California Victim Compensation Board

Meeting Minutes

November 21, 2024, 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, November 21, 2024, 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 September 19, 2024, Board Meeting

Mechiel Taylor appeared via conference call to clarify that the summary of her comments in the minutes for the September 19, 2024, Board Meeting, stated the sheriff’s deputy was a “man,” however, in her comments she was actually referring to a “female” sheriff’s deputy.

Chairperson Ravel moved approval of the Minutes for the September 19, 2024, Board Meeting, as amended consistent with Ms. Taylor’s clarification. 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.)

Margaret Petros appeared via Zoom and requested to know what CalVCB is doing and how the court order in the Mothers Against Murder (MAM) lawsuit is being implemented. On October 28, she emailed a request to Ms. Gledhill and Ms. Gauthier for an update on the implementation, and she did not hear back. Ms. Petros alleged that the executives went to the Deputy Attorney General to ask MAM’s attorney to notify her that she would need to go through MAM’s attorney for this communication. She wanted to know why, and who is going to pay for the attorney’s fees ongoing, since the case is over and done. She wants to communicate on this topic and get the report. She is responsible and cares about public funds, and she wants funds to go to crime victims, not attorneys when it is not necessary.

Ms. Petros concluded by reminding the Board that CalVCB is a public body accountable to the public, and that everything CalVCB does and says is a matter of public record. In her opinion, CalVCB staff are being difficult and they should be making it as easy as possible and should be supplying her with the report on how CalVCB is implementing the court’s order.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Petros for her comment.

Ms. Gauthier responded stating that the rules of professional conduct that apply to attorneys do not permit communications directly with represented parties outside the presence of their counsel. Accordingly, Ms. Petros’ communication was an impermissible ex parte communication to CalVCB, so CalVCB forwarded the communication to its counsel and requested that its counsel respond to Ms. Petros’ counsel. Ms. Gauthier further noted that the court order regarding attorney fees is not yet final, which means that the litigation is ongoing. And CalVCB is complying and will continue to comply with its requirements regarding communication with represented parties.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Gauthier for her response.

Ms. Taylor stated she had a chance to review the annual report from the 2023-2024 victim compensation statistics. She thanked all the individuals involved in putting that report together. She noted that this was her first time seeing the report since she just started utilizing the website. She posted the following questions:

• On page 7 of the report, there is a column for denied applications and the denials exceed 9,000 applications. Are there additional data for the denials that could potentially highlight disparities between specific groups?
• Also, on page 7, in the payment by crime category, there is a category that falls under “other.” What crimes are included in that “other” category? There was no explanation.
• Finally, a general question, how does CalVCB navigate applications of victims when CalVCB partners with law enforcement agencies that the victim has complained about?

Ms. Taylor continued by describing her experience with CalVCB. She applied to the Program, because literally overnight she went from having an income to no income, and she lost the ability to walk out of her front door and function after being victimized. She checked out the Program and read through all the eligibility requirements and she met all the requirements because she is a direct victim of a qualifying crime base on what is listed on the website. She also has a son and if he applied, he would be a derivative victim because he has expenses and needs services because of her injury.

When she applied on November 14, 2022, she uploaded all the required documentation that day or at least she uploaded what she believed was all the required documentation. Months later, she learned there were additional documents required that she did not have in her possession. She would receive a document, complete it, call CalVCB to check the status and would be told there were additional documents required. This process was a piecemeal process that continued for months.

On November 15, 2024, she received a letter from CalVCB that was dated January 16, 2024, which listed 15 Government Codes, Penal Codes, and other California Codes without explanation, which were used for her denial. Ms. Taylor stated, “She would need to be a lawyer to understand all these codes that were listed without explanation, or she needed to spend her valuable time researching these 15 codes,” which she did. She feels as a victim that it is ridiculous and that obstacles have been put in the way to find any opportunity to deny a victim compensation who has met all the requirements.

