NIX THE AUTO VU SYSTEM-On October 1st, at the direction of Mayor Garcetti, three Genetec AutoVu™ patrol vehicles were released into the flow of LA traffic like Trident submarines into the North Atlantic. 

Mounted on the vehicles were multiple SharpX automated license plate recognition cameras -- each capable of reading and capturing “thousands of license plates per shift” -- day or night -- then checking the plates against a database in real time, with vehicle occupancy counts also being an option as well as “silent” notifications of law enforcement when warrants are detected. 

The purpose of all this? Anti-terrorism? Preparations for a drug-trafficking sting? 

No. The purpose is parking enforcement. The AutoVu™ system is a tool for collecting unpaid parking fines, with a particular emphasis on tracking down vehicles eligible for impounding.  

The contractor who runs the program, Xerox State and Local Solutions (which lobbies the city aggressively through Englander, Knabe, and Allen,) gets paid a 2.5% commission by the City for all fees and penalties incurred by the individual late on his or her parking fines. Xerox gets $27 per citation on Special Collections. 

The gold standard of penalties is impoundment, by far the most lucrative infraction to impose upon Angelenos, as it costs the owner hundreds of dollars. 

By creating a program that incentivizes the contractor to get cars impounded, the Mayor has, in effect, put a bounty on the head of every vehicle owner in Los Angeles -- and by extension on the loved ones of that owner. 

The AutoVu™ system is a dragnet.  

Impoundment is not always caused by people not paying their parking tickets. It is a punishment often meted out unjustly to individuals who, for example, leave their car on the street for greater than 72 hours -- a rule not well-known to the public and never posted on street signs, as the City learned not too long ago in a lawsuit. 

The AutoVu™ system should be shut down. 

Data derived from a dragnet of license plates can be used for blackmail and extortion. Similarly, there is no downside for AutoVu “hunters” to make false enforcement claims -- especially on residents for whom English is not their first language. Inevitably, some percentage of those victims, not sure how to contest the impounding, will pay the fine.  

Life is hard enough without government sponsored profit seekers marauding around prying into the business of everyday residents. 

But from an economic view, it’s not hard to see the temptation for Mayor Garcetti in choosing to implement the program.  AutoVu™ is lucrative. As the brochure boasts, it took Fort Lauderdale just two months to recoup its investment.  

The “number of cars booted” was up 1400%” in that city -- 600 cars booted in just eight months, leading to a bounty of over $200,000. The revenue boost for Monroe Community College, another AutoVu™ client, was 750%. 

Mayor Garcetti needs the money, because he squandered millions of dollars defending against a lawsuit that asked for nothing more than that the City stop allowing Xerox to be the adjudicator of parking ticket appeals, given that Xerox is a private company that loses money whenever those appeals succeed. 

The Mayor lost the lawsuit on August 6, 2016 and so was required to hire City employees to replace the Xerox adjudicators. “Additional costs are anticipated,” the LADOT Director wrote.  

“Tickets should be used to manage parking, not as a revenue source, and that is what I am going to look to do,” Mayor Garcetti wrote, according to the Daily News during a chat session on the website Reddit shortly after being elected. 

So call off the dragnet, Mr. Mayor. Please.

(Eric Preven is a CityWatch contributor and a Studio City based writer-producer and public advocate for better transparency in local government. He was a candidate in the 2015 election for Los Angeles City Council, 2nd District. Joshua Preven is a CityWatch contributor and teacher who lives in Los Angeles.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

15 CANDLES, 96 POINTS OF LIGHT--(Editor’s Note: This month marks the 15^th anniversary of the certification of Los Angeles’ first Neighborhood Council. CityWatch is celebrating with a multi-month celebration of introspective articles and view points on how LA’s Neighborhood Councils came about, how they’re doing and how their future looks. This perspective by Tony Butka is just such an effort.)  

