding the timeline for the next TRC Notice of Funding Available (NOFA). He asked when the NOFA was expected to be released and what deadlines the Board would need to consider if it wanted to make changes to the scoring process. Chair Ravel asked Ms. Cardenas when staff would need the Board to approve any changes.

Ms. Cardenas responded that staff would ideally need direction from the Board at this meeting. If the Board was not prepared to provide direction, she stated that the September meeting would likely be the latest opportunity to make changes but cautioned that this would create a very tight timeline for staff.

Ms. Cardenas explained that, based on feedback from advocates, CalVCB changed the process the previous year to release the NOFA in October. She noted that making changes at a late September Board meeting in preparation for an October NOFA release would leave staff with very little time to implement those changes. She stated that this timing was one of the reasons staff brought the issue before the Board at this meeting.

Executive Officer Gledhill noted that the Board could request a separate meeting between the current meeting and the September Board meeting if additional time was needed to consider the issue.

Member Johnson asked for clarification about whether the Board could request a separate meeting at a later date, rather than making that request during this meeting. He asked whether Board members could contact staff after the meeting and request that an action item be scheduled before September.

Ms. Gauthier responded that, with 10 days’ notice, the Board could hold any meeting it would like.

Member Johnson explained that he asked about an additional meeting because he appreciated the work staff had done and the amount of information provided to the Board. However, he stated that having the information for only six or seven days did not give him enough time to consider a change of this significance. He acknowledged that the Board had been discussing the issue for some time but stated that, now that the specific options were before the Board, he would be uncomfortable proposing changes without receiving additional feedback from the TRC community.

Member Johnson stated that he would like to hear from TRCs in underserved regions, as well as NATRC and other interested groups, before making a decision. He asked whether Board rules would allow him to conduct outreach individually to learn more about the issue and the options presented.

Ms. Gauthier responded that individual outreach was permitted as long as two or more Board members were not present. She explained that a summary of those conversations or their outcomes should be presented to the full Board so that all Board members have access to the same information when making a decision.

Member Johnson thanked Ms. Gauthier for the clarification and stated that he would ensure any such information was shared with the full Board. He reiterated that, based on the information currently available and the short time frame, he did not feel prepared to propose a significant change to the TRC funding process. However, he stated that he wanted to preserve the option of requesting an additional Board meeting before September if further discussion was needed. He added that he would seek to schedule any additional meeting well before September to provide staff with sufficient time and avoid a rushed process.

Executive Officer Gledhill thanked Member Johnson and then followed up on Member Becton’s earlier question regarding telehealth. She clarified that telehealth is allowed under the TRC contract. She noted that when the Central Valley satellite TRC pilot was operating, telehealth was used for some services provided by psychologists and other professionals. Ms. Gledhill explained that while having the required professionals affiliated with a TRC may present a barrier, those professionals do not necessarily have to be physically located at the TRC.

Ms. Gledhill also noted that staff identified steps within each option presented to the Board that would be necessary to move forward. She reminded the Board that while the statute allows for some changes to the TRC program, not every change can be made by the Board. She stated that any option requiring a statutory change would involve a different process because the Board is required to operate within existing law and cannot make statutory changes on its own.

Ms. Gledhill further stated that staff did not yet know what level of TRC funding would be available the following year. However, she suggested that the Board assume funding would be fairly similar to the current year. She noted that it was an election year in California and stated that the state budget process is often shortened during election years, making significant changes in the upcoming budget cycle less likely.

Ms. Gledhill added that she continues to have conversations with the Administration about her concern that the TRC grant program is not sufficiently funded. However, with an upcoming change in Administration, she stated that it was difficult to know what direction future funding would take.

Member Johnson responded that the Legislature has shown continued interest in supporting the TRC program. He recalled previous Board discussions about how to use limited resources when a funding shortfall was expected and stated that the Board should not rule out the possibility of additional legislative funding. He noted that even when traditional funding sources decrease, the Legislature may choose to provide additional appropriations for the program.

Ms. Gledhill cautioned against planning the program based on the expectation of additional legislative funding. She stated that CalVCB can only award grants using funding that has been allocated in the state budget and that the program should be managed based on the funding actually available. She acknowledged Member Johnson’s point but stated that having a stable funding source from the beginning of the grant process would be preferable to relying on additional funding later in the process.

