California Victim Compensation Board
Open Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2022, 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, via Zoom, on Thursday, March 17, 2022, at 10:02 a.m. Also present via Zoom was Member Diana Becton, District Attorney, and Member Shawn Silva, Deputy State Controller and Chief Counsel, acting for and in the absence of, Betty T. Yee, Controller.
Executive Officer Lynda Gledhill, and Chief Counsel Kim Gauthier, attended in person at 400 R Street, Sacramento, California. Board Liaison, Michelle Greer, was also present and recorded the meeting.
Item 1. Approval of the Minutes of the January 20, 2022, Board Meeting
The Board approved the minutes of the January 20, 2022, Board meeting.
Item 2. Public Comment
The Board opened the meeting for public comment and Ms. Greer 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.)
There was no public comment.
Item 3. Executive Officer Statement
Executive Officer Gledhill updated the Board on several items:
To start, Ms. Gledhill updated the Board on CalVCB’s return-to-work plan, which started in January and has continued to operate smoothly. CalVCB has brought employees back into the office a minimum of one day a week. CalVCB employees have said that they appreciate the arrangement and are happy with the overall balance between being in office and telework.
As mentioned in January, the Governor’s budget includes several proposals related to CalVCB. As part of the budget process, in February Ms. Gledhill testified before both the Assembly and Senate Budget Subcommittees to discuss CalVCB’s program and the proposals. Ms. Gledhill also reminded the Board that the budget proposes increasing CalVCB’s federal authority and adjusting benefit limits to accommodate the increase in CalVCB’s federal Victims of Crime Act reimbursement rate from 60 percent to 75 percent.
Ms. Gledhill continued, stating that the additional federal funding and authority, if approved, will be used, in part, to support an increase in benefit limits for crime scene cleanup costs from $1,000 to $1,700, funeral and burial costs from $7,500 to $12,800, and relocation benefits from $2,000 to $3,400. This is an overdue adjustment for limits that were set in 2000 and haven’t been changed since. The budget also proposes changing the way CalVCB compensates those who have been found by the Board to have been erroneously convicted. Both subcommittees had robust conversations about CalVCB and the work CalVCB does and CalVCB looks forward to continuing to update the Board with information as the process moves forward.
Ms. Gledhill reported that on January 1, CalVCB began accepting applications for the Forced or Involuntary Sterilization Compensation Program. The Legislature created the program as part of the 2021-22 budget. The program provides compensation to survivors of state-sponsored sterilization conducted pursuant to eugenics laws that existed in the State of California between 1909 and 1979 and to survivors of involuntary sterilizations performed on people in California prisons after 1979. CalVCB has already received 56 applications and is working to process them. It is estimated that 600 survivors of forced sterilization remain alive and are eligible for the program. CalVCB will continue to work on getting the word out and reaching all eligible survivors. The program runs through December 31, 2023.
Finally, Ms. Gledhill concluded her remarks by updating the Board on efforts made to honor CalVCB employees for Employee Appreciation Day, which included handing out a small token of appreciation to every employee. Ms. Gledhill also noted that she recently met with every unit in the organization to thank them for their hard work and to hear first-hand how things are going.
Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Gledhill for the updates.
Item 4. Legislative Update
The Legislative Update was provided by Deputy Executive Officer of the External Affairs Division, Andrew LaMar.
In Mr. LaMar’s first Legislative Update of the calendar year, he highlighted a few key bills.
First, SB 993 by Senator Skinner, would make many significant changes to CalVCB’s statutes. Among them, it would increase reimbursement limits, expand eligibility in several ways, and shorten processing times for victim compensation claims. It would also increase compensation to erroneously convicted individuals. In addition, it would create a pilot program under Cal OES to fund community-based organizations to provide direct cash assistance to survivors of violence.
Mr. LaMar noted that there is much included in this bill and that CalVCB will continue to watch it closely as it moves through the process.
Next, SB 877, by Senator Eggman, would authorize CalVCB to reimburse mental health providers who are licensed in states outside of California. This bill was passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee on Tuesday.
