Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulations Hearing Procedures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CalVCB approves broad regulatory rewrite to clarify hearings and income‑loss rules amid objections from victims advocate
Summary
The California Victim Compensation Board authorized a final rulemaking package to reorganize hearing procedures and expand income‑loss eligibility; victims advocate Margaret Petros said a proposed step requiring a second hearing request would unlawfully reintroduce barriers the courts struck down.
The California Victim Compensation Board voted Nov. 20 to conclude rulemaking and submit a package of regulatory revisions intended to simplify hearing procedures and consolidate income‑loss and emergency award rules.
Senior Attorney Jessica Shops told the board the package would repeal outdated provisions, clearly separate rules for different hearing types and consolidate income‑loss requirements in one place. "These changes ensure fairness, transparency, and compliance with the current directive while making the hearing process more accessible to crime victims and their representatives," Shops said.
Why it matters: Staff said the existing regulations were fragmented and confusing, producing repeated requests for information and delays in compensation. The revised rules expand documentation options for income loss, and allow verification methods tailored to gig and nontraditional workers; staff said the changes will enable applicants to verify income with wage statements, payroll records or direct deposit information where tax records are impractical.
Contested point: During public comment, Margaret Petros, Executive Director of Mothers Against Murder, objected that proposed Section 647.21(c) would require victims to make a second written request for an in‑person hearing within 20 days after receiving a hearing officer's proposed decision. Petros said that requirement would conflict with the court's writ in the agency's case and create "procedural traps that deny victims the right to a hearing." She argued, "The law is crystal clear. Government code section 13959 states that when a victim contests a denial, you shall grant them a hearing."
Agency response and board discussion: Board counsel and chief counsel replied that staff interpret the controlling court decision (Mann v. California Victim Compensation Board, also referred to in public comment as Mothers Against Murder v. CalVCB) to require notifying applicants of the opportunity to request an in‑person hearing and that the proposed process offers multiple hearing options (in‑person, Zoom, telephone, or written record) to balance due process and administrative workload. Counsel said applicants receive a written "issues on appeal" notice and a hearing options form after an appeal is filed so they understand what to present at hearing.
Board action: After discussion, a motion to authorize the executive officer to conclude the rulemaking process and submit the full package to the Office of Administrative Law passed by roll call vote.
What happens next: If OAL approves the package and files it with the Secretary of State, CalVCB staff said the regulations would become effective at the next OAL quarterly effective date, expected in April 2026.
Sources and quotes: Quotes and factual details in this article come from Senior Attorney Jessica Shops, members of board counsel, and public commenters during the Nov. 20 CalVCB meeting.
