ALATORRE TO COVER 227 TAB; COUNCIL OPPOSITION ANGERS CONSTITUENTS.

Byline: Patrick McGreevy Daily News Staff Writer

Stung by a backlash of criticism that the Los Angeles City Council is fighting the will of the voters, Councilman Richard Alatorre said Tuesday that he plans to pay the city's expense for joining a lawsuit against Proposition 227, the voter-approved English-only measure.

The council voted 11-3 last week to file a ``friend of the court'' brief to support a lawsuit filed by civil rights groups seeking to overturn the state ballot initiative, which severely limited bilingual education in California.

School districts have started implementing the law, which was approved by more than 60 percent of voters statewide as well as a majority of Los Angeles voters in the June 2 election.

Alatorre said some of his colleagues have taken heat from constituents for challenging the measure, so he will use his political officeholder account to reimburse the City Attorney's Office for the $1,000 expense of drafting and filing the court brief.

``I'm doing it so people won't be able to say it's costing the city taxpayers money,'' he said. ``That's all they've been raising - the money it's going to take to fight this.''

Alatorre also said he was planning a news conference for today with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and others who filed the lawsuit to better make the case for legal intervention.

Council members Mike Feuer, Laura Chick, Joel Wachs, John Ferraro and Ruth Galanter have received dozens of calls and letters of criticism for their votes to support the legal challenge to Proposition 227. The five council members supported the challenge even though the majority of voters in their districts favored the ballot measure.

Feuer received nearly 100 phone calls from constituents, about 80 percent of whom opposed his position, said Jane Blumenfeld, his chief of staff.

``Most of the callers thought the council should not have second-guessed the voters,'' Blumenfeld said.

Feuer stood by his vote Tuesday, saying Proposition 227 ``calls into question fundamental constitutional principles.''

The councilman said he was convinced by the City Attorney Office's position that the measure violates the equal-protection clause of the Constitution.

``I've gotten some (critical letters), but ultimately the question turns on the significance of the constitutional issues at stake,'' said Feuer, an attorney. ``There are certainly times when it's appropriate for the city to participate in litigation regarding a voter-approved initiative - if, for example, the voters had approved a prohibition on certain forms of religious expression.''

Alatorre also is unmoved by the criticism.

``The letters I have seen in the newspaper - it's unfortunate that they don't understand that there is more to the issue,'' he said. ``There are constitutional issues that transcend whether you like something or not. It's about guaranteeing the rights of all children.''

However, residents upset with the council's action said they are not appeased by Alatorre's offer to pay the city's legal expenses with political contributions.

``When I vote for something which I feel is very important to me, and the majority votes, and you people vote against it, it's like (you think) we don't know what we're doing,'' Johnny Rotella, a Van Nuys resident, told the City Council at its meeting Tuesday. ``It's an insult to me and all of us.''

Rotella said educational policies are not the council's concern.

``It's not your job to get involved with the educational system,'' he said. ``You have other things to do.''

Mary Nassany of Northridge, one of many residents who wrote letters to the editor of the Daily News criticizing the council action, said Alatorre's offer to foot the bill for the legal challenge does not lessen her anger.

``I can't buy this,'' Nassany said. ``I'm furious with him. Here's a man who is saying he's better informed than the voters.''

Alatorre said Los Angeles, as a major city, has a responsibility to play a role in clarifying the constitutional issues involved in Proposition 227.

``It's a very emotional issue, and I understand that,'' he said. ``The reasons for us doing it are there are constitutional issues that have to be protected.''