It wasn’t listed on the agenda, but the subject of the Aug. 17 Governance Reform Task Force meeting was access – defining it, gaining it, retaining it and distributing it fairly.
It was the first time in more than a year of hearings that the Task Force devoted the bulk of its time and attention to people who rely on county services, or work with residents who do. Invited speakers could be roughly divided into two groups – people speaking on behalf of the 88 cities in which 90% of county residents live; and organizers who have battled for years on behalf of marginalized residents, and who have in recent years earned a measure of official attention.
The two groups would not appear to be natural allies. If you remove Los Angeles and perhaps Long Beach (the county’s two largest municipalities) from the equation, and with occasional other exceptions, a majority of the cities are politically centrist by California standards, law-and-order oriented, skeptical of multi-family housing mandates, and reliant on the county for many of their most basic services. Under the famous Lakewood model, many cities contract with Los Angeles County for law enforcement, public works and other services. Through opt-in “special districts,” the county provides fire protection, sanitation and public libraries.
The activists by contrast tend to lean left and often see law enforcement and other county programs and institutions as instruments of historical and ongoing discrimination against people of color and families struggling with poverty. They have pushed the county, sometimes successfully, for changes in budgeting, operations and policy.
As they presented their concerns, it became clear that representatives from each of the two categories – cities and organizers – had at least two important things in common. First, they represent and attempt to serve many of the same Los Angeles County residents.
Alejandra Ponce de León of Catalyst California testifies about the difficulty that many Los Angeles County residents face as they try to get the attention of their county government.
And second: They both are concerned that the Measure G requirement to create an elected county executive with direct authority over most county departments will break the access to the county that they have gained through studying the intricacies of a county system with the Board of Supervisors in charge, and through the relationships they have developed with each supervisor and their staffs.
Milestones of success for community organizers were met in 2019 and 2020 with Board of Supervisors votes to scrap a new jail, make anti-racism a priority in all county programs, and send voters Measure J, a charter amendment that requires a spending floor for alternatives to incarceration, including employment, training, mental healthcare, and other programs.
Many are skeptical of Measure G, which through drafting a filing blunders will erase Measure J in 2028, absent remedial efforts.
In their presentation, many focused on equity programs they have demanded and sometimes achieved in their negotiations with the supervisors: Community accountability councils; equity toolkits; a chief equity officer.
Asked to explain what they mean by equity, leaders patiently explained that it’s not something that could be polished off in a few minutes. But they did their best.
Alejandra Ponce de León of Catalyst California offered a description of what it’s like to be denied access: “We didn’t even know how to get into this building.”
It turns out that it was more than simply a tidy and effective metaphor for being denied access to a seat at the Los Angeles County policy-making, operations and budgeting table.
Ponce de León told me later that she was dropped off at the Temple Street entrance to the Board of Supervisors hearing room, exactly where the Task Force meeting was being held. But the entrance was locked, and there was no sign informing would-be meeting attendees where to go or what to do. She walked around the building until she found another entrance, went inside and made her way to the hearing room. She was met with signs saying access was restricted. She went in anyway.
It's important to remember that Ponce de León was invited to this meeting, yet she still was faced with a locked door. And it's important to remember what it's like for the average county resident who has not been invited to any meeting at all, but who needs help with individual, emergency needs that only the county can handle, like a delayed general relief check.
The easy response is that it was a silly little slip-up on the part of county staff or Task Force meeting planners, Ponce de León got where she needed to be anyway, so no big deal.
But then, failing to put Measure J into the charter document, failing to file it with the secretary of state, drafting Measure G so that it overwrote Measure J – these were likewise little slip-ups on the part of county staff – ones that made some community leaders question county government's competence, or perhaps its integrity. Slip-ups that will cost millions of dollars fixto be fixed. Or, perhaps, not fix.
Multiple little slip-ups have turned into a $4 billion liability bill for sexual abuse of children in county care; potentially fraudulent claims on that liability; failed evacuation warnings to Eaton Canyon fire victims; false warning to others; a fire after-action report that omits any measure of accountability; a rushed $215 million purchase of a downtown office building to accommodate county staff, followed by a probe into whether the building could withstand an earthquake (one would normally expect the probe to come before the purchase); a $2 million payout to the chief executive officer because voters adopted a reform that would have changed her job; overdoses and death at county juvenile halls; a state order to close a county juvenle hall (which nevertheless remains open); deaths in the county jail; failures in dealing with homelessness and mental healthcare; and that's just a partial list of county slip-ups in the last two years. Voters approved Measure G, and a sweeping overhaul of county government, partly in response to the accumulation of slip-ups, and the belief that the county was a locked building with no sign or attendant.
Gateway Cities Council of Governments Executive Director Hector de la Torre explains to the Task Force the reach of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County.
Among those addressing the Task Force on behalf of cities was Hector de la Torre, executive director of the Gateway Cities Council of Governments, one of several L.A. County "COGs."
De la Torre said there was currently no structure at all for the cities to communicate with the county, mostly because the communications consist of personal relationships and direct phone calls to the supervisors or whatever staff person or department director the supervisor has assigned. If they will instead be interacting with the county executive, he said, there should be something more formal.
"We didn't come with answers," de la Torre said, calling instead for continuing discussion between the Task Force and the cities.
But the process is moving swiftly, and time for continuing discussion is limited.
Source: Governance Reform Task Force August 17, 2026 Special Meeting - Full meeting video
-- Alejandra Ponce de León: 51:30
-- Hector de la Torre: 56:07