Ms. Taylor concluded nothing that she recently received a document to appear at a hearing. She is more than two years into her application process and now she is getting a document to appear for a hearing and no date has yet been set. It has been a frustrating experience. She would like the Board to look into her and other applications and the process.

Chair Ravel thanked Ms. Taylor for her comments.

Mr. Tonoyan offered a comment regarding Ms. Gledhill’s handling of the VOCA Regulations. At the meeting on March 21, the Board and Ms. Gledhill were discussing submitting a comment to the federal agency and Mr. Tonoyan noticed that the comment was submitted on April 5. He is curious to know what kind of discussion the executive officer had with the Board, if there were public discussions or if they were behind closed doors, depending on what is allowed and what is not.

CalVCB’s next meeting was on May 16. He is curious to see what has happened since then. He read the letter and has a lot of criticisms. He would like to know if CalVCB sourced any data, any insights, or testimonials from crime victims, or crime advocate experts before CalVCB sent the letter to the federal agency. The state is supposed to represent the residents of the state, you are not just representing your business operations and what you think is going to be good for your bottom line. In reading the letter, he can see that there are a lot of denials taking place by this agency. It seems like the interpretation and the way these regulations are being applied, they are being used against crime victims.

Mr. Tonoyan continued questioning if CalVCB would make it easier for crime victims to get the support they need, why would that have such huge financial impact on this agency. Why is that the argument that the agency is trying to make to the federal government who can give more funds and make it easier for crime victims to rebuild their lives.

Mr. Tonoyan next offered his congratulations to Mothers Against Murder for advocating for crime victims. He feels the agency cannot meet its mandates because it is spending so much money trying to fight crime victims and their claims to prevent them from being paid. When CalVCB has to follow the law, they are making it more difficult for that victory to stay in place. In his opinion, cases being litigated are what is causing the money to drop, and it is not the federal regulations that are helping crime victims that will impact the bottom line. From his

observation, there was no discussion with crime victims, or constituents. The decisions are being made at the very top and the regular people in the community are suffering.

Mr. Tonoyan concluded by asking the Board to consider making an agenda item inviting crime victims and experts to a workshop or study session. Any type of platform where CalVCB can reply or comment even if it is not on the agenda.

Chair Ravel thanked Mr. Tonoyan for his comments. He also mentioned that any discussions regarding the regulations were made public under the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.

Item 3. Executive Officer Statement

Executive Officer Gledhill updated the Board on the following:

Ms. Gledhill informed the Board that Proposition 36 passed with more than 70 percent support and reminded them that this initiative increases certain sentences and criminal justice costs. It will also reduce the amount that is deposited into the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Fund (SNSF), from which the Trauma Recovery Centers (TRC) receive a 10 percent distribution. It is estimated that the reduction will be at least in the low tens of million dollars; others project the SNSF will be depleted. The actual impact is unknown at this time.

The upcoming TRC Grant cycle is the last cycle eligible to receive one-time general funds, which are contingent on the state budget. We will most likely see a reduction in the number of TRCs awarded grants in the next cycle. The Notice of Funds Available will be posted in mid- December. CalVCB encourages the TRCs to continue to seek alternative funding.

The state budget continues to experience a short fall, and CalVCB continues to work with the administration to manage operational reductions and the elimination of vacant positions Ms. Gledhill noted that CalVCB has worked diligently to hire and fill most of its vacant positions.

Ms. Gledhill continued, noting that before the Mothers Against Murder (MAM) August 5, 2024, court decision, CalVCB was using Informal Hearing Letters (IHL) to handle many of the appeals; however, the court decision stated that the IHLs conflict with the statutory requirement to offer a hearing to every applicant whose claim or bill has been denied.

Previously 90 percent of appeals were handled through these IHLs but were immediately stopped with the issuance of the court order.

CalVCB implemented a new process which requires new forms and letters that have been uploaded into its database. There is a lot of background work that needs to happen to create a new process. CalVCB is also trying to streamline both the process and the letters to ensure applicants are afforded a hearing date as soon as possible. However, the number of appeals received has increased dramatically over the last several years.