AB 2126, by Assemblymember Flora, would create a new program to be administered by CalVCB. This program, Mr. LaMar stated, would compensate the family members of those who have died from fentanyl overdoses. The benefits available would include compensation for funeral expenses and crime scene clean up, and would be funded by assessing a $2,000 fine on certain drug charges. The bill is set to be heard next week in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
Next, SB 632 by Senator Portantino, would appropriate $1,807,120 from the General Fund to pay two erroneous conviction claims approved by CalVCB for George Souliotes and Guy Miles. The bill has already passed through the Senate and is now awaiting referral in the Assembly.
SB 981, by Senator Glazer, would expand the grounds for which an automatic recommendation for compensation of an erroneous conviction claim by CalVCB is required for certain claims. It would also reduce the standard to obtain a court-issued finding of factual innocence for certain claims. The bill is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Public Safety Committee on March 29, 2022.
Mr. Lamar continued by stating that AB 1599, by Assemblymember Kiley, seeks to repeal Proposition 47, which would be placed on the ballot. The bill was heard last week in the Assembly Public Safety Committee and failed passage.
In conclusion, Mr. LaMar updated the Board on AB 1733 by Assemblymember Quirk, which would authorize meetings subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act to be held entirely by teleconference. This bill has not been set yet for a hearing.
Chairperson Ravel thanked Mr. LaMar for the updates.
Item 5. Proposal to Approve Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards
The Proposal to Approve Trauma Recovery Center Grant Awards was presented by Deputy Executive Officer of the External Affairs Division, Andrew LaMar.
Mr. LaMar started by saying that this staff recommendation for awarding grants to Trauma Recovery Centers (TRC)s is for the next two-year grant cycle, which begins on July 1, 2022.
TRCs are centers that provide evidence-based mental health and case management services to victims of violent crime. Since 2014, by statutory authority, CalVCB has provided grants to TRCs through a competitive application process each year.
TRCs are a model of care for victims pioneered by UC San Francisco and now used across the country. The statute is quite clear on what TRCs must do. There are 10 core elements, and they include:
- Providing assertive outreach and engagement to underserved populations;
- Serving victims of all types of violent crimes;
- Treating all clients with complex problems, regardless of their emotional or behavioral issues; and
- Using a multidisciplinary treatment team that includes psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and marriage and family therapists.
Last year, many concerns were raised about the TRC grant program, how applications were scored and how awards were determined. There was concern about continuing funding to existing TRCs and concern about providing services in all geographic areas that had great need and didn’t have other, similar services, such as in the Central Valley. For 2022, CalVCB worked to address those concerns and create a model process that takes those factors into consideration.
First, CalVCB streamlined the application and made it clear in the Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) exactly how applications would be scored. The maximum point value for an application was 100 points. For the six narrative questions drawn directly from statutory requirements, CalVCB spelled out how points would be awarded – up to 10 for each question. Last year, several TRCs said they had been disqualified on technicalities. This year, CalVCB has made clear what was necessary for minimum qualifications – showing some evidence that the applicant could meet each statutory requirement.
In other words, Mr. LaMar explained, for each of the six narrative questions, if any applicant showed no evidence it understood or could meet the requirement, it received a score of zero on that question and the application was disqualified. This is important because CalVCB staff must ensure that any potential grantee can meet the TRC statutory requirements. There was concern last year about serving the Central Valley and disrupting funding to existing TRCs. CalVCB has stopped short of stipulating that TRC grants must go to applicants from certain areas or that all existing TRCs should be funded first, regardless of application score, because that is not in keeping with the statute, which calls for a competitive process that evaluates all applicants on their abilities to meet the program requirements.
