Executive Session Decision Questioned

I went to the  Joint Committee on Administrative Regulation Review because they were going to talk about (9 AAC 52) Proposed Regulations Relating to Executive Branch Ethics.  They also covered Regulations Relating to Oil and Gas Tax.  [AAC = Alaska Administrative Code.]


There's a lot that happened in both of these, but what I'd like to spotlight here happened at the end of the meeting.  Or, to be more precise, when they went into Executive Session.  As everyone was leaving, Lisa Demer, a reporter for the Anchorage Daily News came rushing in.  I know Lisa from when I blogged the political corruption trials in Anchorage.  She did spot-on reports that summarized the day's events managing to get in all the key points - at least as I saw them - in the strict space limits and deadline pressure she had.   I ran into her yesterday;  she'd just arrived to cover for the ADN for three weeks, replacing Sean Cockerham. 


She rushed right up to the chair of the committee (I found out later, she'd been in the Press Room, across the hall, watching the hearing on the tv monitor) and introduced herself as the new ADN reporter and then politely, but firmly, asked why the meeting was going into executive session.  The chair, Rep. Wes Keller, who I thought had run the meeting with a nice balance of good humor and respect, clearly wasn't expecting this challenge to the decision to go into executive session and from what I heard, didn't really give a very substantive response.  Lisa had her little tape recording going, so she has the exact exchange somewhere. 

[Photo:  Reporter Lisa Demer asking Chair Rep. Wes Keller why the meeting was going into executive session.  Rep. David Guttenberg looks on.]


I was impressed.  It hadn't occurred to me to question why they were going into executive session.  In any case, I checked with someone afterward about the basis for going into executive session.  The Uniform Rules*, specifically Rule 22 Open and Executive Sessions, says:

(a) All meetings of a legislative body are open to all legislators, whether or not they are members of the particular legislative body that is meeting, and to the general public except as provided in (b) of this rule.

(b) A legislative body may call an executive session at which members of the general public may be excluded for the following reasons:

(1) discussion of matters, the immediate knowledge of which would adversely affect the finances of a government unit;

(2) discussion of subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of a person;

(3) discussion of a matter that may, by law, be required to be confidential;
(4) discussion of a matter the public knowledge of which would adversely affect the security of the state or nation, or adversely affect the security of a governmental unit or agency.
(c) When a legislative body desires to call an executive session in accordance with (b) of this rule, the body shall first convene as a public meeting and the question of holding an executive session shall be determined by a majority vote of the members present.
(d) The provisions of this rule may not be interpreted as permitting the exclusion of a legislator from an executive session, whether or not the legislator is a member of the body that is meeting. A legislator not a member of the body holding an executive session shall, however, be subject to the same rules of confidentiality and decorum as pertain to regular members of the body. [Emphasis added]

So, are any of these reasons for executive session applicable to today's meeting?

(1) discussion of matters, the immediate knowledge of which would adversely affect the finances of a government unit;

It's hard to imagine this was the case.  They were, as I understand it, going to talk about regulations for  implementing ACES.  They had already gotten testimony from Marcia Davis (I didn't catch her title at the meeting, but there is a Marcia Davis listed as Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Revenue, which would be completely appropriate to what she was reporting on)  with a lot of detail.  This doesn't seem a likely reason.

(2) discussion of subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of a person;

There was nothing to indicate they were going to talk about a person or that the discussion might prejudice someone's reputation.  Also not likely.

(3) discussion of a matter that may, by law, be required to be confidential; 

Possibly, but there was nothing to indicate this, and no law that would require it was cited. 

(4) discussion of a matter the public knowledge of which would adversely affect the security of the state or nation, or adversely affect the security of a governmental unit or agency.

I know that our national security is connected in some ways to oil, but this hardly seems a possible reason.

None of these seems a likely reason, but if one was, it would seem to me that the Chair should know which it is and should have been able to cite the reason directly in response to Lisa Demer's question. 

One more issue is raised by reading these rules.  

(c) When a legislative body desires to call an executive session in accordance with (b) of this rule, the body shall first convene as a public meeting and the question of holding an executive session shall be determined by a majority vote of the members present. [Emphasis added]

The executive session was preceded by a public meeting, but there was no vote.  There wasn't even a discussion of whether they should go into executive session.  

Now, my contact also suggested another possible reason for an Executive Session, since they were discussing proposed regulations.

AS 24.20.100. Research and Drafting Services For Legislators.

Members of the legislature may utilize the research and bill drafting services of the Legislative Affairs Agency. Requests by members of the legislature are confidential. Staff services for members of the legislature shall be accomplished subject only to the priority of assignments determined by the council.