Member Johnson agreed that a stable funding source would be preferable. He reiterated that, as the Board member who requested the item be placed on the agenda, he did not believe the Board was prepared to make major changes at the current meeting. However, he expressed interest in continuing the discussion before the September meeting. He also invited the other Board members to share any thoughts regarding the alternatives presented by staff and stated that, otherwise, the discussion could continue at a future meeting.

Chair Ravel thanked Member Johnson and asked Member Becton whether she had any additional comments. Hearing none, Chair Ravel stated that the Board would table the matter for the time being. He noted that Member Johnson and his team would conduct offline discussions with the affected community and that the matter could return to the Board as needed.

Ms. Cardenas thanked the Board and Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Cardenas.

Item 7. Request to Conclude the Rulemaking Process for Amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 649.26, et seq.)

The Request to Conclude the Rulemaking Process for Amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 649.26, et seq.) was presented by Senior Attorney, Katie Rupp.

Ms. Rupp stated she is seeking authorization for staff to conclude the rulemaking process for a set of proposed regulatory revisions regarding mental health benefits.

The proposed regulations are a representation of the current CalVCB Mental Health Guidelines that were previously incrementally vetted with stakeholders over the years and presented to and adopted by the Board in 2022. After careful consideration, staff felt it prudent to convert the existing guidelines into formal regulations and go through the formal rulemaking process.

On January 15, 2026, the Board approved the commencement of the rulemaking process to amend, promulgate, and adopt the proposed regulations located at California Code of Regulations, Title 2, sections 649.26, 649.29.1, and 649.29.2. The initial rulemaking package for the proposed regulations was submitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on January 28, 2026.

On February 5, 2026, the OAL requested non-substantive changes to the language of two statements on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Action. The document was revised accordingly and published by OAL on February 13, 2026. Meanwhile, notice was sent by mail or email to approximately 5,600 interested parties for their review and input on the documents. They were also published on the CalVCB website.

The initial public comment period commenced on February 13, 2026, and closed 45 days later on March 30, 2026. One comment was received.

On March 13, 2026, a request was received for a public hearing.

The Notice of Hearing was published on April 8, 2026, and the hearing was conducted on May 7, 2026. Eight members of the public appeared via Zoom for that hearing and two provided written comments during the hearing. No one appeared in person.

After careful consideration of all public comments received, staff determined that no substantial modifications were necessary for the proposed regulations. However, CalVCB did identify and made non-substantial changes to sections 649.26(a)2, 649.26(c), 649.26(d), 649.29.1(a), and 649.29.1(c)(10). The changes are identified in the final regulation text using double underline for added text, and double strike-through for deleted text. They include updates to cross references to other regulatory subsections and punctuation.

Ms. Rupp stated that the OAL does not require an additional comment period for these types of changes. As the initial process is now complete, Ms. Rupp respectfully requested authorization to conclude the rulemaking process. She noted that, if authorized today, staff will move forward with submitting the complete package required by OAL to conclude the process. Once submitted, OAL has 30 days to review the package and if approved, they will go into effect at the next OAL quarterly effective date, which is anticipated to be either October 1, 2026, or January 1, 2027.

Ms. Rupp continued that in support of the request, the final text of the regulations, the Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR), a summary of the comments received in the responses, and an updated Informative Digest, were provided.

Ms. Rupp took the opportunity to acknowledge Neil Ennes, Jessie Ross, Carla Rubalcava, Ian Lyman, Laura Simpton, Andrea Burrell, and the members of the Executive team who assisted with the production of the regulatory packet. She added that their hard work and dedication were much appreciated as everyone worked very hard to get this ready for the Board meeting.

Ms. Rupp concluded by thanking the Board and said she was happy to answer any questions the Board might have. She added that Jennifer Rocco, Deputy Executive Officer of the Program Division, was also available to answer any program-specific questions.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Rupp and commented that a change of this nature is a huge effort, and it was a huge team that accomplished it. He continued that these changes were long overdue and he is very supportive.

Chair Ravel asked if there were any questions or discussions from the Board regarding the proposed regulations.

Member Johnson echoed Chair Ravel’s sentiments that he appreciates and supports this work, and he congratulated the whole team on the effort. He continued by asking about the public comment and stated he did not see it in the Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) and asked if it was anything the Board should be aware of.