The December LANCC meeting was a free-wheeling event, going over past successes and generally talking about Neighborhood Councils and what they’ve become -- and shrunk into. One of the good things discussed was the fact that there are a lot of new faces in our neighborhood councils after the last election. 

Of course the flip side of these changes is the loss of institutional knowledge about the Neighborhood Council System. This reality, coupled with the observation that some of the “old timers” view of “how things should be” is not particularly useful to new Board members, prompted this piece. 

For context, back in August 2014, I wrote in CityWatch about the systematic marginalization of the City’s Neighborhood Councils. 

Here is a more succinct comparison of how the NC System started out vs. what it has become in 2016. 

Then and Now. 

Back then, DONE, the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, had over 60 employees to help the Neighborhood Councils live up to their mandate; now there are around 20 on the staff, and it’s been as low as a dozen. 

Then, DONE staff helped the NCs do their own thing and learned together with the Neighborhood Councils; now the current staff has high turnover, don’t really know what they are doing, and keep reversing their “advice” after they go back and check with the Mothership DONE. 

Then the General Managers job was to provide support for the Neighborhood Councils, including providing them with meeting space and ongoing help; now the General Manager is simply a cheerleader for the Mayor, bouncing around doing his bidding. Just check out one of the recent email blasts.  

Then, the Neighborhood Councils could go their own way in establishing bylaws and Standing Rules; now the Neighborhood Councils are told what to do by the bureaucratically-bound BONC. (Bureau of Neighborhood Commissioners.) BONC just had a “Special Meeting” to spend our money on telling us what to do by setting up their own newsletter.  

Then, BONC recognized their role as helping the NCs in establishing boundaries and helping with elections; now, BONC acts as an alien Mothership, telling the NCs what they can and cannot do. 

Then, the NCs got $45,000 a year and the City processed their bills with a minimum of paperwork and delay; now, the Neighborhood Councils get $35,000 and can’t even get most of their paperwork processed within a year, since DONE has all of two or three accounting people to handle the increased paperwork of some 96 Neighborhood Councils. 

Then, the City Attorney rarely offered legal advice, and when they did, it was in writing with file numbers on it; now, the City Attorney doesn’t even bother to give advice in public, instead hiding behind a bogus ‘attorney-client privilege’ theory to cover up the fact that their so-called legal advice will not stand up to the light of day. Check out this one. 

My Friends, It is Time to Reinvent the Neighborhood Council System. 

By way of feedback from newer Board members, there seem to be at least two areas that drive them nuts. First, is all that Ralph M. Brown Act stuff and what they have to do to comply with it that takes forever. Second, was all of the time it takes to handle items that involve spending money. Between these two issues and the DONE staff telling them what they can and can’t do, Neighborhood Councils are hard pressed to get any real Neighborhood Council things done in the space of a meeting. 

Fair enough. So here are some practical suggestions. 

The Brown Act. 

Regarding the Brown Act, the only really big deal here is that you do have to post agendas at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. These days that usually mean: (1) electronic posting and (2) physical posting. While the DONE requirement of canceling the meeting is not technically correct, don’t bother to fight City Hall on this one. Hint - make the posting place very handy for most of the Executive Committee. 

Regarding DONE’s other Brown Act “advice” on what you can and can’t do regarding a specific agenda item, you can do your thing and ignore DONE. Truth is, before anyone can do anything to a NC on these kinds of alleged violation, it can be fixed -- if indeed it really needs to be addressed at all. Here’s what the First Amendment Coalition has to say on the matter: 

“Sending a cure and correct demand letter is only appropriate when an action has actually been taken that needs to be corrected. In other words, if the Brown Act is violated yet no action was taken, then a cure and correct demand letter would not be sent. Rather, a person would turn to the courts for an order preventing future violations or would ask the district attorney to do so.” 