I know that legislators can request the Legislative Affairs Agency to do research and to draft bills and I understand that their requests are confidential unless they sign off to allowing them to be public.  But this was not about drafting legislation or about research.  This was about setting up the regulations to implement the new laws affecting Oil and Gas Taxes.

There may well be a good reason for going into executive session, but if there was, it clearly wasn't on the tip of the Chair's tongue when he was asked why it was happening.  Since the Uniform Rules specifically state that meetings should be open to the public unless certain expections occur, it seems reasonable that the Chair should be able to specifically identify the reason.  There aren't that many.  And the rules call for a vote before going into executive session.

I would note that the Legislative Council also went into Executive Session last week, and I don't recall any discussion or vote about that decision.  And in both cases, the Executive Session was actually part of the printed agenda.


Here's Lisa in the ADN spot in the press room during the Executive Session. 



*I explained the uniform rules in an earlier post.  They govern how the House and Senate rule themselves.

SB 210: Military Deployment and Child Custody Hearing

(S)JUDICIARY		STANDING COMMITTEE *
Feb 08 Monday 1:30 PM		BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
*+	SB 246	INCREASING NUMBER OF SUPERIOR CT JUDGES	TELECONFERENCED
*+	SB 210	MILITARY DEPLOYMENT AND CHILD CUSTODY	TELECONFERENCED
+	SJR 21	CONST. AM: INCREASE NUMBER OF LEGISLATORS	TELECONFERENCED
=+	SB 60	UNIFORM PROBATE CODE; TRUSTS, WILLS	TELECONFERENCED
+		Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled	TELECONFERENCED

I came over to the Senate Judiciary Committee to see what they say about SJR 21 - the Constitutional Amendment to increase

But I got in while they were talking about SB 210  Military Deployment and Child Custody.  I've just seen a CBS video about this issue where ex-spouses are using military deployments against service men and women against them in child custody cases.  An attorney from North Carolina, Mark Sullivan, just testified over audio, saying that he had introduced a similar law into North Carolina, but reading SB 210, he feels what Alaska is proposing "runs circles around the North Carolina law."  "I'm going to point Alaska's law as leading the country."

Mark San Souci(spelling?), from Department of Defense.  His job is to work with state legislatures working to assist our military.   He's talking about how this issue being one of the top ten issues among military families.  Several protections states can enact to balance rights of children and parents.  SB 210 is an excellent vehicle.

He's speaking very fast and I can't keep up.  But he's listing aspects of the bill that are supportive of their goal.  32 states have passed laws that in some way deal with this problem.  Thank you Sen. Huggins for sponsoring this.  Questions:

Egan:  How would you class this proposed legislation?  As Mark Sullivan, whom we see as the expert, said, this legislation is superb.  Of our five criteria, you cover them all.

Coghill:  If we put this in law int he state, this puts another burden for family accomodation in the military.  If someone is given custody during deployment, what is DoD going to do to support custody?

Sansouci(?):  I'm sure with electronic communication, can only speculate, with 32 states having some aspects, some of this is going on.

Coghill:  For those coming back for short leaves, etc.  a lot will be housed on post or base, are there issues that have been resolved with that regard?

Sansouci:  Accommoating family that no lnger has military id?

Coghill:  That's one, or the family not being together anymore, I would think youngster would maintain id.  But we are hearing they won't have to rent a hotel off base to accommoate this.

SS:  Childrens still have military id.  Having child accomooated on post, and maybe still benefits, I think.  I'm hesitant to speculate each circumstance.

Coghill:  We're putting requirements that the court do certain things and I want to be sure we don't have them standing out in the cold somewhere.

Witness:  It says, 'make reasonably available' and 'in child's best interest.'

Coghill:  I understand that, just want to know what military will do.

Christine Pate?   Supervising attorney with Alaska Sexual Violence and Assault, Family law in AK for about 15 years.  Thank Sen Huggins helping deployed parents.  Working with his office on this bill, had some initial safety concerns about sexual violence.  Many fixed, still a few more.  Not sure how language reads now.
1.  Expidited hearings at two phases.  Line D p. 2, 6   Page 4 line 5.  Already processes in place for expedited hearings.  I understand times when being deployed immediately, but when they do have the time, that there could be abuse of this process when there is domestic violence.  I have experience with people scrambling for attorneys.  Concerned people will have expedited hearings as an abusive tactic in litigation.
2.  Appreciate that Sen and staff worked with us to get language to protect AS language protecting victims of sexual violence - if I'm a parent delegating my rights to another, but the other person they delegate their custodial rights to.  I want it clear that it covers both.
3.  Always important to update other parent on address and contact info, but it would be good for victims of domestic violence, to have a clause that says, 'as long as their no danger to the spouse or child."

French:  Thank you.

