CalVCB public hearing draws critiques over proposed rules on appeals, hearings and transparency

Jessica Shops, senior attorney for the California Victim Compensation Board, opened a public hearing on the board's proposed revisions to multiple Title 2 regulations and said the hearing would run from 1 to 3 p.m. and that public comments may be limited to five minutes per person.

Several attorneys, advocates and residents used the hearing to challenge proposed language that they say would restrict victims' rights, limit appeals and make administrative hearings more adversarial. Michael Siegel, an attorney who has practiced before the victim compensation program for decades, said he is "concerned about 1 of your regulations relating to that"—citing a provision he identified as section 647.2(c)—and warned that the provision "eliminates the right to file appeals of denials of bills or issues relating to service limitations." Siegel told the board the 90‑day rule for submitting bills is being applied without formal regulatory adoption and said that, in some claims, a claim number can take months to be assigned, making timely billing impossible.

Margaret Petros, executive director of the nonprofit Mothers Against Murder and the named plaintiff in the case she referenced, said the revisions stem from a court order and pressed the board to adopt changes that would be more trauma‑informed. "This regulation is being revised directly because of the court decision in Mothers Against Murder versus California Victim Compensation. We were the plaintiff. I led that case," Petros said, adding that she wants safeguards so victims are not deterred from pursuing hearings and appeals.

Petros urged the board to avoid using attorneys as hearing officers where possible, saying recent hearings have become "adversarial and intimidating," and she asked the board to clarify several sections by name, including provisions she cited as 615.2, 617.4, 617.7, 617.9, 619.4, 619.5, 647.20 and 649.8. She argued that victims should not be required to re‑request hearings after a denial has already been contested and urged that proposed decisions be sent to both applicants and their authorized representatives.

Hovannis Tanoian, a Burbank resident, told board staff the agency must align its regulations and practice with the court's directives and stressed training for local victim center advocates so they consistently take a pro‑victim stance. "You have to give people a due process before you take their rights away," Tanoian said, urging that the practical effect of the rules be considered, not only their text.

Jennifer Kim of the Law Office of Michael Fell said victims and attorneys face difficulty obtaining transparent information about who handles claims and how decisions are processed, and that frequent turnover among victim advocates makes navigation harder for claimants.

Additional commenters asked the board to clarify what constitutes "good cause" for rescheduling hearings, to ensure emergency applications remain subject to 30‑day processing rules, to permit some cross‑examination or staff participation where evidence used to deny claims comes from law‑enforcement records, and to ensure that applicants receive the records used to deny claims when those records exist. Several speakers referenced a judicial decision (they named Judge Frank Roush) and the need for the board to align the regulations with that ruling.

No board action or votes were taken at the hearing; CalVCB staff stated the board would listen to comments but would not respond or act during the public hearing.

Speakers repeatedly asked the board to revise draft language that they said could be read to: (1) require victims to request a second hearing after contesting a denial, (2) treat failure to appear automatically as withdrawal of an appeal, (3) restrict cross‑examination and the applicant's ability to review records used in a denial, and (4) permit hearings by telephone or otherwise limit guaranteed in‑person hearings. Commenters asked for explicit, trauma‑informed language and clearer notice procedures so applicants and their authorized representatives both receive proposed decisions and hearing notices.

The hearing opened with staff instructions about remote participation, recording and transcription and closed at 3 p.m. after no further commenters indicated a wish to speak. The record includes written comments submitted in advance and several speakers said they had filed written comments that they believed were not substantively acknowledged in the draft revisions.

Ending: The California Victim Compensation Board did not adopt regulations at the hearing; staff said written and oral comments will be part of the administrative record for the rulemaking. Several commenters asked the board to publish clearer language and procedural safeguards in the draft rules so victims' rights to appeals and hearings are not narrowed in practice.