RESPONSE TO "TWICE THE VICTIM" PART 2

RESPONSE TO "TWICE THE VICTIM" PART 2

On August 28, 2018 the Newark Star Ledger ran a story entitled "Twice the Victim" about the New Jersey Crime Victim Compensation Office (the "VCCO").  This is the second in a series of three blog entries in response to that article.

"Twice the Victim" is an important article.  It calls attention to the failure of an agency that is the payor of last resort for people suffering through no fault of their own.  Mismanagement at the VCCO is not just another example of government inefficiency - it causes unnecessary pain to innocent victims of violent crime.

In order to solve any problem, one must understand its causes.  In order to fix the VCCO, it is important to understand why it is in the state it is in today.

HISTORY OF THE AGENCY

From December, 2005 through July, 2008, the VCCO succeeded.  Victims and those who serve victims were compensated fairly and expeditiously.  This is what victims wanted and it is the way the public wanted it run.  I again refer to the bar graph in the Sherman article.  Payments to victims dropped dramatically following my termination.

I reported the state of the agency and advocated passage of legislation on June 1, 2007 in a correspondence to the Governor and each member of legislature.

https://www.scribd.com/document/391522107/VCCA-Christmas-Tree

As I reported in that letter, the agency was operating beautifully.  We had paid out over $1,300,000 in claims for the most recent reporting month.  Literally every victim and service provider was satisfied.  Looking at those figures and then comparing them to the performance since I was fired makes me proud of what we did and sad for the victims who have been cheated since.

As director of the agency I advocated for the passage of legislation for victims.  In the Christmas Tree Items for Crime  Victims letter I listed several pieces of such legislation. The first was a bill reorganize the agency. of particular importance was the elimination of "do nothing" positions held by politically connected bureaucrats.   I testified in both the Senate and the Assembly for passage of this legislation,  Both times Senator Loretta Weinberg entered  the chamber just before the hearings started, sat next to me and agreed with me that the legislation should pass.  Both times Richard Pompelio was supposed to testify, but he failed to show up.  I was surprised that he  would not testify because he had been so enthusiastically telling me he wanted the bill to pass.  Parenthetically, the bail withholding bill and the CREST account bill I wrote myself.  Those two bills would have generated over ten million dollars ($10,000,000) for crime victims at no cost to taxpayers over the past eight years.  Nobody has done anything on either bill since I was fired.

INSPECTOR GENERAL

Sherman misrepresents my performance.  He writes, "But an inspector general's report later found improper payments and insufficient oversight. In one case thousands in benefits were paid to a person who claimed workplace harassment, a crime not eligible for compensation."

Here Sherman is playing the role of stenographer rather than reporter.  First - what he refers to as "an inspector general" was The Inspector General Mary Jane Cooper.  That office no longer exists.  There was never any report or determinative findings by the Inspector General concerning the VCCO.  The Office of Inspector General had a team of detectives and lawyers investigate the VCCO for eighteen months. Inspector General Mary Jane Cooper then wrote a letter to Attorney General Ann Milgram that listed "preliminary findings".  At no time had either the Inspector General or Attorney General asked me to respond to these "preliminary findings".  One of the "preliminary findings" to which Sherman refers is the payment to a victim of a crime 'not eligible for compensation'.

I am thankful to Sherman for writing the article, but he should have understood, there is no such thing as a crime 'not eligible for compensation', as long as it is a crime of violence to the victim. It is important to note the purpose of the VCCO - that is to compensate innocent victims of violent crime who cooperate with law enforcement.  That is what we did.  The statute governing the agency explicitly states it is for all victims of violent crimes and then lists examples of the types of crimes to be covered.  To do as Sherman suggests - that is to deny claims for unpaid medical expenses, moving expenses for someone who is threatened, or any one of many types of emergency needs a victim may have - on the grounds that the specific charge used by the prosecutor did not fit some preordained list - is to violate the letter and the spirit of the statute.  Sherman should have realized that to deny that claim for the reason he suggests would be to add one more sad story of unnecessary suffering to the ones about which he so eloquently wrote.

RICHARD POMPELIO

Richard Pompelio was the person who recommended me to serve at the agency.  For that opportunity I will always be grateful to him.  On the other hand, as I was serving as the head of the agency he tried to pressure me to do unethical things.  When I refused to do them, he advocated for my dismissal.  He was even bold enough to write a letter to then Governor Corzine asking for me to be removed from office.

https://www.scribd.com/document/390800292/Pompelio-Letter


He is clever. He used the names of people who were serving crime victims to imply these people did not want me as head of the VCCO. I had an excellent relationship with three of those five people and the other two I knew as acquaintances.  They would all attest to my service to them.  Dr Frances Pelliccia for example.  She performed examinations of children victims of sexual abuse in Hudson County.  She did her work in the prosecutor's office building at the request of the prosecutor.  She had been doing these examinations on a volunteer basis.  Rich Pompelio - much to his credit - tried to get approval to pay her a fee for her services from the VCCO.  Unfortunately, when he served as head of the agency, approval for such a payment was subject to a board vote. The other commissioners at the time always voted in opposition to paying Dr, Pelliccia on the grounds that her services were not expressly covered by the statute. Here she was serving some of the most innocent victims of some of the most violent crimes in the state, and those bureaucrats denied her any payment on the grounds that the statute was not meant for her.