Allen Baily:  Family lawyer in Anchorage, practice for 36 years, handling cases for service members from Fort Richardson and Elmendorf.  [Lots of credentials...]  Very pleased.  Worked with Josh on this expressing concerns of various groups.  Drafters of this have done an outstanding job to make sure courts consider domestic violence issues along with the best interest of the children.  ...Discussed terms needed and not needed with my friend Mark Sullivan.  Pleased Sen. Huggins took it on themselves to accomplish this.  Thought North Carolina bill much briefer etc., but since studied this and think this bill will be a lot easier to enforce because of its specificity.  Eloquence is nice, but I want the specifics in the bill.

I remember when Judge Hunt said, "I will never hold a service man's decision to serve his country to stand against him in this court."

When I'm in court and my client is present and the other side is appearing by phone, I have observed that my client is more credible, because the judge can get visual cues about my clients' honest.  The incorporation of internet testimony will enhance the ability of people testifying by distance.

Two appreciative for on how evolved:
Earlier wording might have conflicted with state and national legislation, and that has been eliminated in this bill.  Thank you.

Weilechoski:  Curious how courts look at it now and under this bill for a parent deployed to Afganistan.  How do courts look at that now?  How would that change?

Bailey:  We have 15 Superior court judges 10 of whom handle civil cases.  There's an infinite way these can be handled.  Some judges are sympathetic and would have handled things the same as they will after.  Some of the youngr ones who have not lived around military bases, will not be so understanidng.  This will prohibit the deployment in considerig what is happening.  There will be possibility to have the deployed parent delegate someone to spend time with the child while the deployment is in effect.  Does that help?

Weilechoski:  The ultimate touchstone is still "What's in the best interest of the child."

Bailey:  I tell my clients its the guiding light?

Weilechoski:  Have courts ordered kids to go along with deployment?

Bailey:  Only if technically 'overseas' post like Alaska.

Weilechoski:  If someone were asking to take kid along to Iraq, the court couldn't say no.  Am I misreading that?

Bailey:  The serviceman who has custody has to develop a family care plan to take care of child if deployed.  I don't believe parents are allowed to take kids along on deployment where kids would be in danger.

Weilechoski:  Language sounds like judge can't look at deployment...?

French:  Point is to not penalized a parent if deployed.  Not intended to hae a parent take a kid to a war zone:

Witness:  Langauge about child's best interest - taking a kid into a war zone wouldn't be in the child's best interest.

Weilechoski:  just looking at the langauge.

Jean Michele:  Drafting attorney.  Hadn't construed it that way.  Intention is not to override all the other decisions that affect custody, but to not penalize parent under employment.  STill laws in the state and every state that govern moing a child out of the home jurisdiction.  And best interest of child still stated throughout.  Would be surprised if court construed it to allow child to be deployed to war zone.  And military doesn't allow family to go to war zone.

Hollis:  Senator raises good point, we should considere we don't have something inadvertently in there that could be mistrured.

Page 4, Line 5:  How long are you 'subject to deployment'?  How would a judge analyze that.

W:  Means, you receive notification you will be deployed.  Not yet deployed, Possibly out of state and can't do anything about custody.

Coghill:  Upon return of deployment there could be another hearing on the fitness/status of parent deployed and guardianship?  Where is that?

Is it true, someone coming back from war zone, could have big impact on emotional stability or brain injury, but it is also true that person who stayed as non-deployed could also have those issues.  Is that parent subject to reevaluation too?

Michele:  page. 3 line 20-29, yes, but non-deploying parent has burden of prove against resumption of protective order.

Mr. Doug Woollover?   ABout skype/internet aspects.  From court.  We can do skype like things, if what was intended was full blown video conferencing, we don't have capability for that.  Language now makes it clear it's internet based.  We just did one last week and it has some issues, but it worked well last week and we can do this.

Weilochoski:  You don't see additional costs?

Doug W.:  I just checked, it may be a couple of hundred dollars.  Not serious.  Per court.  It doesn't cost us to see them, but if they want to see us, then there are other issues.  We'll look into it.

Weilochoski:  If that cheap, we should probably do that for all custody cases.

Specific language of the bill is here.

Doug W:  We're moving in that direction.

They're talking now with Doug Wollover, an administrative lawyer in the State Department of Law again, this time about increasing the number of judges.  I'm going to post this and then get ready for the Constitutional Amendment discussion.  I'll try to check and fix name spellings later.  I don't have a list of names.

Russian Search Engine Yandex Showing Up

In the last four or five days a new search engine is starting to show up in my sitemeter listings.  (Well, it's new to my blog anyway)  In Western script it's listed as Yandex. (Go down to referring URL):

When I click on the referring URL, I get a page like this:

Yandex says about itself:

Yandex today

Yandex is Russia’s largest internet company, whose websites attract a workday audience of more than 12 million users (as of the start of 2009) from Russia, Ukraine and other countries.