As far as I know, nobody has ever taken a Neighborhood Council to court. So, if DONE or a rep says you can’t or shouldn’t have done something, first tell them to give it to you in writing. They will have to go back to the Mothership and figure it out before deciding if they were actually right. Furthermore, unless it’s something of the magnitude that would require a cure and correct letter, who cares what they think? 

Along those lines, if you do something that excites DONE enough to have the City Attorney send you a “confidential attorney client” email, read it out loud in public at your next meeting. The City will tell you that if you waive the privilege and do this, you could be personally liable for litigation. Don’t believe a word they say. First, Neighborhood Councils are advisory only by statute, and hence there’s not much they can do that would expose anyone to litigation. Second, in the entire history of the Neighborhood Council System, I am unaware of any Board or Board member having ever been sued by anyone, except for one guy back in the day that stole money. The current City Attorney advice is just unethical intimidation. 

So much for the Brown Act and wasting a bunch of time catering to DONE instead of doing what you were elected to do -- outreach and keeping the politicians honest. Another suggestion that came out of the LANCC meeting that I like, was to use a Town Hall format for anything other than the minimum legally required Board meetings and simply avoid the Brown Act totally. 

The Money Stuff. 

Most Neighborhood Councils get tied up in knots over trying to expend the money that they get. Our own Glassell Park Neighborhood Council spent almost a whole year with their funds blocked because of a screw up by DONE itself. So, here’s some hard won wisdom. 

First, make sure everyone has taken the Funding Training that DONE requires, and then quickly have everyone except the Treasurer forget all about it. People get caught up over what the NC can and cannot do. It’s a sucker’s game. Do your thing and unless the Treasurer says you can’t, just do it. 

If DONE doesn’t like something, they won’t pay it for it anyway; and if they deny payment, demand that they put their reasons in writing so that your Board can discuss it. If they don’t respond at all (a DONE favorite), have the full Board send them a letter demanding an explanation. Their job is to help you, not hoard your money so that they can “sweep it” into the general fund or back into DONE’s budget. 

If you have ongoing payments for what the City should, by law, be paying for you -- like for a website, utilities, meeting space, etc. Set it up so that DONE has to pay those recurring bills and you don’t have to be bothered. It’s their job and if they don’t have enough staff to do it they need to hire more people, not thwart you from doing your job. 

As another suggestion, you could decide to only deal with financial matters every other Board meeting and use the rest of the time to do the people’s business. 

Final Thoughts. 

Since the issues of handling both the Brown Act and Money seem to be the primary complaints from new NC Board members, (who are simply trying to represent their community and act as a check and balance on the City Hall Monster,) this column seemed like a good beginning. Most folks do not get involved in a Neighborhood Council to become Brown Act attorneys, parliamentarians or accountants. In fact, if they have to do that, they will leave. 

See if these tips help make your NC lives easier and let you do the stuff your NC wants done. To be really bold, you might check out my recipe for radicals -- a five step plan to Take Back Our Neighborhood Councils.  

Anyone who has an idea or suggestion as to how to make the Neighborhood Council System work better for the troops instead of for the City Establishment, you can contact me at [email protected] 

(Tony Butka is an Eastside community activist, who has served on a neighborhood council, has a background in government and is a contributor to CityWatch. Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams. 

TRADE WINDS-Last week I asked Mexico’s Secretary of the Economy, Ildefonso Guajardo, whether he fears that a Trump presidency will revive the anti-Americanism that was once a staple of Mexican life but receded to negligible levels over the past two decades.

Surprisingly, his answer was all about a Monday Night Football game played less than two weeks after the election. Namely, the first-ever regular season Monday night game played outside the United States, in Mexico City’s iconic Estadio Azteca. The Oakland Raiders beat the Houston Texans before a sellout crowd of nearly 80,000 fans, but what Guajardo found most telling was the moment before the game when the anthems of both countries were played.