Ms. Gledhill also reported that this past October was Domestic Violence Awareness Month. CalVCB hosted domestic violence-focused webinars, social media toolkits, and local outreach activities. In addition, staff collected more than 2,000 personal care items that were donated to My Sister’s House in Sacramento.

Ms. Gledhill updated the Board on the upcoming 18th Annual National Indian Nations Conference in December hosted by the federal government. A panel of different states from Arizona, New Mexico, Washington, and California has been assembled and is expected to discuss how Compensation leaders from the western states can empower healing and what tribal resources they have to better help victims.

CalVCB is in the process of finalizing the 2025-2028 strategic plan and plans to share it with the Board and publish it in January. The latest strategic plan incorporates feedback from staff, managers, and stakeholders. CalVCB surveyed nearly 3,500 external stakeholders, facilitated more than two dozen stakeholder meetings, and the strategic plan prioritizes access and equity to Victim Compensation Board services, improving the CalVCB experience and fostering a strong workforce.

Ms. Gledhill concluded her report by noting that 2025 is the 60th anniversary of CalVCB, making it the oldest compensation program in the country. In that time, CalVCB provided more than $2 billion in benefits to more than 1.5 million crime survivors.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Gledhill for the updates.

Member Johnson asked Ms. Gledhill to elaborate on the kind of outreach and engagement that was done in developing the strategic plan.

Ms. Gledhill responded that CalVCB has a large stakeholder mailing list and that a survey was sent to those stakeholders multiple times, and more than 100 responses were received. In the survey, CalVCB asked what was being done well and what could be improved. In addition, Ms. Gledhill reported that she had individual meetings with stakeholders throughout the state and really tried to target those who were or were not familiar with CalVCB in order to gather information on what can be improved moving forward. CalVCB understands the critical service that is provided for victims, so she wanted to understand what they felt was the best to provide those services in compliance with the statutory requirements, but also in a way that does not create impediments for victims. This is a constant balance at CalVCB, and the strategic plan looks at ways to further enhance the services.

Member Johnson asked whether the strategic plan will be presented to the Board as a discussion or what is the process for adoption of the strategic plan?

Ms. Gledhill stated it is an internal document and will be presented to the Board for comments, but it will be a complete document at that stage.

Member Johnson asked about the appeals workload at the present time.

Ms. Gauthier responded that there are approximately 3,200 appeals in the queue currently and on average we receive approximately 3,600 per year. About 63 appeals per month are being resolved right now given the limited staffing that we have dedicated to this work. There is quite a long wait for applicants to hear about their appeals. As far as calendar days are concerned, on average right now, it is approximately 13 months before an appeal is resolved. This applies to those appeals that have been reviewed and need to go to an attorney for further handling.

The appeals analyst will look at the appeals first and if there is a way to resolve the appeal and allow the claim, then they will do it at that level. If it does come to the attorney, they will conduct a cursory review of the appeal and if they are able to resolve it, they will resolve it as well without it going to a hearing. The remaining appeals are where program staff recommended that it be denied, appeals staff reviewed it and are upholding that decision . The attorney will review it and prepare the case for hearing if they believe the denial of the claim or bill is correct.

Chair Ravel stated that it is fair to say, unless CalVCB gets the additional resources that the backlog will continue to expand as well as the timeframe for resolution of these appeals in light of the new requirements.

Ms. Gledhill confirmed that is correct and stated that the staff works hard and understands that it is frustrating for the victims. There have been discussions on how to move this process forward, and the legal department and Chief Counsel have tried to make the process as smooth as possible to provide these hearings as quickly as possible.

Item 4. Legislative Update

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

Ms. Cardenas noted that the Governor had until September 30 to sign or veto bills from this year’s session. The final actions are all listed in the written report, but she highlighted two key bills that were signed after the last Board meeting.