But CalVCB has made changes in the scoring rubric to more highly value serving areas with no other TRC services and being able to immediately provide services. The highest point values were awarded for applicants who could demonstrate the ability to begin providing services within 30 days of receiving their awards. CalVCB does not control who submits applications for grants or where they come from. CalVCB has a competitive grant program – not a statewide program mandated to provide TRCs in every county. Nevertheless, assessing the need of the community being served is very important, because CalVCB wants the grants to have the largest possible impact. Taking into consideration last year’s discussions, CalVCB added weight to an applicant’s ability to serve the greatest number of victims and address need in its service area. Such factors as crime rate and whether there were other similar services available in the area figured into the score.
Finally, Mr. LaMar said, CalVCB staff evaluated the funding levels needed for TRCs to function optimally and maximize the victims they could serve. Last May, the Board voted to award funding to all grant applicants who met minimum qualifications, regardless of their score. That meant that $13 million was split among 12 applicants, with each receiving only a portion of what it requested. The funding level was not consistent with levels provided in previous years. While in past years all applicants meeting minimum qualifications were awarded grants, the funding available could cover amounts that came close to what each requested. That was not the case last year due to the higher number of applications meeting this threshold. For the first time, CalVCB had significantly more qualifying applicants than funding available.
The reduced funding levels created problems for the 2021 grantees. A review of the programs showed that while all TRCs reacted differently, each experienced varying impacts of budget cuts that involved eliminating positions, reducing operational expenses or delaying the opening of centers. Prior to 2021, CalVCB awarded an average of 89.7 percent of the funding requested by grant applicants. In reviewing our records, CalVCB staff found that this standard of approximately 90 percent worked well – it gave TRCs the level of funding they needed for healthy operations.
Mr. LaMar reminded the Board that there is no limit to what an applicant can request in a grant application, so that must also be taken into consideration.
The TRC grant program has grown since its inception. In 2014, CalVCB funded two applicants. Over the years, the program has generated more and more interest and drawn an increasing number of qualified applications. Funding has increased too, but it has not kept up with the growing pool of qualified applicants and their requests for funding.
In essence, by funding all applicants that met minimum qualifications last year, regardless of their scores, all received considerably less than they requested and less than they said they needed to run their programs and meet the statutory requirements. Given that, we have had to consider what is best, moving forward, for the TRC grant program and the victims it serves.
Mr. LaMar reiterated that the TRC grant program is based on a competitive application process. CalVCB can set priorities and weight scoring in certain ways, but CalVCB staff must evaluate all applicants on their ability to meet the statutory requirements and score them accordingly. Then, the question is what is the best way to distribute funding? CalVCB staff think funding the top applicants at healthy levels – at near 90 percent or above – is the best approach.
For this cycle, that means providing grants to the top seven applicants but not funding the lower-scoring applicants. Six of those seven are existing TRCs and one is new. Mr. LaMar noted there was a big difference in the quality of the applications, with the top seven receiving scores of more than 60 points out of the 100 possible and the others receiving scores of between 29 and 52. Notably, CalVCB did receive one application from the Central Valley for a new center that met minimum qualifications, but the applicant received a very low score and, accordingly, it is not recommended for funding.
In conclusion, Mr. LaMar stated that CalVCB encourages TRC applicants that did not receive grants in this cycle to seek other sources of funding and to apply for a TRC grant in the next cycle. A NOFA for the 2023 awards will be posted in fall or early winter. The documents for this Board item that were included in the March Board Meeting binder included a table showing the recommended grant awards, with the grantees receiving between 89 and 97 percent of what they requested, based on their scoring tier.
Chairperson Ravel thanked Mr. LaMar for his presentation and recognized the very important services that all TRCs provide for victims.
Member Silva posed a few questions to Mr. LaMar regarding the Central Valley applicants. Member Silva suggested that it would be helpful to see all of the applicants listed on a chart that was provided via PowerPoint, both who was accepted and who was denied. Member Silva specifically inquired as to the Central Valley applicant(s) score overall. Mr. LaMar said that the only Central Valley TRC that applied scored the lowest out of all the applicants.