Ms. Rupp stated that there was not anything of particular note and that the comments were listed in the table on the Summary of Comments, which she believed was Item Three. She assured Member Johnson that she could provide him with another copy if need be.

Ms. Rupp explained that the comments they received were not substantive in nature and were general comments related to CalVCB, and the program as a whole, and were not directly related to the regulations. She added most of the comments were from people looking for more information as to how the program operates. Ms. Rupp reported that one comment was received from Michael Siegel, regarding the need for these changes, and those were addressed as well.

Member Johnson stated he appreciated that and felt it was helpful to see the public comments in the full FSOR and he appreciates all the work that was done.

Chair Ravel thanked Member Johnson and added that he imagines (generally speaking) the regulated community would be broadly supportive of the proposed changes.

Chair Ravel asked if there were any further discussion or comments.

Chair Ravel then asked if there was a motion to approve Item 7. Member Becton moved to authorize the Executive Officer to conclude the rulemaking process for the amendments to the California Code of Regulations and to execute and submit any required documents to the Office of Administrative Law. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson.

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

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

Item 8. Martis Childs (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier presented the Penal Code Section 4900 claim of Martis Childs. Ms. Gauthier stated that Mr. Childs filed an application on December 5, 2023, with CalVCB as an erroneously convicted person. That application was supplemented on February 3, 2024, and was based on Mr. Childs’ 2011 convictions for murder and attempted murder, which were vacated by a writ of habeas corpus in 2022, after which Mr. Childs was acquitted of murder following a retrial in 2023, and the attempted murder charge was dismissed.

Ms. Gauthier continued, noting that the Attorney General objected to the claim pursuant to Penal Code Section 4902. As explained in detail in the hearing officer’s Proposed Decision, the claim is recommended for denial as the Attorney General has met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Childs committed the crimes of murder and attempted murder.

Ms. Gauthier added that throughout these proceedings, Mr. Childs has been represented by Gretchen Gaspari. The Office of the Attorney General is represented by Deputy Attorneys General, Jonathan Krauss and Seth McCutcheon.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gauthier and addressed Ms. Gaspari, who appeared via Zoom.

Ms. Gaspari started by saying she was impressed with the Board’s focus and dedication to the process, to due process and in victims’ compensation, as well as the process of enacting laws and statutes, which she explained is exactly what she is asking for.

Ms. Gaspari stated that she had initially submitted a 119-page brief outlining the extensive history of the case and a large amount of evidence related to the 2006 murder, the decision to vacate Mr. Childs’ conviction, and the retrial. She said she also submitted thousands of pages of transcripts, audio recordings, reports, and other evidence. Ms. Gaspari stated that she responded to the Proposed Decision twice: first to the original Decision and again after the hearing officer corrected part of the decision at the Attorney General’s prompt.

Ms. Gaspari emphasized that Mr. Childs was not before the Board for the money or for a particular outcome, but for due process. She stated that the law does not guarantee an outcome, but it does guarantee a fair review of all the evidence. She argued that the hearing officer did not provide that type of review in this case.

Ms. Gaspari stated the Proposed Decision was factually inaccurate, legally flawed, and procedurally deficient. She argued that it relied heavily on discredited evidence, ignored mountains of exculpatory evidence supporting Mr. Childs, and adopted the Attorney General’s position from the first trial without an independent review of the evidence. She also discussed the correction made to the Proposed Decision at the Attorney General’s request. Ms. Gaspari stated that the correction was important because, in her view, it provided insight into the hearing officer’s review of the case. She explained that the hearing officer had incorrectly attributed a piece of evidence.

Ms. Gaspari provided an example involving the confusion between Brandy Kermush’s grandmother versus Mr. Childs’ grandmother. She acknowledged that the Board might not understand the depth of that error without knowing the full history of the case but stated that the issue involving Mr. Childs’ grandmother had been a significant part of his case since 2006. She explained that it was discussed in interviews conducted in 2006 and 2008, in the habeas proceedings, and during Mr. Childs’ trial testimony.