Guajardo explained that the NFL hesitated before playing the U.S. anthem in the Azteca for fear of how the crowd might respond, live on ESPN, but at the end of the day the league went ahead. And with the exception of a few scattered boos, the Mexican crowd’s response was gracious and respectful. Guajardo said this was a hopeful moment—that positive attitudes toward people on the other side of the border, often acquired through first-hand experience, can transcend political differences or efforts by demagogues to distort the essential truth of our mutually beneficial North American partnership.

One can only hope. The stark reality is that Donald Trump won the presidency by running against Mexico. For a candidate with a short attention span and malleable policy stances, his views on Mexico throughout the long presidential campaign were remarkably consistent and sustained. Mexican immigrants are rapists who must be deported; the North American Free Trade Agreement is a disaster that must be torn up; U.S. companies opening plants in that country are treasonous; indeed, Mexico is so dodgy, we need to build a massive wall along the 2,000-mile border. And guess who’s going to pay for it?

He’s so glad you asked.

Forgive Mexicans if they end up taking it all a bit personally. Mexico has become a far more accommodating and friendlier neighbor —more of the middle class, democratic, open-to-the-world country Washington always wanted—in the two decades since NAFTA went into effect. But you hardly ever see this acknowledged in the U.S. media, or politics. Instead, in the Trump campaign narrative, Mexico was portrayed as the leading villain standing in the way of making America great again.

One big question is whether Trump really believes his own anti-Mexico vitriol and is determined to act upon it, or whether he simply peddled it as part of a convincing “enraged populist on campaign trail” TV performance. On the other side of the border, a related big question is whether the damage has already been done, whether the mere act of electing such an anti-Mexican president will tarnish the United States in Mexican eyes for a generation to come. Keep in mind there are plenty of populist Mexicans politicians eager to match Trump’s xenophobic nationalism for their own gain, especially as Mexico gears up for its 2018 presidential election.

One big question is whether Trump really believes his own anti-Mexico vitriol and is determined to act upon it, or whether he simply peddled it as part of a convincing “enraged populist on campaign trail” TV performance.

In the meantime, I take heart at the outbreak of sports diplomacy like the Monday Night Football game.

On the Friday night of election week, the U.S. and Mexican national soccer teams met in Columbus, Ohio for a World Cup qualifying match. This has become one of the most heated regional rivalries in the world’s leading sport, and a World Cup qualifier doesn’t require a seismic political event to ratchet up the level of intensity.

Still, on this occasion it was for the American sportsmen to worry that politics (and Trumpian-style invective about our southern neighbor) might rear their ugly head in a U.S.-Mexico showdown coming three days after the election. Michael Bradley, the U.S. captain, eloquently said before the game: “I would hope our fans do what they always do, which is support our team in the best, most passionate way possible. I would hope they give every person in that stadium the respect they deserve, whether they are American, Mexican, neutral, men, women, children. I hope every person that comes to the stadium comes ready to enjoy what we all want to be a beautiful game between two sporting rivals that have a lot of respect for each other, and hope that it’s a special night in every way.”

It ended up being a more special night for Mexico, which won 2-1. Politics was a subtext of the match (I know of Mexican-Americans who usually root for the U.S. who couldn’t help but root for Mexico in post-electoral solidarity), but there were no chants about building a wall or mass deportations.

In January, the Phoenix Suns are playing regular-season NBA games against the Dallas Mavericks and San Antonio Spurs in Mexico City. Much like the NFL, with its estimated 20 million avid fans in Mexico and talk of a possible franchise there, the NBA doesn’t see America’s neighbor to the south as the poor, conniving disaster of a country depicted in the recent election. Instead, American pro basketball is treating Mexico as a venue for future growth: a dynamic market with an expanding middle class and an appetite for American goods, culture, and entertainment. As do the U.S. cities these NBA teams represent, all of whom are organizing events alongside the games to try to attract more Mexican investment, trade, and tourism.