Member Silva then asked if there was any technical assistance provided to the applicants. Mr. LaMar answered that, when the NOFA was posted, the TRCs were encouraged to reach out with any questions they may have, and then, as part of the process, CalVCB posts all questions and answers on its website to provide answers for everyone to see. After the TRCs are notified of their results, the application is reviewed by the CalVCB TRC team as to why the application was scored the way that it was.
It is not uncommon, Mr. LaMar continued, that applications are received by new TRCs that do not score well initially, but in a subsequent cycle are awarded funding.
Member Silva thanked Mr. LaMar.
Member Becton asked whether the TRC’s geographical location is considered when reviewing TRC applications so that money is more evenly distributed. Member Becton said that it appears most of CalVCB’s approved TRCs are in Southern California with much smaller amounts for Northern California TRCs.
Mr. LaMar reminded the Board that what is included in their binder is only a snapshot of the approved TRCs because CalVCB funds them in two-year cycles. Presently, CalVCB is funding 18 TRCs; what is not listed in the Board meeting binders are the ones that were funded in the last cycle, which was last Spring. Mr. LaMar acknowledged that Member Becton raised a valid point with which CalVCB has struggled. The statute makes clear that CalVCB can consider need, as well as geographical need, but CalVCB is not directed to create a statewide program or ensure that all of the State of California is covered. CalVCB evaluates the application based on the requirements in the statute, the ability to meet the program criteria, and the area from which the application came originated,
Member Silva then asked for more information as to how CalVCB does take geographical location into account during the approval process. Mr. LaMar stated that there are points awarded based on geographic location and the needs of that specific area, but there is no mandate to cover certain areas of the state before addressing the needs of other areas. In a competitive application process, CalVCB looks at the application in its entirety, the need for the area that is being served and what the coverage is or services available are in that area. Mr. LaMar reminded the Board that CalVCB is limited by the program parameters as outlined in the current statute.
The Board approved the proposal to award the TRC grants as recommended by staff.
Item 6. Request for Authority to Begin Rulemaking Process for Amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 640, et seq.)
The Request for Authority to Begin the Rulemaking Process for Amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 640, et seq.) was presented by CalVCB Senior Attorney Laura Simpton.
Ms. Simpton explained that this agenda item is to request authorization to begin the rulemaking process to amend the regulations governing Penal Code section 4900 (PC 4900) claims (erroneously convicted felons). These regulations were last updated in 2012, and, since then, the statutes for processing PC 4900 claims have changed significantly. As a result, many of the current regulations are inconsistent or in conflict with current law. A draft of the proposed regulations was attached to the Board materials for this item. Ms. Simpton noted that CalVCB did reach out to the Attorney General, the California Innocence Project, and the Northern California Innocence Project for their informal comments to the draft regulations in preparation for this meeting and before finalizing the draft before the Board.
Ms. Simpton explained that, upon approval by the Board, the draft regulations will be submitted to the Office of Administrate Law (OAL) to commence the official rulemaking process. As part of that process, all stakeholders and the general public are entitled to submit comments during a 45-day period. Any received comments will be carefully considered and, if warranted, result in additional revisions to the regulations. The revisions, in turn, would trigger an additional comment period of 15 days for minor changes or 45 days for major changes.
Ms. Simpton concluded by stating that once the comment period officially ends and the language of the proposed regulations is settled, CalVCB staff will return to the Board with a separate request to adopt the regulations and authorize filing the final rulemaking record with OAL. If granted, OAL will review the regulations and, if approved, file them with the Secretary of State.
Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Simpton for her presentation of the item and for reaching out to stakeholders before presenting this item to the Board.
Dina Petrushenko, Deputy Attorney General from the Attorney General’s Office provided public comment on this item. Ms. Petrushenko introduced herself as being the lead coordinator for PC 4900 cases in her office. She mentioned that she informally submitted feedback regarding the proposed amendments, but it was before hearing some of the proposed legislative bills that are pending that will have a greater impact on the PC 4900 cases. Ms. Petrushenko just wanted to add that one of the things she did not consider when she provided the informal feedback to the proposed amendments was that a lot of claims that she receives in her office, after being reviewed by the Board, are by Pro Per individuals as well as individuals represented by private attorneys rather than the Innocence Project, who do not know the procedures and materials needed for submitting a PC 4900 case. Ms. Petrushenko asked that the amended rules include the step-by-step process and explanation of materials needed for submitting a PC 4900 claim.
Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Petrushenko for her comment.
CalVCB’s Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier, in response to the comment made by Ms. Petrushenko explained that the Legal section is currently working on revising the PC 4900 claim form posted on the CalVCB website, which should address most of Ms. Petrushenko’s concerns. CalVCB has added additional boxes and some additional information suggesting to the claimant the type of information, both factual and documentary, that would be helpful when evaluating the claim.
Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Gauthier for the information.
The Board approved the Request for Authority to Begin the Rulemaking Process for Amendments to the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, §§ 640, et seq.)
Item 7. PC 4900 Claim No. 22-ECO-02, Edward Dumbrique
This presentation was given by Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier. Ms. Gauthier gave a brief summary of the Penal Code section 4900 claim filed by Edward Dumbrique.
On January 3, 2022, Edward Dumbrique submitted an application for compensation as an erroneously convicted person pursuant to Penal Code section 4900. The application was based upon Mr. Dumbrique’s 1998 murder conviction in Los Angeles County, which was subsequently vacated and dismissed during state habeas proceedings in March 2021. Mr. Dumbrique’s co-defendant in the case, John Klene, also filed an application for consideration at the March Board meeting.
As there was no objection filed by the Office of the Attorney General (AG) to the claim, compensation is automatic under Penal Code section 4900, subdivision (b), and the proposed decision recommends compensation of $1,211,560, which represents $140 per day for each of the 8,654 days Mr. Dumbrique was wrongfully imprisoned
Throughout these proceedings Mr. Dumbrique was represented by Deirdre O’Connor from the office of Seamus Law, and the Attorney General’s Office was represented by Deputy Attorney General Dina Petrushenko.
Chairperson Ravel asked that counsel for Mr. Dumbrique address the Board first.
Ms. O’Connor, who appeared via conference call, stated that she was grateful for the prompt actions of the Hearing Officer and the Attorney General’s Office in evaluating this matter and requested that the proposed decision be approved.
Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. O’Connor for her comments.
Chairperson Ravel then asked if Mr. Dumbrique would like to address the Board.
Mr. Dumbrique, who appeared via conference call, stated that he wanted to thank the Board personally for compensating him for all the years that he was wrongfully incarcerated.
Chairperson Ravel thanked Mr. Dumbrique for his appearance and comment.
Chairperson Ravel then asked Ms. Petrushenko for her comments on the matter.
Ms. Dina Petrushenko, who appeared via conference call, agreed that the proposed decision should be approved by the Board.
Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Petrushenko for appearing before the Board.
The Board adopted the Proposed Decision.
Item 8. PC 4900 Claim No. 21-ECO-24, Jonathan Hampton
This presentation was given by Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier. Ms. Gauthier gave a brief summary of the Penal Code section 4900 claim filed by Jonathan Hampton.
On October 21, 2021, Jonathan Hampton submitted an application for compensation as an erroneously convicted person pursuant to Penal Code section 4900. The application was based upon Mr. Hampton’s 2009 murder conviction, which was vacated on state habeas. Following retrial, Mr. Hampton was acquitted of murder, but found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a lesser included offense, and resentenced to eight years imprisonment, after having been imprisoned for over 13 years.
As there was no objection filed by the Attorney General’s Office and, therefore, compensation is automatic under Penal Code section 4900, subdivision (b), and the proposed decision recommends compensation of $297,200, which represents $140 per day for each of the 2,123 days Mr. Hampton was wrongfully imprisoned.
Throughout these proceedings Mr. Hampton has represented himself and the Attorney General’s Office was represented by Deputy Attorney General Dina Petrushenko.
Chairperson Ravel asked if Mr. Hampton wished to address the Board.
