Meeting Minutes

January 16, 2025, Board Meeting

The California Victim Compensation Board (Board) convened its meeting in open session upon the call of the Chair, Gabriel Ravel, General Counsel of the Government Operations Agency, acting for, and in the absence of Amy Tong, Secretary of the Government Operations Agency, at 400 R Street, Room 330, Sacramento, California, on Thursday, January 16, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Also present was Member Evan Johnson, acting for, and in the absence of, Malia Cohen, Controller. Appearing via Zoom was Member Diana Becton, District Attorney.

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

Item 1. Approval of the Minutes of the November 21, 2024, Board Meeting

Member Johnson moved approval of the Minutes for the November 21, 2024, Board Meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Becton. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 2. Public Comment

The Board opened the meeting for public comment and Ms. Burrell reminded everyone that, consistent with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, items not on the agenda may not be discussed at this time but may be put on a future agenda. (Gov. Code, § 11125.7.)

Paloma Bustos of the Sunita Jain Anti-Trafficking Initiative, a program based out of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, appeared via Zoom. Ms. Bustos wanted to acknowledge Human Trafficking Awareness Month and noted last September they met with CalVCB to provide recommendations on how information and processes could be improved to make benefits for human trafficking survivors more accessible. Specifically, expanding outreach and training with the focus of income loss benefits available to survivors. Also, expanding access to online applications for service providers from community-based organizations to assist survivors in applying and increasing the number of survivors who can access this benefit. Ms. Bustos was pleased to see from CalVCB’s recent communication that some of the changes discussed have been implemented. For example, the website updates regarding recovery of income loss and CalVCB hosting webinars on available benefits.

Ms. Bustos concluded by informing the Board that most of this feedback comes from survivors and service providers who have engaged with the Program, and she hopes that CalVCB will continue to prioritize survivors needs and to further enhance these critical benefits to survivors of human trafficking.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Bustos for her comment.

Hovanes Tonoyan shared his concerns regarding the recent wildfires in Southern California and the devastation of communities throughout the area. He stated that there have been many shortcomings in so many areas including political leadership, whether it is the cities, the counties, or even the state. Mr. Tonoyan feels there is a lot being done but believes there could be more. Whether victimization occurs through person-to-person incidents, localized community incidents, or large-scale natural disasters that might not have a criminal element, communities are still left vulnerable to acts of crime and further injustices.

Mr. Tonoyan stated he would like the Board to be aware of events in Los Angeles, and to do outreach to local law enforcement that is being stretched very thin to see what kind of help is needed. Some people are not insured and are being victimized, whether it is a physical assault, looting, or burglary. The recent events have been unsettling.

Mr. Tonoyan concluded by encouraging the Board to do as much outreach and have as much compassion as possible.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Tonoyan for his comments.

Michiel Taylor stated she applied to the Program in November 2022, in April 2023 her application was denied, and she appealed the denial. On January 8, 2025, her in-person hearing was held. She followed CalVCB’s written steps in order to prepare for the hearing. She reviewed the information provided in the Issues on Appeal memorandum and, based on the Hearing Officer’s recommendation, she gathered additional information supporting her appeal, and was ready to discuss the original denial. She is grateful to the Hearing Officer for allowing her two hours for her hearing.

Ms. Taylor continued by describing her experience with CalVCB. She did not expect to be questioned about specific statements that were said to her by the suspect four years ago. She did not expect to be asked on more than one occasion what was threatening about stalking acts that were done to her. Ms. Taylor stated those types of questions should have been asked by the Hearing Officer in 2022 when she applied to the Program. The Hearing Officer also mentioned there were over 661 pages of documentary evidence on the record from her application.

Ms. Taylor concluded by advising victims who apply to the Program to get an advocate or an attorney to assist them in navigating the process. There is a great deal of information that will need to be shared with the application, and she is making herself available to help any victim who has a pending or denied application.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Taylor for her comments and offering her assistance.

Item 3. Executive Officer Statement

Executive Officer Gledhill updated the Board on the following:

Ms. Gledhill informed the Board that CalVCB is aware of the significant impact the fires have had on Los Angeles and CalVCB is working with the Government Operations Agency to offer any help, if needed.  

Ms. Gledhill continued, noting that the Governor’s budget was released earlier this month. As far as CalVCB is concerned there are no additional cuts across state programs. CalVCB received the first estimate of $88.3 million for the Proposition 47 savings from the Department of Finance which is critically important to the Trama Recovery Centers (TRC). It is estimated at this time that CalVCB will receive 10 percent (or $8.83 million) toward TRC grants. This will be about a $600,000 decrease compared to last year. There is a chance the number will go down with the implementation of Proposition 36. CalVCB recognizes there may need to be a reduction in the number of TRCs approved this upcoming funding cycle.  

