Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Department of Justice Emails Description An account of the resource The Department of Justice received more than 11,000 e-mails in response to the agency's public solicitation for comments upon its plans to distribute the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 established by Congress to benefit the victims of September 11 and their families. These e-mails have been organized here by date. September 11 Email September 11 Email: Body The basic content, as unstructured text; sometimes containing a signature block at the end. Sunday, November 25, 2001 11:34 PM (no subject) Dear Mr. Zwick, It is with great concern, and hope of preventing what may be a grave injustice to all the families who lost loved ones during the tragic events of September 11th, 2001 that I am compelled to contact you. On September 11, the very fabric that symbolised the American family was torn with such finality as to eliminate any possibility of mending with "monetary thread." Despite that realization, I understand that the only compensation available to the families of those lost on that horrific day is monetary in nature. Subsequently, the establishment of the "Victims Compensation Fund" (the fund) is logical. However, while the establishment of the fund is logical, I fear that the guiding principals and mechanics of the fund are not. After all, it is commonly stated that "the distance between thought and deed is often far." Having said that, and having reviewed the parameters of the fund, I felt it was imperative to share with you the many reservations associated with the fund's ability to accomplish its single purpose - economic equity for those now painfully suffering from the loss of their loved ones. Below, you will find those reservations. First and foremost, it is imperative that each and every claimant be given the opportunity to share their unique circumstances with the individuals who will be instrumental in determining an award. In doing so, each claimant shoukd be afforded both the opportunity to present evidence through their own personal testimony and enlist the assistance of experts, if desired, in order to provide a clear and concise depiction of their position. Allowing such an opportunity will ensure fairness and onjectivity as each case will be heard separately and awards will be based on the circumstances associated with each case. On a personal note, the ability for an individual to share their pain and suffering is instrumental to the long journey associated with the healing process that every individual must now embark upon. Second, I am alarmed by the fact that the government, who will ultimately pay the awards, will be "appointing" one individual (The Special Master) to determine the "extent of harm to the claimant." the amount of compensation to be awarded based on "the harm to the claimant," "the fact of the claim" and "the individual circumastances of the claimant." While I understand that the "Special Master" will be designating individuals (hearing officers) to hear each case independently, that knowledge does not instill the confidence or peace of mind that I require to participate in the fund. Instead, I would prefer an independent panel, perhaps three(3) to five (5) individuals, who demonstrate expertise in areas such as "human life value," "wrongful death" and "taxation." I believe that these individuals along with a "hearing officer" are more likely to determine an award that is commensurate based on the unique circumstances of each individual. Additionaly, I believe by maintaining a panel of "hearing officers," the decision making process would demonstrate a greater degree of objectivity. Equally alarming is the fact that the determinations made by the "Special Master" and "hearing officers" are "final" and "not subject to judicial review." It is imperative that the option to appeal such a determination be made available to the claimants. Again, fairness and objectivity should be the guiding principals of the fund. In the event an award is not viewed as equitable, an individual should, as in any hearing, maintain their right to appeal a decision. The right to appeal a decision is often a connerstone of legal defenses. If an appeal is available to a criminal, why then should an innocent person not be afforded that same courtesy? Next, the method used to compute "economic loss" is of paramount importance. A "cap" with regard to recovery associated with "economic losses" is simply not acceptable. In fact, we believe an approach such as the one commonly utilized in personal injury cases is most applicable. Pursuant to such a method, the deceased's retirement date should be set to coincide with the date that the decease would have been eligible to recieve full Social Security benefits. Also, the deceased's income should be averaged over the last three (3) years given the fact that "economic losses of many of these individuals are associated with future income streams that wou,d have been highly contingent, variable, or unpredictable." With that in mind, an approch that utilizes an "average income" is obviously the most appropriate method for determining an individuals income. Also, be sure to keep in mind that it is imperative that "income" include wages, bonus", stock options, partnership earnings, etc. Finally, in an effort to fully reflect the earning potential of those lost on September 11th, inflation, historical