Mexico is the second largest buyer of U.S. goods in the world, a market whose importance to most Fortune 500 companies cannot be overstated. These companies increasingly see North America as one integrated manufacturing platform too, a manufacturer that is more competitive with other parts of the world as a cohesive unit. Politicians bash companies like Ford for opening plants in Mexico, but 40 percent of the components of the goods imported from these plants are produced in the U.S., demonstrating how porous the border has become as an economic matter, and just how seamless the back-and-forth is within North American supply chains.

One underappreciated danger for both American and Mexican workers is that companies will be spooked by populist protectionism and take more of their global manufacturing out of North America altogether.

Back in the realm of sports diplomacy, one way for North Americans to transcend the ugliness of politics and assert a shared identity would be by hosting a World Cup together. The 2026 World Cup is the next one to be awarded, and the North American region is a strong contender, given the tournament’s traditional rotation among continents. Both Mexico and the U.S. are expected to submit compelling bids.

There has also been talk throughout the year of a potential joint U.S.-Mexico bid; World Cups are typically played in eight host cities, and there’s the precedent of Japan and South Korea sharing the 2002 Cup. But that talk was followed by speculation that Trump’s election makes a joint bid less likely.

It would be a shame to abandon the idea on account of politics. Quite the contrary: A shared North American World Cup (can we include Toronto too?) is needed, now more than ever.

(Andrés Martinez is the executive editor of Zócalo Public Square  … where this perspective was first posted.)

-cw

CALIFORNIA POLITICS--Gov. Jerry Brown’s nomination of Democratic U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra of Los Angeles to become the state’s first Latino Attorney General, replacing Senator-elect Kamala Harris, is a shrewd and surprising political move and a superb pick.

It not only instantly positions one of California’s most talented politicians as a national leader of anti-Trump progressive forces, but also prepares the state for looming bitter legal battles against the president-elect’s reactionary policies on immigration, health care and climate change.

Becerra is keenly aware of the challenges.

“Right now, when California continues to lean forward on so many issues: environment, clean energy, immigration, criminal justice and consumer protection, we’re going to need a chief law enforcement office to advance those positions and protect them,” he told the Sacramento Bee.

All in all, it’s the first bit of good news we’ve had since election night. (even though we were poised to endorse furniture breaker and populist legal bruiser Joe Cotchett for the job).

Political gamers impressed. Becerra, 58, is the son of Mexican immigrants who grew up in Sacramento, earned his undergraduate and law degrees at Stanford and has served as a leader of the House Democratic and Congressional Hispanic Caucuses. He also has served in the California Assembly and as deputy attorney general under John Van de Kamp.

“Once again, Brown surprises,” said Democratic consultant Garry South, noting that Becerra’s name was not on anyone’s speculation list of potential appointments to fill the last two years of Harris’s term.

“This is not a Rose Bird kind of appointment,” South added, referring to the controversial former chief justice of the California Supreme Court whom Brown appointed in 1977. “He has the experience, character and background to be a credible attorney general.”

“It’s a shrewd pick,” drawled graybeard California Democratic consultant Bill Carrick, describing Becerra as “really smart, politically savvy and somebody who can manage that office.”

The political implications of Becerra’s nomination – his confirmation by the Democratically controlled California Assembly and Senate is all but assured – are myriad.

No sooner was the ink dry on Brown announcement of Becerra’s nomination when former Assembly Speaker John Perez declared he would run to fill Becerra’s seat in Congress, which is liable to be hotly contested. Speculation about other political impacts came fast and furious. Asked Thursday by NBC’s Chuck Todd whether he would rule out running for governor or U.S. Senate in 2018, Becerra artfully sidestepped and said only he will be grateful to be confirmed as attorney general.

Which leaves speculation running rampant about:

– Attorney General: Democratic Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones – who has tangled with Gov. Brown over regulation of insurance rates in the past — had already announced his intention to seek the AG’s job in 2018; with Becerra holding the office with the ability to seek two full terms, the likelihood of an internal party contest for the post arose immediately. As the first Latino AG with a wide national network, however, Becerra would be in a prohibitively strong position to seek election to the post. Jerry serves his revenge cold.