CalVCB is accepting TRC applications through Friday, January 24 at 2:00 p.m. The notice of funds available was posted on December 4, a webinar was held for interested parties on December 13, CalVCB accepted questions through January 3, and posted answers to the questions on January 10. The Board will see the funding recommendation in March.

Ms. Gledhill updated the Board on the Forced and Involuntary Sterilization Compensation Program (FISCP). Last September, AB 179 was signed, which allowed claimants to request an additional review of their previously denied claim or appeal. The deadline to submit the request for additional review was January 1, 2025. CalVCB received 45 requests for additional review, and, to date, eight individuals have been approved for compensation and received a payment of $35,000. Other requests are being reviewed and CalVCB will inform the Board of the final number of approvals and compensation.

Ms. Gledhill also updated the Board on the Federal Regulations related to the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). The regulations were withdrawn due to the lack of time left within the Biden Administration. Accordingly, CalVCB will continue to operate under the current VOCA Regulations.

Ms. Gledhill presented a PowerPoint to the Board regarding CalVCB’s 60^th Anniversary, Strategic Plan, and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, a copy of which is accessible at https://victims.ca.gov/uploads/2025/01/January-Victims-Comp-Board-Meeting-PPT_Checked.pdf.

60^th Anniversary:

• CalVCB was the first State Compensation Program in the nation to provide compensation to victims of violent crime;
• Many other states are modeled after the California program;
• In 1965 there were three team members; in 2025 there are 250 team members;
• Compensation limit was $5,000 in 1965; in 2025 the compensation limit is $70,000;
• Victims now have seven years to file a claim; and
• In 60 years CalVCB has approved over 1.5 million applications and issued $2.7 billion in compensation.

Strategic Plan 2025-2028 https://victims.ca.gov/uploads/2025/01/StrategicPlan_2025-28.pdf:

• CalVCB’s mission, vision, and values have not changed; and
• A Survey was sent to 3,400 providers, community organizations, and stakeholders to gather input for the goals.
• Goal 1: Promoting access and equity
• Goal 2: Enhance the CalVCB experience
• Goal 3: Strong workforce

Human Trafficking:

• According to the National Human Trafficking Hotline, California accounted for an estimated 12 percent of all Human Trafficking cases in the U.S. in 2023.
• CalVCB offers a Social Media Toolkit regarding Human Trafficking; and
• CalVCB will continue its meetings with community organizations.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Gledhill and congratulated CalVCB on 60 years.

Member Becton congratulated CalVCB on 60 years. She further stated she appreciated the strategic planning goals and objectives, especially enhancing the experience with the use of technology for the users.

Member Johnson asked Ms. Gledhill to elaborate on the kind of outreach and engagement that was done in developing the strategic plan. Member Becton requested Ms. Gledhill to repeat the reason for the TRC cuts.

Ms. Gledhill responded that the TRCs are funded through three areas of the budget, (1) $2 million from the Restitution Fund, which is consistent and does not change year over year; (2) savings from Proposition 47 and that comes from the Department of Finance estimate that CalVCB receives every year. This gets updated in May and usually the TRC grant awards are adjusted based on that estimate and the final calculation released with the May Revise of the budget. CalVCB received the estimate from the Department of Finance in January, and that number is about $600,000 lower than it was last year; and (3) The remaining General Fund allocation previously appropriated through the legislative process. CalVCB will be working with the Department of Finance to make sure this General Fund money can be spent this fiscal year.

Member Johnson also congratulated CalVCB on 60 years. He continued by stating the Controller’s Office runs programs that have unstable funding sources and would like to encourage CalVCB to do all that they can to provide stability through the process.

Member Johnson stated with the new appeals process, there is going to be a challenge in meeting the needs of applicants in a timely fashion and making sure there is a quick turnaround on appeals. He is wondering if there is new insight into how CalVCB plans to manage its workforce and workload as it increases.

Ms. Gledhill responded there is a balance between the funding available, the staffing that is available, the goals, and the desire to improve technology. These things cost money, allowing CalVCB to have a blueprint every fiscal year to look at the goals, work with the Board and administration to talk about potential additional funding and staffing to improve these services. CalVCB is aware that additional resources are needed. Ms. Gledhill concluded by stating the Governor’s budget does include additional staff to help with the appeals process.

Member Johnson thanked Ms. Gledhill.

Item 4. Contract Update

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

Ms. Ramirez stated that the Contract Report has one item which is operational and that it is informational only.  Ms. Ramirez concluded by offering to answer any questions the Board had regarding the item listed in the report.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Ramirez for the update.