Ms. Gaspari stated that the issue was also significant because Mr. Childs had provided information about his grandmother to law enforcement, but that information was not followed up on. She explained that when Mr. Childs was arrested in 2009, several years after the crime, he was trying to establish an alibi based in part on information he had previously provided about his grandmother. Ms. Gaspari added that Mr. Childs’ grandmother was elderly and that by the time he was arrested, her memory had failed.

Ms. Gaspari argued that confusing Mr. Childs’ grandmother with Brandy Kermush’s grandmother was significant because Mr. Childs’ grandmother was an important alibi witness. She said that the error showed a misunderstanding of a key part of the case and, in her view, demonstrated that the case had not been fully read or understood. She stated that she did not believe such an error could have occurred if the evidence related to Mr. Childs’ claim had been carefully reviewed.

Ms. Gaspari also argued that the error showed bias and a lack of care in reviewing claims brought by people in Mr. Childs’ position. She stated that Mr. Childs is a Black man from Los Angeles whose life experience is very differed from that of many people involved in the process. She also discussed the relationship between claims such as Mr. Childs’ and CalVCB’s broader mission.

Ms. Gaspari stated that she is a former prosecutor who has used CalVCB’s services and referred crime victims to the program. She said she understood that helping victims is at the heart of CalVCB’s mission and expressed appreciation for the work CalVCB does in that area. However, she stated that claims involving people in Mr. Childs’ position may be more difficult for the program to address. She argued that despite the work and consideration given to the matter, the Proposed Decision did not address, reconcile, or even mention much of the evidence submitted on Mr. Childs’ behalf.

Ms. Gaspari further stated that her 119-page brief, along with the thousands of pages of supporting documents and audio recordings, were barely cited in the Proposed Decision. She argued that even if the hearing officer chose to focus on the Attorney General’s position, that position did not include the full record.

Ms. Gaspari explained that it is easy to connect three dots and create the picture someone wants to see, but it is much different when all 20 dots must be connected. She stated that this was what Mr. Childs was asking the Board to require: consideration and analysis of all the evidence, not only the portions that supported the Attorney General’s position.

Ms. Gaspari stated that she believed Mr. Martis Childs wanted to address the Board if permitted and noted that he had prepared a brief statement. Before concluding her remarks, Ms. Gaspari stated that she wanted to speak from her own experience as an attorney.

Ms. Gaspari noted that she has practiced law since 1999, has worked on both sides of the criminal justice system, and has practiced in federal court. She stated that she had never experienced a hearing process like this one and was concerned about how proceedings were conducted. As an example, she discussed the repeated objections to requests for a continuance while Mr. Childs was attempting to obtain transcripts from the second trial. She questioned why there would be objections to obtaining additional evidence if the purpose of the proceeding was to determine the truth of the matter.

Ms. Gaspari stated that the objections to obtaining the transcripts did not align with her understanding of the purpose of the criminal justice system or the Board’s review process. She said she found the objections to be surprising and expressed concern about what she described as the overall tone of the proceedings. She stated that the process did not reflect the reality that mistakes can occur throughout the criminal justice system during investigations, prosecutions, trials, and appeals. She further stated that because the system is driven by people, it should allow for a broader and more inclusive review of the evidence.

Ms. Gaspari stated that, based on her experience, she did not believe the proceedings reflected an open or inclusive process designed to reach the truth. Instead, she said the process felt like a “rubber stamp.” She also expressed concern that the process would be difficult for claimants who did not have legal representation.

Ms. Gaspari further shared that she had trouble obtaining continuances because of her obligations as a practicing attorney handling matters in four counties. She said she was required to provide court names, case numbers, and other information to support her scheduling conflicts. She stated that she believed those requests suggested that her representations were being questioned and contributed to what she viewed as bias against Mr. Childs and his position. She stated that, as an officer of the court, she believed it was important to make those concerns part of the record.

Ms. Gaspari concluded by stating that Mr. Childs was not asking the Board for any special treatment, but only that the matter be returned to the hearing officer for consideration of the totality of the evidence. She stated that this included substantial witness interviews, recantations, and other evidence that she believed had not been fully considered. She also argued that the Proposed Decision relied on statements made by Mr. Childs’ co-defendants that she described as factually inaccurate and inconsistent yet treated those statements as credible without explaining how they could be considered both credible and factually inconsistent. Ms. Gaspari requested that the Board remand the matter to the hearing officer for a full review of all the evidence before making a final decision.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gaspari and then invited Mr. Childs to address the Board. Mr. Childs appeared via Zoom.