– Governor: Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Treasurer John Chiang all have announced bids for governor in 2018, as has Delaine Eastin, former Superintendent of Public Instruction. Other possible contenders include billionaire climate change activist Tom Steyer, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and former State Controller Steve Westly, to name a few.

While Becerra would make another top-tier potential candidate for governor, Calbuzz insiders on Thursday suggested he is unlikely to jump into the 2018 race for governor. In part, it’s expected that during Legislative confirmation hearings he’ll have to say he intends to serve as attorney general, and in order to run for governor he would have to pivot almost immediately to planning a campaign or 2018. The timing and optics would be ugly. (Prince Gavin and Tony V especially can likely breathe a sigh of relief.)

– U.S. Senate: What remains less clear is what would happen in 2018 if, at the last minute – her preferred timeline – 83-year-old U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (who will then be 85) decides to retire and the Democrats are scrambling for a first-rate replacement who could step into the job seamlessly. Although California Secretary of State Alex Padilla is said to be eager to seek Feinstein’s job, Becerra might look to many Democrats as a stronger choice. (Difi, showing no signs of slowing down, has staked out a high-profile position to scrap with Trump in Washington, as the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee and close ally of Democratic Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York).

In the meantime, Becerra has an opportunity to play a crucial role as the chief law enforcement officer of the largest state – one where Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by more than four million (!) votes – which is also a leader on climate change, immigration, health care, civil rights, women’s rights and so much more.

Bottom line: We’ve met with and interviewed Becerra several times and came away extremely impressed. Jerry Brown has made an inspired choice and allied himself with a forceful, intelligent Latino politician who we expect to carry the banner against Trumpism and all its despicable effects, while competently carrying out the duties of California’s Attorney General.

Nice work, Gandalf.

(Jerry Roberts is a California journalist who writes, blogs and hosts a TV talk show about politics, policy and media. Phil Trounstine is the former political editor of the San Jose Mercury News, former communications director for California Gov. Gray Davis and was the founder and director of the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University. This piece appeared first in CalBuzz.)

-cw

On June 15, 2012, President Obama created a new policy calling for deferred action for certain undocumented young people mainly Latino who came to the U.S. as children. Applications under the program which is called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) began on August 15, 2012. 

This policy allows undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children … through no fault of their own … to come out of the shadows and receive a temporary work authorization and protection from deportation. 

According to the Immigration Equality website, deferred action is a discretionary, limited immigration benefit by DHS. It can be granted to individuals who are in removal proceedings, who have final orders of removal, or who have never been in removal proceedings. Individuals who have deferred action status can apply for employment authorization and are in the U.S. under color of law. 

There is no direct path from deferred action to lawful permanent residence or to citizenship.  And, it can be revoked at any time. 

President-elect Trump said on the campaign trail that he plans to reverse Obama’s executive actions and orders, which would include DACA. If the Trump administration decides to end DACA, it would be at the discretion of DHS secretary to determine priorities and whether protected status is removed together with work permits. 

President Obama has asked Trump and the incoming administration “to think long and hard before they are endangering that status of what for all practical purposes are American kids.” Roughly 750,000 people were issued temporary protected status and, separately, work authorization. 

“These are kids who were brought here by their parents. They did nothing wrong. They’ve gone to school. They have pledged allegiance to the flag. Some of them have joined the military. They’ve enrolled in school. By definition, if they’re part of this program, they are solid, wonderful young people of good character,” Obama said during a press conference last month after the election. 

“And it is my strong belief that the majority of the American people would not want to see those kids have to start hiding again. And that’s something that I will encourage the president-elect to look at.” 