Item 5. Request for Authority to Begin the Rulemaking Process for Amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 615, et seq.)

The Request for Authority to Begin the Rulemaking Process for Amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 615, et seq.) was presented by Senior Attorney Janeen Carlberg.

Ms. Carlberg stated she is seeking authorization to begin the rulemaking process for proposed amendments to the regulations. There are 26 regulations impacted by these proposed changes, which can be grouped into two categories:

First: there are regulations impacting hearing procedures; and second: there are regulations impacting the substance of the 649 series which govern the Victim Compensation Program.

With respect to the hearing procedures, CalVCB currently has three different articles that address hearing procedures: (1) all hearings; (2) Victim Compensation and Good Samaritan hearings; and (3) hearings on claims by wrongfully convicted felons under Penal Code section 4900.

Focusing on the provisions that apply to all hearings, the existing regulations are confusing and unclear as to their applicability. Within these are general hearing procedures, there are regulations that are specific only to particular types of hearings. For example, regulation 617.1 is entitled “Public Hearing,” but it does not specifically state that it only applies to Penal Code section 4900 hearings, rather than victim compensation hearings. Hearings under the Victim Compensation Program are exempted from public hearings under a more specific provision located elsewhere in the regulations. CalVCB does not hold public hearings for victims of crime as doing so would result in the disclosure of extremely private information and likely re-traumatize victims. Nonetheless, the placement and organization of the general hearing provisions has led to confusion by the public, applicants and representatives alike. Amending these regulations is necessary to clarify which sections apply to which type of hearings.

Changes to the regulations for the procedures that apply only to victim compensation hearings were needed because on August 5, 2024, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch invalidated section 647.20.1 in the court case Mothers Against Murder v. California Victim Compensation Board. Judge Roesch’s order directed CalVCB to remove the regulation from the regulatory scheme. The regulation at issue, 647.20.1, provided CalVCB a means to conduct an informal hearing based on documentary evidence alone at the hearing officer’s discretion. This means that an oral hearing may or may not have been offered to applicants. The ruling presented CalVCB an opportunity to review all of its hearing procedures and revise outdated regulations. 

Ms. Carlberg continued, it is important to note that as a result of the court’s order, CalVCB immediately changed its practices and stopped conducting hearings based on the written record without first offering oral hearings to applicants facing a potential denial. Again, in all situations where there is a staff recommendation to deny eligibility or reimbursement, a hearing is now offered to all applicants. In addition, all applicants who had received a denial recommendation prior to the ruling that had not been acted upon by the Board were also sent notices of their right to request a hearing and their cases were reviewed anew.

These proposed changes not only comply with the court order but ensure that all applicants and their representatives have the opportunity to be heard and have their statements considered before a decision is made by the Board. However, these changes are not yet set forth in regulations. As such, it is necessary to make substantial changes to the entire regulatory scheme outlining hearings to accurately reflect the procedural updates now in place.

To make these proposed changes, staff extensively reviewed all briefs, documents, declarations, evidence, statements and oral arguments submitted by Mothers Against Murder in the Alameda County court case. Staff also conferred at length with subject matter experts within CalVCB. The proposed regulations were further shared with CalVCB’s government agency partners: the 58-county victim witness advocate offices for review and comment. The result of these efforts are the draft proposed regulations.

There are also changes proposed to the substantive regulations in the 649 series that relate to the processing of claims under the victim compensation program. There are six regulations proposed to be changed.

One of the most significant proposed changes is section 649.32. Section 649.32 rewrites the existing Verification of Income and Support Loss regulation. The revisions significantly expand the availability of income and support loss benefits to applicants. For example, the proposed revision recognizes new categories of individuals who may be eligible for income or support loss, such as individuals with documented job offers and gig economy workers.

The revisions are also intended to address several shortcomings in the existing regulation. The existing regulation fails to concisely state the process applicants must follow to obtain income or support loss. It does not clearly specify the requirements necessary to establish eligibility. The public is confused about what information is required because there are multiple references to different requirements across several regulations. This has resulted in applicants having claims recommended for denial for one reason and, when that issue is cured, another issue is raised. The proposed revision sets forth all requirements to obtain income or support loss in one place.

Additionally, the revisions substantially liberalize the evidence which may be used to establish eligibility for income or support loss. For example, when an applicant affirmatively requests reimbursement of income loss, CalVCB must only receive a disability statement and some form of reliable evidence of income loss, whether it be itemized wage statements, payroll records, or direct deposit banking information. Once the process of requesting income or support loss is initiated, the burden then shifts to CalVCB staff to verify the information.