Mr. Childs started by thanking the Board for allowing him to speak and acknowledged the amended Proposed Decision recommending the denial of his claim. He stated that he was not before the Board to relitigate the facts of the murder case or reargue the entire matter. Instead, he asked the Board to carefully review the complete record before adopting the recommendation.

Mr. Childs stated that his concern was not limited to what he described as small mistakes in the Proposed Decision, but that he believed the factual inaccuracies and unresolved contradictions affected the analysis used to recommend denial of his claim. He stated that his counsel had identified issues involving timelines, witness statements, recantations, physical evidence, and other portions of the record that, in his view, were misunderstood, mistaken, or unreconciled. Mr. Childs stated that these were not minor issues, but matters that directly affected the credibility and reliability of the evidence that was relied upon in the Proposed Decision.

Mr. Childs stated that he spent years incarcerated while maintaining his innocence and noted that the jury at his retrial ultimately acquitted him after hearing additional evidence. He respectfully asked the Board to carefully consider whether all the evidence, rather than portions of it, had been fully considered before making a final decision.

Mr. Childs concluded by thanking the Board for its time and for allowing him to address the Board.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Childs for his testimony.

Chair Ravel then invited Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan Krauss from the Department of Justice to address the Board, who appeared via Zoom.

Deputy Attorney General Jonathan Krauss addressed the Board on behalf of the Attorney General. He stated that if Deputy Attorney General Seth McCutcheon had anything to add, he would do so following his remarks.

Mr. Krauss asked the Board to adopt the hearing officer’s Proposed Decision as the Attorney General’s office believes the decision is reasoned and thorough. Contrary to what counsel said at the board meeting, Mr. Krauss stated he believed that the hearing officer had considered all the evidence of a voluminous record. Mr. Krauss explained there were thousands of pages of exhibits, audio, etc. that were presented to the hearing officer. The hearing officer took nearly a year to reach her decision, explained Mr. Krauss, which considered the entirety of the record presented to her. Mr. Krauss expressed the Attorney General’s understanding that Ms. Gaspari and Mr. Childs disagree with the ultimate conclusion, though this does not mean that the hearing officer did not take her responsibility seriously in evaluating all the evidence presented to her.

Mr. Krauss explained that what the record shows that there is clear and convincing evidence of Mr. Childs’ guilt, including the voluminous evidence that was presented at Mr. Childs’ original trial, and also evidence that was not presented at the trial originally back in 2010 and 2011 that demonstrated his guilt. Mr. Krauss continued, stating that the evidence did not even include the confession Mr. Childs made in 2014 and numerous other efforts that the Office of the Attorney General detailed in which the hearing officer echoed all of the attempts Mr. Childs made over many years to engage in a concerted pressure campaign on these people that had originally accused him of this crime.

Mr. Krauss explained that Mr. Childs then got witnesses to recant their original statements. This was a yearslong effort on Mr. Childs’ part, stated Mr. Krauss, though it was ultimately successful, as Mr. Childs got his freedom. However, the evidence demonstrates that this was a pressure campaign that Mr. Childs orchestrated. Mr. Krauss stated that this demonstrates that all the evidence Mr. Childs had brought forth since, which is detailed in the hearing officer’s Proposed Decision, was just a smoke screen designed to get the court system and his retrial not to view the simplicity of this case and all the evidence that was presented originally that demonstrated his guilt. All of this is in addition to a confession Mr. Childs made in prison where he admitted to these crimes when he could not have had any idea that his confession would have been used against him at any point.

Further, Mr. Krauss stated that Mr. Childs tried to argue that this confession was fabricated by prison officials, though there was no evidence of that. The evidence is very clear here, explained Mr. Krauss. Mr. Krauss further stated that there was one point he wanted to make in specific reference. Counsel for Mr. Childs mentioned the amended Proposed Decision because it changed something in the original decision that referred to Joan Cuba as Kermush’s grandmother, when that was a mistake and there was an attempt to clarify that. Mr. Krauss explained that the Attorney General’s Office did find it interesting though, that counsel said during the current meeting that that was Mr. Childs’ grandmother. Mr. Krauss stated that what the record showed was that she was not his blood relative either, but just a woman that he called his grandmother. Mr. Krauss repeated that the Office of the Attorney General found it interesting that Ms. Gaspari would point that out and still demonstrate the confusion that could come up. He explained what the original Proposed Decision demonstrated was that this was just a simple mistake that was clarified and does not demonstrate the kind of groundbreaking error and lack of care that Ms. Gaspari tried to put on the hearing officer in this case. Mr. Krauss stated that the Office of the Attorney General asks again that the Board adopt the Proposed Decision, which was reasoned and thorough and not to engage in any of the rethinking that Ms. Gaspari is asking the Board to do.