This is really basic common human decency and compassion. This group of ‘Americans’ may not have a paper that says it but they are in every sense of the word Americans. They don’t know any other country. Some don’t even speak Spanish. They are law abiding and productive members of our communities. Let’s not wreck their lives for no reason. 

I’m very hopeful that our new President will do the right thing.

(Fred Mariscal writes Latino Perspective for CityWatch. He came to Los Angeles from Mexico City in 1992 to study at the University of Southern California and has been in LA ever since. He can be reached at [email protected].)

-cw

POLITICS--When newly-elected Donald Trump took his family to a restaurant for dinner without telling the public recently, the press flipped out. A chorus of complaints swelled across the land and apoplexy ensued among the news media.

“He didn’t tell us!”
“He’d supposed to let us know!”
“That’s not how it’s done!”
“We should have come along and sat outside while he ate steak!”

Journalists and editorial writers pilloried Mr. Trump for leaving home and traveling five blocks to a restaurant. Those same reporters, along with editors and news executives, issued thoughtful pleas about the importance of documenting a chief executive-to-be’s movements.

I’m not here to defend the president-elect’s behavior or suggest that his unwillingness to play by traditional rules of engagement with the press is not a big deal. I’m a newspaper reporter, after all. And as the City Hall reporter for the only newspaper in McComb, Mississippi, I hardly find it remarkable when the mayor travels the three blocks from his office to the Dinner Bell restaurant without first notifying me.

I am here instead to suggest—from deep and unusual personal experience—that the news media and everyone else might do well to prepare for a lot more breaking of protocol.

I was the personal aide, AKA “Body Man,” to a governor of California who at the time of his election was one of the five or six most famous people on earth. Like Donald Trump, Arnold Schwarzenegger proclaimed himself an outsider, a non-politician. His first campaign, like Trump’s, was a circus, with the sheer force of his persona flattening most criticisms and every opponent.

“I’m rich so I’m not beholden to special interests,” he said. “I’ll fix a broken system,” he said. Trump’s “drain the swamp” sounds a lot like Schwarzenegger’s “blow up the boxes.”

There is of course a vast difference of scale between a president and a governor, even a superhuman governor like Arnold Schwarzenegger. A governor isn’t responsible for national defense and doesn’t negotiate treaties with other countries. A governor doesn’t tend to travel in a 50-vehicle motorcade with an ambulance in it. A governor doesn’t have access to nuclear codes.

But I believe there are lessons to be learned from Schwarzenegger’s behavior as governor that will help us understand Trump’s as president, at least based on how he has conducted himself in the first weeks since his election.

Early in the Schwarzenegger era—like Trump, even before he took office—calls of “It’s always been done this way” began to be tossed about.

“You’ll have to be in the Capitol every day to meet staff and legislators. You’ll have to be here to sign bills. That’s how it’s done.”

It took a while, but Arnold chipped away at “It’s always been done this way” until the Sacramento apparatchiks got it through their heads that the governor could do business sitting by his swimming pool 400 miles from the Capitol if he wanted to.

One thing people didn’t press the governor to do was move his family from Los Angeles to Sacramento. California was at the time one of just a handful of states with no governor’s residence. That and Arnold’s four school-age kids gave him a pass on the relocation bit.

Instead he took up part-time residence in a two-bedroom hotel suite across the street from the State Capitol. Several nights a week, he slept in one bedroom, I in the other. Between the manly-man Republican action hero and the 40-something gay Democrat, we were an odd couple if ever there was one.

“What must people think … the two of us living here like this?” he said one night as he switched off the lamp in our living room before heading to his bedroom. But I don’t believe he fretted much about what people thought, about his living arrangements or anything else.

It took a while, but Arnold chipped away at “It’s always been done this way” until the Sacramento apparatchiks got it through their heads that the governor could do business sitting by his swimming pool 400 miles from the Capitol if he wanted to. Staff could fly to Los Angeles, their rolling suitcases, jammed with legislation, in tow. The mountain, it turned out, could indeed come to Mohammad.

