Ojai council adopts 'Ojai Care' policy to formalize protections for immigrants, LGBTQ and disability communities

The Ojai City Council on July 8 adopted a locally tailored policy intended to protect immigrants, transgender residents and other groups from certain types of immigration enforcement and to clarify city staff expectations.

The measure — presented to council as the OHAI Values Act and adopted with edits under the new name “Ojai Care Policy” — declares the city’s intent to follow applicable California law and directs staff to prepare public information and training on residents’ rights and city procedures. The council voted in favor by roll call with all members voting yes.

Council members and dozens of residents said the change was intended to reduce fear in the community and make clear what residents and businesses should expect if immigration enforcement appears in Ojai. Supporters described the measure as a tool for staff training, a public statement of values and a place for the city to publish guidance on residents’ rights.

City leaders emphasized the policy is a local, non‑criminal statement of how staff should respond to requests from federal immigration officials. The adopted version cites state law and community protections that staff should follow, and council added language to explicitly cover “people perceived to be” members of protected groups and to reference disability and neurodiversity.

The final resolution keeps language that directs city staff to avoid complying with administrative immigration warrants that lack judicial oversight, and it clarifies the difference between judicial orders and administrative requests. Council members asked staff and the sheriff’s office to review the policy language and confirm operational details, including what types of warrants the city can lawfully honor.

Public comments at length urged adoption. Amber Thompson, a state Democratic Party delegate, told the council the policy would “plant a flag firmly, proudly, and say, not here, not our watch.” Several speakers described personal fear about enforcement and urged the city to act promptly. Other speakers raised questions about legal risks and asked for public town‑hall style discussion before finalizing specific procedures.

Council amendments and implementation steps adopted with the policy include: adding a preamble aligning the city’s policy with recent state protections, inserting language covering people “perceived to be” members of protected groups, clarifying definitions around lawful warrants, and removing or narrowing specific items council regarded as law‑enforcement operational that are the sheriff’s responsibility. The council also directed the city manager to return with a report on implementation options, associated costs and a timeline before commitments are funded.

Mayor Betsy Gilman and Mayor Pro Tem Rachel Lang led the discussion and acknowledged Ventura County cities have adopted similar measures; council members said alignment with other cities could strengthen legal and political support. Councilmember Meng and Councilmember Whitman both participated in the deliberations; after several amendments were proposed on the council floor, members voted to adopt the amended resolution.

The council request for a follow‑up report means the policy’s more resource‑intensive components — for example, staff training programs or city‑funded legal education for residents — will return for council approval with estimated costs. Supporters said they expect the policy will be accompanied by public outreach and resource links to local nonprofits that provide legal and social services.

The city clerk will publish the final adopted text and the city website will post guidance for residents on what the policy means in practice. Council members said they expect to continue community outreach and to coordinate with neighboring cities and county agencies on implementation.

Ending

Council members described the resolution as both a statement of values and a practical framework for staff. The policy establishes the city’s expectations for responding to immigration enforcement requests, clarifies definitions that staff and residents asked for, and requires a follow‑up report from the city manager with implementation details and cost estimates before further operational steps are taken.