CalVCB’s verification process is also substantially revised. With respect to employed individuals, staff may now verify employment in one of three ways. Staff may obtain: 1) tax returns; 2) EDD records; or 3) a verification from the employer. This is a significant departure from the existing regulation that mandates CalVCB to receive tax returns from the Franchise Tax Board. The existing requirement has resulted in non-California residents, who never filed returns with the state of California, being denied income loss. Additionally, those individuals who only recently began working, and whose income is not reflected on the most recent returns, are also being found to be ineligible. The regulation must be changed to avoid these unintended outcomes.

With respect to verifying the income of self-employed individuals, the proposed regulation still requires staff to rely on tax returns. This is the current existing requirement. While staff, subject-matter experts and consultants diligently considered other ways to verify self-employment income, in the end, no one was able to propose a better solution. This includes the Government Operations Agency and the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) themselves. Nevertheless, the proposed revisions do alleviate the requirement that tax returns may only be provided to the Board by FTB. The revisions allow for the submission of tax returns from other jurisdictions and provide verification through other sources as well, such as tax preparers, accountants or cross-referencing matching tax refunds.

The remaining regulations in this category are intended to address gaps in the existing regulations, correct conflicts between the regulations and the governing statutes, and provide alternate ways to prove victimization in Human Trafficking situations.

Ms. Carlberg concluded her presentation by requesting the authority to begin the rulemaking process. She noted that once approved, the proposed amended regulations would be published in the Notice Register, which will open the 45-day public comment period. CalVCB will share the opening of the public comment period with all interested stakeholders, which in the past have numbered in the hundreds. This will allow the public to review the proposed regulations, provide feedback and suggested comments in writing, and request a hearing to offer further comment. Staff look forward to considering all comments and feedback on these proposed regulations. Following the comment period, staff will return to the Board with an update regarding the process and note any changes made to the regulations after receiving input from the public.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Carlberg for the presentation and for the work that was done on the draft regulations. In addition to complying with the court order, correcting the outdated regulations, and simplifying things for the constituents, he is very pleased with the changes to the income and support loss regulation.

Member Johnson, echoed Chairperson Ravel’s sentiment of liberalizing the documentation for income and support loss, noting it is really critical. Member Johnson stated it is always a difficult undertaking when updating regulation packets and it is a lot of work for the advocates who will come and speak on their own behalf or on the constituent’s behalf. He appreciates their time as the process is opened up to make comments, follow the process, and be engaged.

Member Becton also echoed the comments of her colleagues acknowledging this is a really significant undertaking but, as already noted, there are a number of changes, not only those to bring us in compliance with law but also to actually make the process fairer and more equitable. She thanked the public who will take the time to go through these documents. It is a laborious undertaking and the time that is taken to do this is appreciated.

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

Hovanes Tonoyan stated he would like to support the direction that the reforms of these regulations are going, but he wanted to add more regulations for consideration that he feels would be good to expand or liberalize:

• Regulation 647.32, Burden of Proof;
• Regulation 649.27, Third Party Verification;
• Regulation 649.40, Examples of Threat of Physical Injury;
• Regulation 649.41, Acts Constituting One Qualifying Crime; and,
• Regulation 649.44, Evidence of a Domestic Violence Qualifying Crime.

These regulations are in the same universe of expanding the access of crime victim compensation to victims on the standard of preponderance of evidence, expanding the different areas and providers and verifiers involved. Giving the different kinds of victims the opportunity to have their claims approved whenever their lives are threatened or whenever there has been some sort of threat of physical injury. He especially supports expanding the definition of a domestic violence victim to more than just partners or romantic partners. He feels this would be going in the same direction of these regulations to modernize and make sure that more populations are able to be served.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Mr. Tonoyan for his comments.

Chairperson Ravel asked Ms. Petros if she wanted to offer any public comment regarding this agenda item or anything else.

Ms. Petros appeared via Zoom; however, the code was not previously working, and she stated now her battery was low. She indicated that she would, instead, provide her comments in writing to the Board following the meeting. To date, CalVCB staff have not received a copy of any written comments from Margaret Petros regarding this Board meeting or the agendized items.

Member Becton moved to authorize the Executive Officer to begin the rulemaking process for the amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 615, et. seq.) and to execute and submit any required documents to the Office of Administrative Law. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Closed Session

The Board adjourned into Closed Session with the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Counsel at 10:48 a.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) to deliberate on proposed decision numbers 1 through 26 of the Victim Compensation Program.

Open Session

The Board reconvened in Open Session pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) at 11:07 a.m.

Member Johnson moved to approve items 1 through 26, excluding item number 2 of the Victim Compensation Program. Member Becton seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the proposed decisions were adopted.

Adjournment

Member Becton moved the adjournment of the January Board meeting. Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 11:08 a.m.

Next Board Meeting

The next Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 20, 2025.