Officials Blasted for Tax Fund Use in 187 Fight

As elected officials in Los Angeles and communities up and down the state launch legal challenges to Proposition 187, an angry groundswell of criticism has arisen over use of public funds to undo what the measure’s backers see as a clear mandate from the voters.

Outraged callers lit up switchboards Thursday at the Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles City Hall and other agencies that had joined the effort to overturn the anti-illegal immigration measure approved Tuesday by nearly 60% of the state’s voters. And the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors postponed a decision on its own legal challenge after a torrent of objections.

Officials at the pro-187 headquarters said they were inundated with calls Thursday from fired-up supporters wanting to join recall efforts or class-action lawsuits against officials involved.

“There’s no point in voting anymore,” complained Diane Shook of Woodland Hills. “My concern is: Why am I paying taxes? Why aren’t they listening to us?”

Shook, a 41-year-old computer programmer, said she was ready to sign up for any campaigns aimed at recalling officials who use tax funds to try to block the measure.

Herb Pencille, who owns a small pest control business in North Hollywood, said he was outraged at the school district officials.

“They should be recalled on the school board,” Pencille said. “If I had the means and money to do it, I would start the recall campaigns myself.”

Fumed Afrodite Dacoles, a Hollywood retiree: “I almost hit the roof. What is this? . . . We put this issue in. It’s the law, and they are trying to fight it with my money.”

Just as the final months of the bitterly contested campaign drove a political wedge into the California electorate, it appeared that the struggle over implementation of the landmark law was opening deep new fissures in the political landscape.

Officials leading the challenges to Proposition 187 acknowledged that a strong backlash was hitting Thursday. Los Angeles school board offices were deluged with calls. Several Los Angeles City Council offices also reported dozens of protests. There were reports of school boards in various areas of the state being peppered with complaints. Even supporters of the measure--including Gov. Pete Wilson--were fielding large numbers of calls protesting the tax-dollar-backed lawsuits.

The Sacramento City Unified School District, which joined Los Angeles, San Francisco and a coalition of districts in a lawsuit to overturn parts of Proposition 187, had taken dozens of calls by Thursday afternoon. “People are (telling) us we shouldn’t be spending public funds on this suit,” said George Medovoy, a spokesman for the Sacramento district.

Elected leaders around California were defending their actions, saying they have an obligation to resolve legal conflicts presented by federal and state laws and the new initiative, which bars most public services to undocumented residents.

But not all. The Antelope Valley Union High School District is among those that opted out of the legal challenge.

“I don’t think this is appropriate,” said board member Billy Pricer. “The voters have spoken--that’s it. I would prefer they didn’t spend all this money on legal battles.”

Nevertheless, Los Angeles City Atty. James K. Hahn, who was directed by the City Council to try to clarify the measure by challenging its constitutionality, said: “We want to know whether we deny library cards, playing golf at a city golf course or being in a victim-assistance program . . . if they are in the country illegally.”

By Thursday, Hahn’s office had three attorneys working on the matter, though that was expected to be cut back next week. Officials insisted that the cost would be minimal and absorbed into the city attorney’s regular budget.

Several lawsuits have been filed by civil rights groups and individuals challenging the measure, but Hahn insisted that the city was compelled to mount its own challenge. “I need to know from the courts what kind of legal advice to give all my city departments,” he said.

Some officials maintain that they have a moral and constitutional duty to protect the rights of all constituents, particularly children and the needy. Los Angeles Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg argued that lawmakers, in keeping with their oaths of office, had to file suit to defend the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

Los Angeles Board of Education President Mark Slavkin, a point man in the legal attack on the measure by school systems, said: “Our fundamental interest is to protect the rights of students--that’s our guiding motivation. We’re fighting to uphold a basic issue in the Constitution, which is the right to free public education.”

Sherry Loofbourrow, the president of the California School Boards Assn., said the organization is representing 700 of the 1,000 school districts in the state in the lawsuit. Loofbourrow said individual school districts are hearing from voters and “most people are expressing their concerns” about the lawsuits.

But she added: “It’s important for the districts to understand that we’re in court to straighten out the conflicting legal directions that we’ve been given--for their sakes. Are we supposed to be educating all children or not?”

The Los Angeles and San Francisco school districts, which are being represented by the large Los Angeles law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson, said they did not know how much the legal battle ultimately will cost, though they stressed that the burden was being shared by many districts.

Whatever the cost, Slavkin conceded that the Los Angeles board’s stand is likely to cause problems for incumbents next spring, when most face reelection campaigns.

“For people who feel passionately on this issue, they’re frustrated that no sooner did they vote for something and it’s mired in the court system,” he said. “I think they’ll be looking at potential targets to vent their anger. . . .

“But leadership requires that you do what you think is right, and not just duck for cover when there is an outburst of public anger.”

Repercussions were also being heard at City Hall, where the council voted 10 to 3 Wednesday to direct Hahn to challenge the measure. The council also instructed city agencies to hold off on enforcing the law.

“People are concerned that they are not seeing immediate enforcement,” said City Council President John Ferraro, whose office had received about 15 telephone complaints by midday Thursday. “But we have a responsibility to get the answers, or we could be exposed to severe liability” by enacting an unclear and contested law.

For many, the 187 court challenges raised the specter of past ballot measures that won overwhelming support from the voters, only to be thrown into the courts. Property-tax-slashing Proposition 13 was challenged by many government agencies after its passage in 1978; it ultimately was upheld by the courts. Car insurance rate rollbacks ordered a decade later in Proposition 103 were challenged by insurance companies, and many consumers still have not seen their rebate checks.

The fight over implementation also appeared to be the ready-made stuff of campaign mailer hit pieces.

One candidate with his eye on a City Council seat was preparing to make implementation of Proposition 187 part of next spring’s campaign. Mark Ryavec, a lobbyist from Venice who opposed the initiative, hopes to topple City Councilwoman Ruth Galanter, who supported the city’s challenge to the measure. “It is going to be an issue. In Ruth’s case, it reflects her sort of pointy-headed liberal approach to issues in the city. At some point, you have to trust the will of the people.”

But Galanter responded: “People often complain that politicians are not showing leadership and that we shouldn’t wait for our constituents. Now, in this case, people are saying . . . that I should move aside and let the tide roll on, regardless of the fact that I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state of California. To me, that is leadership, to stand up even when popular sentiment is not on your side.”

Ron Prince, a leader of the pro-Proposition 187 campaign who fielded dozens of the protest calls Thursday at his group’s Orange County headquarters, said his reading of popular sentiment is that people are revved up to take on local governments if they buck the voters’ will. “I think you are going to see some legal action. . . . People are asking, ‘How can they possibly do this?’ ”