Due to technically issues with Mr. Hampton’s phone in connecting to the video conference call, Ms. Gauthier suggested that the Board move to Item 9 while Mr. Hampton’s was connected to the meeting.
Item 9. PC 4900 Claim No. 22-ECO-01, John Klene
This presentation was given by Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier. Ms. Gauthier gave a brief summary of the Penal Code section 4900 claim filed by John Klene.
On January 3, 2022, John Klene submitted an application for compensation as an erroneously convicted person pursuant to Penal Code section 4900. The application was based upon Mr. Klene’s 1998 murder conviction in Los Angeles County, which was subsequently vacated and dismissed during state habeas proceedings in February 2021.
As there was no objection filed by the Office of the Attorney General, compensation is automatic under Penal Code section 4900, subdivision (b), and the proposed decision recommends compensation of $1,202,740, which represents $140 per day for each of the 8,591 days Mr. Klene was wrongfully imprisoned.
Throughout these proceedings Mr. Klene was represented by Deirdre O’Connor from the office of Seamus Law, and the Attorney General’s Office was represented by Deputy Attorney General Dina Petrushenko.
Chairperson Ravel asked that counsel for Mr. Klene address the Board first.
Ms. O’Connor, who appeared via conference call, stated that she was grateful for the prompt processing of this application and requested that the proposed decision be approved.
Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. O’Connor for her comments.
Chairperson Ravel then asked if Mr. Klene would like to address the Board himself.
Mr. Klene, who appeared via conference call, stated that he wanted to thank the Board, and was thankful that things are changing for the better for victims like himself.
Chairperson Ravel thanked Mr. Klene for his comment.
Chairperson Ravel then asked Ms. Petrushenko for her comments on the matter.
Ms. Petrushenko, who appeared via conference call, agreed that the proposed decision should be approved by the Board.
Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Petrushenko for appearing before the Board.
Margaret Petros requested to address the Board on this agenda item.
Ms. Petros thanked the Board for how it is dealing with the Innocence Project and the wrongfully accused. Ms. Petros said that the process seems very fast and well done. She stated that she wished CalVCB and the Board were this prompt for victims of violent crime when their applications are denied, and the notifications that CalVCB provides to let the claimant know they have been denied.
Ms. Petros continued by asking the Board to look at the denied applications that are being considered at this meeting because they, or authorized representatives, have not been notified that their application has been denied.
Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Petros for her comments.
The Board adopted the Proposed Decision.
Connected via audio call, Mr. Hampton (Item 8 of the Agenda) was prepared to address Board.
Item 8. PC 4900 Claim No. 21-ECO-24, Jonathan Hampton
(Continued from page 10)
Mr. Hampton, who appeared via audio call, stated that he wanted to thank the Board for this line of communication, as someone who has suffered from wrongful incarceration for so long. The fight for him to earn his freedom, like many of the gentlemen that presented today in these similar claims is daunting, but having the opportunity to be on this side of things and the opportunity of being in pursuit of freedom is great. Mr. Hampton concluded by saying that he wished to be compensated so he can start his life again on new and better grounds.
Chairperson Ravel thanked Mr. Hampton for his comment.
Chairperson Ravel then asked Ms. Petrushenko for her comments on the matter.
Ms. Petrushenko, who appeared via conference call, agreed that the proposed decision should be approved by the Board.
Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Petrushenko for appearing before the Board.
The Board adopted the Proposed Decision.
Closed Session
Pursuant to Government Code section 11126 (a), the Board adjourned into Closed Session with the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Counsel at 10:57 a.m., pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) to deliberate on proposed decision numbers 1-90C of the Victim Compensation Program
Open Session
The Board reconvened in Open Session pursuant to Government Code sections 11126(a) and 11126(c)(3) at 11:04 a.m.
The Board adopted the hearing officers’ recommendations for proposed decision numbers 1-90C of the Victim Compensation Program.
Adjournment
The Board meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
Next Board Meeting
The next Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 19, 2022.