• AB 179 is a budget trailer bill that makes changes to the Forced or Involuntary Sterilization Compensation Program (FISCP). It allows additional reviews of previously denied claims or appeals upon requests by claimants with a showing of good cause. The claimant must request an additional review no later than January 1, 2025. Any claimant found to be a qualified recipient will receive $35,00 in compensation. That bill took effect immediately when it was signed by the Governor on September 30.

• AB 1186 by Assemblymember Bonta deems restitution fines against both adult and juvenile offenders uncollectible 10 years after imposition. It also eliminates certain mandatory restitution fines against juvenile offenders. That bill becomes effective January 1, 2025.

CalVCB will be monitoring any developments as the special session called by the Governor and the new legislative session begins.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Cardenas for the updates.

Member Johnson asked if there was an idea of how many additional FISCP claims CalVCB might receive.

Ms. Gledhill responded that currently the number is under 10, but CalVCB sent letters to any applicant who was previously denied and had documentation of sterilization informing them that they had another opportunity to request an additional review. The appeals that have been received are still going through the review process.

Item 5. Contract Update

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

Ms. Ramirez stated that the Contract Report is for operational contracts and is informational only and offered to answer any questions the Board had regarding the items listed in the report.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Ramirez for the update.

Item 6. Proposed Board Meeting Dates for Calendar Year 2025

The Proposed Board Meeting Dates for Calendar Year 2025 was presented by Executive Officer Lynda Gledhill.

Ms. Gledhill recommended continuing with Board meetings every other month, on the third Thursday of the month starting on January 16, 2025. She asked for approval of the proposed dates.

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

Hovanes Tonoyan, asked once the dates are finalized, when will the Board consider opening up the rulemaking process again to revitalize and reform some of the very outdated regulations.

Chairperson Ravel stated that there are periodic updates to the regulations as new laws are passed, and we need to conform with them and noted that some regulations were on the agenda for this meeting.

Ms. Gauthier stated the rulemaking calendar is due to the Office of Administrative Law typically in January and it would be published at that time. It is anticipated that there are going to be necessary changes to the regulations as a result of the litigation in the Mothers Against Murder case. The Board can expect to see the changes in January or March for consideration.

Member Becton moved to adopt the Board Meeting Dates as proposed for Calendar Year 2025. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

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

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

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

The project was prompted by two events. The first was new legislative changes to the procedural and substantive basis for resolving these claims as a result of SB 78 that went into effect in January 2024. The second was an exponential increase in claims received. There was a 139 percent increase in claims received between 2021 and 2023, with 28 claims in 2021 and 67 claims in 2023. To date in 2024, CalVCB has received 73 claims. By comparison, the number of claims approved increased by 57 percent, going from seven in 2021 to 11 in 2023, and in 2024, we are currently at 10 and counting.

As a result of these events, staff determined that changes to the regulations and claim form were needed to ensure consistency with current law, to provide additional clarity for processing claims and determining eligibility, and to include non-substantive revisions that render the regulations and the claim form easier to understand, especially for claimants representing themselves. When drafting the proposed changes in June, CalVCB reached out to various stakeholders including the Attorney General and Innocence Project for their informal response and incorporated the feedback that was received, which was solely from the Attorney General.

In July, a draft of the proposed regulations was presented to the Board. The Board authorized staff to commence the rulemaking process. Based on the authorization, staff submitted the initial rulemaking package to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on July 25, and then on

August 9, the OAL published the proposed regulations and related documents, which started the 45-day public comment period. CalVCB also posted a notice of this regulatory action on its website, and also sent out both emails and letters to interested persons to make them aware of the proposed changes. The public comment period ended on September 23, and no comments or requests for a hearing were received.

Ms. Simpton concluded by noting, after careful consideration, staff determined no additional modification was warranted to the proposed regulations or the revised claim form. As a result, staff requested the Board adopt the proposed regulations and updated claim form, and also requested authorization to conclude the rulemaking process. With the Board’s approval, staff will submit the documents to OAL as part of the final rulemaking packet. OAL will review the submission and, if approved, the proposed regulations will become effective on April 1, 2025.