wage increases, merit and opportunity for advancement must be considered. The final result of such an exercise would represent the individual's "base income." The "base income" could then be multiplied by the number of years that the deceased individual would have worked had he/she been eligible to receive full Soical Security benefits. Furthermore, with regard to reducing the amount if the conpensation by the mount of the "collateral source compensation," Life insurance proceeds (private and/or group) associated with premiums paid by the deceased, should not be considered as a "collateral source." After all, the deceased, in an effort to ensure financial support for his/her family, made a prudent decision to dedicate a portion of his/her after tax income to the financial security. To consider life insurance proceeds associated with premiums paid by the deceased as a "collateral source" would be akin to punishing the deceased for loving & caring enough about his/her family to ensure their financial future in the event of a tragedy were to occur. Also, Social Security benefits should not be considered as a "collateral source." After all, the deceased paid into the system in an effort to ensure "social security." Unfortunately his/her family now represent the members of society that are in need of the very "security" that the system was designed to provide. The deceased was not given a choice of "opting out" of social security system. On the contrary, an individual has no choice but to contribute to the Social Security system. With that in mind, it is obvious that his/her family should not be punished for recieving such benefits. After all, the Social Security system was never intended to be a "needs based" benefit. All individuals, regardless of income and assets, assuming that they secured the appropriate number of "quarters," have always been entited to benefits regardless of the other type of assets/income that they may or may not have. Interestingly, countless millionaires receive Social Security benefits despite the fact that the income is not needed to ensure their financial well being. With this in mind, why should a benefit that plays an instrumental role with regard to a family's financial security be deducted from an award? Next, retirement plans (IRA'S, 401 k, etc.) funded by the actions and sacrifice of the deceased should not be considered as a "collateral source." Again, the deceased, in an effort to ensure financial support for his/her family, made a prudent decision to set aside funds designed to ensure a comfortable retirement. A great deal of legislation (past & present) has been adopted in order to motivate individuals's to plan for their future. Today represents the first step of that financial future. To consider retiremment plans a "collateral source" would again be akin to punishing the deceased for loving and caring enough about his/her family to forgo current enjoyment in order to ensure financial stability in the event of a tragedy. Additionally, A "cap" with regard to recovery associated with "non economic losses" is simply not acceptable. In fact. it is imperative that the assistance of expert in the field of "human life value," be enlisted to determine an appropriate award given the ambiguity associated with valuing the "non economic role" of an individual. After all, the loss of the family unit, enjoyment of life and emotional pain is not easily discemible. However, given that I am both questioning the "fairness" of the fund and taking the position that benefits (life insurance proceeds & social security benefits) associated with payments made by the deceased should not be considered "collateral source compensation." It is understandable that the benefits funded by an employer (i.e. Workers Compo.) may be deducted from an award. After all, the maintaining of "Workers Compensation" is mandatory for employers and the premium associated with such coverage is an expense of the employer. This in turn may make this benefit similar in nature to the employer provided, non-contributory life insurance coverage - the $100,000 received from CNA. With this in mind, it is easy to understand that the "benefit" is employer provided and may be considered a "collateral source compensation." In closing, I would like to take a moment in advance ti thank you for a fair and impartial assessment of our comments. Of course it is our only hope to ensure that any award associated with the fund is fair and equitable and accomplishes the funds single purpose - economic equity for those now painfully suffering from the loss of their loved ones. Sincerely, Individual Comment September 11 Email: Date The local time and date when the message was written. 2001-11-25 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource dojW000555.xml 911DA Item Elements describing a September 11 Digital Archive item. Status The process status of this item. approved Consent Whether September 11 Digital Archive has permission to possess this item. full Posting Whether the contributor gave permission to post this item. yes Copyright Whether the contributor holds copyright to this item. yes Source The source of this item. born-digital Media Type The media type of this item. email Created by Author Whether the author created this item. yes Described by Author Whether the description of this item was submitted by the author. no Date Entered The date this item was entered into the archive. 2001-11-25