I faced the same opposition upon succeeding Richard Pompelio.  I continued Rich Pompelio's  policy of asking Dr Pelliccia to continually send us her bills for her services as she performed them. Our hope was to have the agency changed via statute to rid it of the board members.  I testified on the record with Senator Weinberg by my side in both the Senate and the Assembly requesting passage of the legislation to rid the agency of those board members.  Upon the statute taking effect, with the board gone, one of my first official acts was to authorize the payment to Dr. Pelliccia for her back bills.  It was the kind of thing I was proud to do.  The agency has not done anything like that since I was fired

This brings us back to Richard Pompelio.  No matter how much he complains about that agency he has no right to blame anybody except himself.  As said bar graph shows - the victims were being compensated approximately $16,000,000 per year during my tenure.  There were zero complaints about the agency from those who serve victims or victims themselves.  Richard Pompelio did not like me being in charge because I would  not provide him with confidential information he could use to make money.  He then used his influence to advocate for my dismissal in retribution.

I asked Sherman if Richard Pompelio had informed him of his advocacy for my dismissal.  Sherman told me Pompelio had not.  Richard Pompelio may be able to fool some of the people some of the time, but he cannot fool all of the people all of the time.


RULES AND REGULATIONS

Sherman wrote, "The agency lumbers on, guided by outdated rules and regulations that have scarcely changed in decades, denying more than half its applicants."  Here Sherman wrongly implies the problems with the agency lie in its statute and applicable administrative code.  The statute was written with the intent to provide those running the agency wide latitude.  This interpretation has been conformed in case law.

The problem lies in the failure to have a person who is competent and who cares run the agency.  That problem will not be solved if decisions about whom to choose are left to the old guard.  In the next and final segment, I will suggest changes that need to be made.

                   

RESPONSE TO TED SHERMAN'S ARTICLE "TWICE THE VICTIM"

On August 28, 2018 the Newark Star Ledger ran an article entitled "Twice the Victim" written about the New Jersey Crime Victim's Compensation Office (the "VCCO").  This is the first of three responding blog entries.

The article is a long overdue account of the disgrace and cruelty of the VCCO.  Unfortunately, it misses the real issue.  The VCCO is - and has been for ten years – failing to provide innocent victims of violent crime of the help they need.  The reasons have nothing to do with a shortage of money. The VCCO is funded by fines paid by those who break laws.  Every year millions of dollars flow into the agency from fines paid in New Jersey and to the federal government.  The VCCO has a computer system that is set up to “fail to capture” records of where the money is spent, so its an open invitation for corruption.

I was the head of the agency from December 2005 until July 2008.  The writer – Mr Sherman – referred to the time during which I was in charge, but he neither contacted me nor read my blog – edwerner@blogspot.com.

The bar graph near the end of the article illustrates the problem.  For the year 2007 the paid over Sixteen Million Dollars ($16,000,000) to New Jersey crime victims.  As soon as I was fired - in July 2008 - the agency slashed payments to victims.  In 2009 they paid less than Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000).  Last year it paid out only Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000).  The agency is funded by a stream of funds from New Jersey and a federal government grant.  Since we know the money is not going to the victims where is it going? This may seam like a simple question, but the answer is never forthcoming.

For example, on May 19, 2008 I wrote a memo to my direct report at the time, James Ridolfino.  The memo explained in detail why an audit was essential.  There is a means of diverting funds through the system that leaves no trace – the catastrophic victims claims.  (See blog entry December 13, 2010 which has both my request to Mr. Ridolfino for an audit and his response).  As I was fired without notice shortly thereafter.   The need for this audit and the cover up by law enforcement is so obvious that there can be no explanation other than the system is hopelessly corrupt.  The Attorney General – the highest law enforcement officer in the state –  actively covered up embezzlement of funds set aside for the express purpose of providing essential help to innocent victims of violent crime.  

Given the dismal performance of the agency over the past ten years, a general audit is more glaringly necessary than ever.  Over the past ten years at least Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000) that should have been paid to crime victims is missing.  It is a matter not just of importance to crime victims, but of holding government accountable generally.  Why should any state agency be permitted to spend money without having to disclose where it was spent? 

This is an issue that illustrates several major problems.  In our system, the general rule is that a political group will establish itself by consistently delivering money, votes or some combination of the two to elected officials.  Once that group successfully works the system to get grant money, it’s common practice for that group to control how the grant money is spent.  There is a well organized  group ready to spend the money to its liking.  If anyone outside the group tries to take that money for his own purposes, the group will rise up to oppose him. 

Crime victims have no such organized lobby. In New Jersey they have nobody.  This makes the money allocated for their program attractive to the unscrupulous people who have influence in New Jersey state government.  

The May 19, 2008 memo explains in detail why an audit of the funds supposedly allocated for “catastrophic victims” is essential.  In spite of the fact that the agency was reassigned to the Office of the Attorney General – the highest law enforcement officer in the state – New jersey state government has failed to audit this agency.  

There is only one way for the New Jersey state government to establish a modicum of respectability. Audit the VCCO.  In particular – how much money has been spent for “catastrophic victims” and where has it gone?  Moreover, why was the internal computer system set up the “fail to capture” this information?

The article stated there is now an attempt by some members of the legislature to improve the agency.  Unless they begin with an audit, any such attempts will be futile.