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.