Mr. Krauss then asked Mr. McCutcheon if he had anything to add.

Mr. McCutcheon stated he did not and that they submitted the matter to the Board.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Krauss and asked if there was any discussion from the Board.

Member Becton spoke and stated that she had a few comments. Member Becton expressed that after having heard both sides at the Board meeting and her experience participating in many cases that have come before the Board where there has been a recommendation to deny the 4900 claim, that she could not help but feel that after reading the brief that was provided to the Board today that this case is a different type of case and that this case is a bit of a close call in her opinion.

Member Becton clarified that there is not a question for her as to whether there is evidence of guilt, because clearly there is evidence of guilt. However, Member Becton said that the question under 4900 is a bit narrower. That question is whether that burden of producing clear and convincing evidence in this record and whether that burden has been met when the same record resulted in habeas relief, vacation of convictions, dismissal, a retrial, an acquittal by a jury, and then dismissal of a count. Member Becton noted that the record before the Board relies heavily on conflicting witness testimony, credibility determinations and circumstantial evidence that has been disputed over a few decades of litigation. Member Becton reminded everyone that there was a habeas court that found the new evidence sufficiently credible to vacate the convictions and a jury that acquitted Mr. Childs.

Member Becton added that she had some difficulty at this point as to whether this is clear and convincing evidence. Although the acquittal is not dispositive under 4900, Member Becton expressed she thinks it does deserve a little more weight than the Proposed Decision gives it because there was a unanimous jury who heard the live witnesses who were there to evaluate the credibility and they concluded that the proof beyond a reasonable doubt was not met. Member Becton acknowledged that clearly there is a different standard for the claim before the Board today, but she stated she does find counsel for Mr. Childs’ argument compelling. Member Becton stated that the Board does not know what information counsel feels is not in the record or has not been brought before the Board.

Member Becton suggested that the Board not vote on this today, that counsel stipulate to a specific time frame within which counsel for Mr. Childs can produce information, including specific information as to what counsel thinks is inaccurate in the record or what has not been considered in the record so that that can be addressed specifically by the Attorney General within a specific time frame, and then this matter come back to the Board. Member Becton stated that the matter could come back to the Board with the same result but that she would appreciate the opportunity to at least have it considered by the hearing officer.

Chair Ravel said that Member Becton raises a good point and that when he read the Proposed Decision, he did not see a question, but that again, she raises a good point. Chair Ravel stated that the Board could possibly move to ask staff to request further briefing from the parties and the Attorney General’s office, specifically related to what evidence is missing from or allegedly missing from the hearing officer’s Proposed Decision, if that is appropriate.

Mr. McCutcheon addressed the Board. Mr. McCutcheon explained that Mr. Childs and his counsel have already had the opportunity to submit evidence into the record and an opportunity to respond to the amended decision with any corrections that needed to be to be made. Mr. McCutcheon explained that the briefing has already been provided on what corrections and what evidence was not considered. He added that there simply is no reason to send it back to the hearing officer because this has already been done.

Chair Ravel responded by stating that he understood Mr. McCutcheon’s position but that his colleague would appreciate hearing more since the record and all the evidence was considered by the hearing officer, but the Board has not seen that evidence or heard about that evidence until the current Board meeting and that the Board may benefit from hearing directly from the parties.

Ms. Gauthier stated that when considering a proposed decision, the Board has several options pursuant to title 2, section 619.5 of the California Code of Regulations, which is applicable to these proceedings. One of them is that the Board may remand the decision or the matter back to the hearing officer to consider additional argument or evidence. She stated that in her opinion, it sounded as if that is the motion the board wishes to make. Ms. Gauthier explained that if that were so, the Board would need someone to move that motion and a second to the motion.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gauthier.