In August 2004, less than a year after Arnold took office, he agreed to speak at a high-ticket Bush-Cheney fundraiser in Santa Monica. Our advance people and the California Highway Patrol team warned, “Governor, the Secret Service say you have to be there 30 minutes ahead of the president or they won’t let you in. They’ll shut down access.”

“Relax,” Arnold said, just as I heard him say several times a day for the seven years he held office. “Let’s go to Starbucks.” There were few things Arnold Schwarzenegger liked less than sitting and waiting. “No hanging” was a mantra.

“But Governor, the Secret Service …”

“Starbucks. Do you really think they’ll keep me out?” And he was right. He knew the power of his celebrity. Starbucks was a frequent tool for the killing of time, and the California Highway Patrol protective detail learned quickly to research Starbucks locations when plotting routes between events.

There is shorthand for a politician’s unplanned events or stops on a tour. An OTR, or Off The Record, is an unscheduled stop. There was the OTR at an H&M store in Philadelphia, where Arnold had seen interesting scarves in the window when driving past.

“What are you doing here?” the lady behind him in the checkout line asked.

“Buying scarves.”

“Makes sense,” she said.

OTRs are easier when you have your own airplane that won’t take off without you, as the governor did.

“Do you really think they’ll keep me out?” And he was right. He knew the power of his celebrity.

Then there was the jet ski OTR in Miami Beach. We were there for a conference on climate change but, as at most conferences, Arnold didn’t attend every panel, plenary, and roundtable.

“Let’s get some jet skis.”

“Uh, you’re supposed to be in the reception at 3.”

“Relax.”

Several staff members had to make quick trips to the hotel gift shop for swim trunks; others of us knew enough to have packed apparel for every Florida eventuality. It had to be an odd picture, Schwarzenegger and his posse traipsing across the sand to the surf, flanked by a team of plainclothes highway patrolmen in dark suits. It happened that we were crossing a topless beach but if the rest of the posse was titillated, I was not.

More times than I can count, the governor visited construction sites or industrial facilities where hardhats were required.

“Not gonna happen,” he would say, not breaking stride, to the man waving a hardhat in front of him.

“But it’s required!” By then it was too late.

He acquiesced only once in the headwear department, though it wasn’t with a hardhat. At Yad Vashem, the Holocaust remembrance center in Jerusalem, a yarmulke is required when you enter the Hall of Remembrance to view the Eternal Flame. That time, the governor knew better than to quarrel.

Arnold’s reluctance to commit to schedules or events until the last minute sometimes meant squads of CHP officers sitting and waiting to cover every possible scenario. Teams gamely stationed themselves everywhere he was scheduled to go, or where he might go when he made up his mind. And if he decided not to go, the team drove or flew home, depending on how far away they were.

I made a wasted trip once myself. I had been dispatched to Idaho to set up a retreat for the governor’s senior staff in his vacation home. But as soon as I landed in Boise I received an email telling me to come back to California. The retreat was off. I hustled across the airport and made it onto a plane leaving just a few minutes later, but that was a $700 ticket on the state’s dime.

Despite Donald Trump’s thumb-your-nose approach to the traditional ways of doing things, I don’t think we’ll see him in H&M buying five-dollar scarves. But he could if he wanted to. And like the H&M visit, I don’t expect to see President Trump sea-doo-ing anytime soon. But one never knows.

One thing we can expect from President Trump is that “it’s always been done that way” won’t get us very far. We won’t like everything he does but we shouldn’t be surprised when he defies protocol. After all, breaking the rules of presidential campaigns is what got him elected.

(Clay Russell is a reporter for the McComb (Miss.) Enterprise-Journal and prides himself on his non-linear life path. A former professional chef, he lives with his husband and two cats in America’s Deep South. This piece was posted first at Zocalo Public Square.)

-cw