Chairperson Ravel thanked Ms. Simpton and stated the pre-work that was done by contacting stakeholders went well and no changes were needed.

Member Johnson thanked Ms. Simpton for the advance effort with the outreach to stakeholders.

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

Mr. Tonoyan stated he had a closing remark on the policy aspect. These kinds of rules and regulations are very important when we think of the universe of people who are falsely accused and falsely convicted of crimes. Mr. Tonoyan continued noting it is kind of like the reverse, like you’re declaring that someone’s innocent beyond any doubt and trying to give them their life back. The same kind of cases also include officer involved shootings, fatal shootings, and non-fatal shootings. He suggested that the Board should consider before closing the rulemaking process and whenever it is opened up again in the future, or when deciding and adjudicating claims from these regulation standards, what the victim has been through and who the perpetrator is on the opposite side. Even police officers can be corrupt, and they can commit crimes, and prosecutors and DAs can mess up trials and litigations.

He concluded by stating he has not seen too many corrupt judges or hearing officers yet but that’s always a possibility too.

Member Becton moved to approve staff’s conclusion of the rulemaking process for amendments to the California Code of Regulations, (Title 2, §§ 640, et seq.) and to execute and submit any required documents to the Office of Administrative Law. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson. By a unanimous vote of the Board, the motion passed.

Item 8. Kenji Howard (Pen. Code, §§ 4900, et seq.)

The Penal Code section 4900 claim of Kenji Howard was presented by Chief Counsel, Kim Gauthier.

On February 25, 2022, Kenji Howard submitted an application as an erroneously convicted felon pursuant to Penal Code section 4900. The application was based on his 1997 convictions for murder, attempted murder, and shooting at an occupied vehicle, all of which were vacated by a Writ of Habeas Corpus and the charges dismissed upon remand in 2021.

While Mr. Howard did not obtain a finding of factual innocence, he did obtain an order from the Superior Court mandating approval for compensation pursuant to newly enacted subdivision

(d) of Penal Code section 1485.55.

Accordingly, the proposed decision recommends compensation in the amount of $1,244,600, which represents $140 per day for each of the 8,890 days Mr. Howard was wrongfully imprisoned.

Mr. Howard has been represented throughout the proceedings by attorney Carol Watson and the Office of the Attorney General is represented by Deputies Attorney General Seth McCutcheon and Jonathan Krauss.

Chair Ravel requested we hear first from Ms. Watson representing Mr. Howard.

Ms. Watson thanked the Board. She noted Mr. Howard supports the proposed decision and the Attorney General supports the proposed decision. She urged the Board to adopt it and forward it to legislature for payment. She added that Mr. Howard is seeking expedited payment. She is not sure the Board can facilitate that, but because he was imprisoned for 26 years at the age of 16, he is at the low end of the pay scale in his current job and is struggling financially.

Chair Ravel asked if Mr. Howard would like to address the Board. Mr. Howard did not wish to address the Board.

Chair Ravel requested to hear next from Mr. Krauss of the Attorney General’s Office. Mr. Krauss submitted the matter based on the amended proposed decision.

Chair Ravel thanked everyone for appearing at the meeting.

Member Becton moved to adopt the Hearing Officer’s amended proposed decision in the Penal Code section 4900 matter of Kenji Howard. The motion was seconded by Member

Johnson. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the amended proposed decision was adopted.

Closed Session

The Board adjourned into Closed Session with the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Counsel at 10:54 a.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) to deliberate on proposed decision numbers 1 through 213 of the Victim Compensation Program.

Open Session

The Board reconvened in Open Session pursuant to Government Code section 11126, subdivision (c)(3) at 11:00 a.m.

Member Becton moved to approve items 1 through 213 of the Victim Compensation Program. Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the proposed decisions were adopted.

Adjournment

Member Johnson moved the adjournment of the November Board meeting. Member Becton seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 11:01 a.m.

Next Board Meeting

The next Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 16, 2025.