Member Becton moved to remand the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision in the Penal Code section 4900 matter of Martis Childs back to the hearing officer for reconsideration of additional briefing. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson. No public comment was offered. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Ms. Gaspari addressed the Board and asked if counsel will be notified of a timeline or a format for this and how counsel would be advised about the process.

Executive Officer Gledhill said that staff will be in contact with counsel for Mr. Childs and the Office of the Attorney General.

Item 9. Richard Luna (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier presented the Penal Code Section 4900 claim of Richard Luna. Ms. Gauthier stated that Mr. Luna submitted an application with CalVCB on April 20, 2026, as an erroneously convicted person, based on a 1983 conviction of rape, which was vacated by habeas relief in 2025. In December 2025, the court also found Mr. Luna factually innocent of the crime pursuant to Penal Code Section 851.86. As mandated by the court order and pursuant to Penal Code Section 851.865, the Proposed Decision recommends compensation in the amount of $161,980, which represents $140 per day for the 1,157 days that Mr. Luna was wrongfully imprisoned. Ms. Gauthier noted that the Proposed Decision contains a non-substantive typographical error on Page 2, Line 2. Specifically, the date listed is “November 8, 1992,” and it should read “November 8, 1982.” Ms. Gauthier stated that this is non-substantive as the error does not impact the result or amount to be rewarded. Accordingly, it will not be corrected other than in these proceedings.

Ms. Gauthier continued, noting that throughout the administrative proceedings, Mr. Luna represented himself, and the Office of the Attorney General was represented by Deputy Attorneys General, Jonathan Krauss and Jessica Leal.  

Chair Ravel then asked if Mr. Luna was present so he could speak.

Mr. Luna stated that he was present and that he did not wish to make a comment, other than that his life was taken away and it was a crime that never happened and one he was punished for and that he is in attendance to get what he deserves.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Luna.

Mr. Krauss then appeared before the Board and stated that the Office of the Attorney General submits the matter and supports adoptions of the Proposed Decision.

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

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

Item 10. Steven Buggs (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier presented the Penal Code section 4900 claim of Steven Buggs. Ms. Gauthier stated that Mr. Buggs submitted an application with CalVCB on February 24, 2026, as an erroneously convicted person. That application was supplemented on February 25, 2026, and was based on Mr. Bugg’s 2015 convictions for murder, which were vacated by grant of habeas relief in 2025. The District Attorney chose not to retry Mr. Buggs, resulting in the dismissal of the charge.

Ms. Gauthier reported there was no objection filed by the Attorney General; therefore, compensation is automatic pursuant to Penal Code Section 4900(b). The Proposed Decision recommends compensation in the amount of $680,400, which represents $140 per day for each of the 4,860 days Mr. Buggs was wrongfully imprisoned.

Ms. Gauthier added that throughout the administrative proceedings, Mr. Buggs was represented by Stanley Goff, and the office of the Attorney General was represented by Deputy Attorney General, Sharon Loughner.

Chair Ravel called on Mr. Goff to speak, who appeared via Zoom.

Mr. Goff stated that he appreciated the Board taking time to address the wrong that was done to his client and that he appreciated that the Board has recommended that his client receive compensation for the time that he was wrongfully convicted. Mr. Goff thanked the Board.

Ms. Loughner spoke and stated that the Office of the Attorney General submits the matter and supports adoption of the Proposed Decision.

Chair Ravel asked if there were any questions or discussion from the Board. Seeing no questions, Chair Ravel called for a motion to approve Item 10.

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

Closed Session

The Board adjourned into Closed Session with the Executive Officer and Chief Counsel at 11:32 a.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) to deliberate on Proposed Decision numbers 1 through 139 of the Victim Compensation Program.

Open Session

The Board reconvened in Open Session pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) at 11:36 a.m.

Member Becton moved to approve items 1 through 139, excepting item 8 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.

Chair Ravel then asked for a motion to approve item 8 of the Victim Compensation Program. Member Becton moved to approve item 8, and Member Johnson seconded the motion. Chair Ravel abstained from the vote. The motion was approved by a two thirds vote of the Board, and the motion passed.

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 11:38 a.m.

Next Board Meeting

The next Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 17, 2026.