agree on the disposition of the application.

The maximum amount which may be paid on account of injuries

to or the death of a victim of a crime of violence under the Act is $10,000 and, where death has occurred, the amount determined is to be apportioned among the victim's dependents according to the degree to which each was dependent upon the victim for support. The compensation award is intended to reimburse, at least partially, victims or dependents, for their expenses and loss of support or earnings caused by the injuries or death. Pecuniary loss includes, for this purpose, both out-of-pocket expenses for doctor and hospital bills and also loss of earnings, based on the average monthly earnings for the past 6 months or on $500, whichever is less. Neither pain and suffering nor property damage is compensable under the Act. In considering the amount to award an applicant, insurance benefits will not affect the award but any governmental benefit or workmen's compensation payment which accrues as a result of the injury or death of the victim will cause the reduction of the award under this Act. Payments or awards may be made in a lump sum or periodically, as the case dictates. The sufficiency of an award may be reviewed later by the Commission upon a showing of additional relevant facts which were not known at the time of the determination of that award.

An award may be made only on the basis of an application which is sworn to and accompanied by substantiating materials (such as receipts) setting out, among other things, the name and address of the victim, the date and nature of the crime, the nature and extent of the injuries to the victim or that death resulted, the law enforcement officials who were notified of the crime, and the amount of pecuniary loss sustained by the applicant. If that loss is less than $100, the application will not be considered. An application must be filed within one year

of the date when the injuries were sustained.

The Commission

may consider the extent to which the victim contributed to his own injuries and reduce or deny an award accordingly, and no recovery may be had where the victim and his assailant were of the same household. Conviction of the assailant is not a prerequisite to an award of compensation under this Act, but a person is not entitled to compensation under the Act unless he has cooperated fully with law enforcement officers in the apprehension and prosecution of the assailant and the Commission may postpone consideration of an application to await the outcome of proceedings pending against the assailant. The victim may sue his assailant for damages but must reimburse the State for any payments received under this Act if he succeeds in recovering those damages. No fee may be charged an applicant for assistance in preparing or presenting his application to the Commission but attorney's fees, determined as reasonable by the Commission, may be charged where a hearing is conducted on that application.

Wilfully misstating or omitting relevant facts on the application for compensation or at a hearing under the Act is a misdemeanor and a ground for denying compensation under the

Act.

APENDIX D

A BILL FOR

LRB 73B-3

AN ACT to amend Section 2 of "An Act in relation to meetings", approved July 11, 1957, as amended.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,

represented in the General Assembly:

Section 1. Section 2 of "An Act in relation to meetings", approved July 11, 1957, as amended, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 2. All official meetings at which any legal action is taken by the governing bodies of the State, counties, townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other municipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees or commissions of this State, which are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax revenue, shall be public meetings, except for: (a) deliberations for decisions of the Illinois Commerce Commission and Illinois Pardon and Parole Board, (b) meetings where the acquisition or sale of property is being considered, but provided-that no other portion of those such meetings shall may be closed to the public, (c) grand and petit jury sessions, (d) those hearings under the "Crime Victims Compensation Act" which the Commission created by that Act has determined under Section 10 of that Act should be closed, and (e) where the constitution provides that a governmental unit can hold secret meetings.

Nothing in this section shalt-be-construed-to-prevent prevents the governing body of any agency of government from holding executive sessions to consider information regarding employment or dismissal of an employee+ provided,-that but no final action for employment or dismissal shalt may be taken at an executive session. Nothing in this Section shalı-be-construed-to-prevent prevents an agency of government from holding an executive session. when Federal regulation requires it.

Mr. MIKVA. It includes the bill itself, the report of why we came out the way we did on some of these issues, and I understand that Professor Morris will go into some detail on costing which we know, as you know from your own experiences, sometimes ends up being the most important question to resolve on this kind of legislation. We think we came up with some hard nosed figures for that time. I suspect that the costs have gone up, because the statistics have gone up. But, at least, we had some, we thought, fairly realistic estimates of what it would cost.

Finally, I would merely say that I am delighted, from the chairman's comments, that it is clear that he, too, feels that the time for this idea has come, and I cannot think of a better place where the District of Columbia could be the kind of leader for the country that it ought to be. Frankly, with one or two exceptions, most of the stateside experiences that we looked at in terms of these kinds of laws were not as satisfactory as they ought to be. The California statute, for instance, is really a kind of a smear and deceit; it is just an amendment to the welfare laws, really. We are hoping that the District of Columbia's can kind of be a model not only for the citizens who live here but also for the rest of the States to pattern their own laws after. It is clear that this kind of compensation scheme is going to have to grow.

I will not take any more of the committee's time. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a "Good Samaritan" provision in your law?

Mr. MIKVA. Yes, we do; not drafted the same way, in the definition section of "victim."

The CHAIRMAN. We will put Congressman Mikva's complete prepared statement in the record.

(The prepared statement submitted by Congressman Abner J. Mikva reads in full as follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ABNER J. MIKVA, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Senator Tydings, distinguished members of the District of Columbia Committee:

I am grateful for this opportunity to testify before this Committee on a subject which I believe is of great importance to the District of Columbia, and which can be of great importance to the rest of the country. I thank the Chairman for his gracious invitation.

In 1966, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Illinois House of Representatives, I headed a commission to study the possibilities of a criminal injuries compensation act for the state of Illinois. Our commission, known as the Commission on Compensation to Victims of Violence, met and held hearings from late 1965 until early 1967, when our final report was made. The Commission was composed of members of the Illinois House and Senate as well as distinguished private practitioners of law and legal scholars. The Secretary of the Commission was Professor Norval Morris, who is one of the world's leading experts on compensation plans for victims of crime. In its final report, a copy of which I have for insertion in the record of these hearings if the Committee so desires, the Illinois Commission unanimously recommended the adoption of a criminal injuries compensation statute. The report contains a draft of the recommended statute.

Mr. Chairman, the Illinois Commission report summarizes the findings of our investigation and thinking on this important subject. I will not deal here with matters of detail. What I would like to outline briefly for you is the underlying rationale of a compensation plan for victims of crime. Although the plan which