School Boards Reluctant to Tackle Prop. 187 : Education: The districts are trying to avoid taking a position on the initiative that would bar illegal immigrants from campuses. But a Ventura Community College trustee seeks a vote in favor of it.

Raising the ire of local Latino activists, a Ventura County Community College District trustee is proposing that the district board vote at its next meeting to support the “Save Our State” initiative.

But most Ventura County school boards so far are dodging such controversy, refusing to take a stand on the measure that would deny public education and other social services to illegal immigrants.

Formally called Proposition 187, the initiative would require school officials not only to bar illegal immigrants from school, but also to report to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service the immigration status of students and their parents--even if the children are citizens.

The California School Boards Assn., which represents school board members across the state, has come out strongly against the initiative, saying it would make the public schools an arm of the INS.

The California Teachers Assn. and state Parent Teachers Assn. also oppose the measure. But polls show 62% of voters support Proposition 187.

Torn between their consciences and an awareness that any stand on the measure will alienate some voters, most Ventura County school board trustees have shied away from publicly taking a position on the issue.

The Oxnard School District board voted last week to oppose the initiative, but only after a rancorous debate between audience members and the sole trustee who supported the proposition.

The Ventura, Hueneme, Rio and Ventura County school boards will each vote on resolutions opposing the measure at their next meetings. And Simi Valley school officials said they are considering drawing up a similar resolution.

But school trustees in Thousand Oaks, Ojai, Santa Paula and some other districts said they have no intention at this time to bring the matter up for board debate.

And some school officials said they have just one plan for dealing with Proposition 187--don’t.

“It’s a very controversial thing,” Oxnard Union High School District Trustee Steve Stocks said. “We get knocked around enough as it is without saying ‘hit me again.’ ”

Ventura County Community College District Trustee Gregory P. Cole said he is not afraid of taking a few knocks.

*

Cole, who is running for Thousand Oaks City Council, is bringing a resolution before the college district board Oct. 4 to support Proposition 187.

“It has direct effect with regard to our students,” Cole said. “Why are the taxpayers subsidizing the education of people that are here illegally?”

Of Cole’s fellow trustees, Karen Boone said she will probably support the resolution; Allan Jacobs and Timothy Hirschberg said they are undecided, and Pete Tafoya said he is opposed.

The possibility that the college district could come out in support of the initiative troubles leaders of the county’s Latino community.

“We’re very concerned,” said Marcos Vargas, executive director of the Oxnard-based advocacy group El Concilio. “Proposition 187 would be really detrimental to our community and particularly to the college district, which in the past has made a commitment to diversity.”

Proposition 187 opponents will pack the board meeting, trustee Tafoya said. But, he added, he regrets that Cole brought up the issue in the first place.

“It really does very little for the district and for the image of our district to make a political circus out of our board meetings,” he said.

Precisely because school officials dread the prospect of such a political circus, Proposition 187 has yet to come up for discussion among most county school boards.

The ballot measure is “a very hot issue” in Thousand Oaks, said Dolores Didio, a Conejo Valley Unified trustee who represents the board at California School Boards Assn. “I think people are kind of split on the issue.”

Didio has not brought the matter before her fellow trustees partly because she is unsure if they would support the state association’s position against the measure, she said.

“I don’t think it should come before the board if they’re going to take a negative position on it,” she said. “In that case, it might be better to just be neutral.”

*

Conejo Valley Supt. Jerry Gross also doubts whether a board vote on the issue would give trustees anything more than a headache.

There are arguments on both sides about the initiative, Gross said. Public school employees have neither the time nor the inclination to act as INS agents, Gross said. “We’re teachers. We’re not policemen.”

But at the same time, he said, the public is very concerned about illegal immigration. And school officials need to show that they are willing to help. “It puts us in a tough spot,” he said.

Tough spot or not, Pleasant Valley Elementary School District Trustee Val Rains said she will probably bring the issue to her board.

“If you’re an elected official with a job to do, you don’t avoid political hot potatoes,” said Rains, who serves as regional director for the California School Boards Assn.

That is exactly the opinion of Simi Valley school board President Carla Kurachi, who said she is considering asking her board to approve a resolution against Proposition 187. “There are a lot of controversial issues in education today,” Kurachi said. “You can’t be afraid to tackle them.”

Kurachi’s fellow trustee Doug Crosse is not so sure.

Crosse said he has mixed views on the initiative and considers it inappropriate to bring it up for board debate.

Muriel Lavender, trustee with the Ojai Unified School District, agreed, saying that board members have no obligation to air their views on ballot measures: “Voting is a private matter.”

*

The reluctance of many school board members to publicly debate the controversial initiative does not surprise California School Boards Assn. President Sherry Loofbourrow.

Because of the emotions on both sides of the issue, Loofbourrow said her association is allowing school boards to decide for themselves whether to debate the matter.

“People are not reacting thoughtfully to this issue,” she said. “They’re reacting emotionally. . . . Boards have an obligation to show leadership in their communities. But they also have responsibilities to move their communities forward for the sake of children and not increase dissension in their communities.”