1. What Yandex Does

Give answers

Our major goal is to give answers to users’ questions.

Questions can be explicit or implicit. Explicit questions are typed right in Yandex’s search box and return answers to users in the form of search results. To answer implicit questions like “what is the weather like today”, “is there anything important going on now”, “can I drive downtown without traffic jams” Yandex offers its users specialized information services.

World-class technology

Russia is one of the few countries with homegrown world-class internet technologies. Besides Russia, local search engines lead in the US, China, South Korea and the Czech Republic.

Among the technologies developed by Yandex, many are pioneers in their niches. Yandex was the first to use Russian language morphology in information search (even before the internet came to Russia) and the first to launch parallel search (simultaneous search in multiple sets of information). Since 2002, clients of the Yandex.Mail service have been protected by Spamooborona – the first Russian internet anti-spam technology implemented in a mass online service, attracting a million-strong audience. The Yandex.News service uses a proprietary fact extraction technology to perform citation search and to form “press-portraits”. Yandex was also the first to introduce a system of text-based advertising in Russia. . .

Further down, I found this interesting:

3. Team

The Yandex team counts more than fifteen hundred people in different cities and countries. One of the documents that our new employees read first when they start with the company is “The Charter”, which begins with:

Peaceful coexistence

"Yandex is a very open company. Independent thinking, open exchange of opinions and attention to alternative points of view are strongly encouraged. Being a team player is prerequisite for all Yandex employees. Team means everyone working within the company, not only immediate colleagues. It is us together who make the Yandex loved by web users, respected by partners and clients.

People in different departments often see the same problem from different angles – this is exactly what makes Yandex develop successfully. That is why it is important to be tolerant and considerate of others’ opinion. Make an a priori allowance that a conflicting opinion is no less valid than yours."

Yandex’s major asset is its team of top notch specialists. Yandex looks out for professionals and assists in their growth by running regular specialist competitions and supporting the School of Data Analysis, founded by the company to offer free tuition for students with the goal to cultivate specialists in data analysis and information extraction from the internet, to conduct fundamental research in this field and to provide talent for Yandex’s applied projects.

Yandex is among the largest high-tech companies in Russia in terms of the number of engineers it hires. Currently, Yandex has branches in Russia (Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Ekaterinburg), Ukraine (Kiev, Odessa, Simferopol) and in the US (Burlington, CA).   [This continues here.]

Wikipedia's entry begins this way:

Yandex

Type	Private
Founded	1997
Headquarters	Moscow
Key people	Arkady Volozh, CEO
Industry	Internet Search Engine
Products	N/A
Revenue	▲50% US$ 300 Million (2008)
Employees	over 1600[1] (2009)
Website	http://www.yandex.ru/

Arkady Volozh is the co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Yandex

Yandex (Russian: Я́ндекс) is a Russian search engine, the world's second largest non-English-language web portal, and the largest Russian-language web portal. Yandex was launched in 1997. Its name can be explained as "Yet Another iNDEXer" (yandex) or "Языково́й (language) Index". The Russian word "Я" corresponds to English "I" (as the singular first-person pronoun), making "Яndex" a bilingual pun on "index".

[edit] Market Share

According to research studies conducted by TNS, FOM, and Comcon, Yandex is the largest resource and largest search engine in Russian Internet, based on the audience size and internet penetration.
The closest competitors of Yandex in the Russian market are Rambler and Mail.ru. Although services like Google and Yahoo! are also used by Russian users and have Russian-language interfaces, Google has about 22.6% of search engine generated traffic, whereas Russian sites (including Yandex) have around 56.9%.^[2][3] Yandex is therefore one of the national non-English-language search engines (with among others Naver, Seznam.cz and Baidu) that outrun Google in their countries.
One of the Yandex's largest advantages for Russian-language users is recognition of Russian inflection in search queries. ^[4]

Bet you weren't expecting to see this here.  Me neither.

Small World, More First Friday, New Friends, Feeding Ravens, etc.

This is a catch up post.  After the museum Friday, we went down to the Canvas, which in addition to its First Friday exhibit of Magil Pratt's Miniatures, a bunch of which had red sold stickers on,  also had a pottery sale and we got a couple of little bowls to give us a little bit more in our minimalist Juneau household.  I also ran into someone I know from Juneau who lived in the house where we're living.  Our basement apartment was already here when she was a child.  

Then down the block to the Silverbow where an exhibit of pictures sponsored by the  Juneau Homeless Coalition.  Here's Gail, Lance, Teri, and Gil.

Scott Ciambor's Zen caught my eye.  This wall had landscapes of the homeless.  Here, under a bridge.












We ended our art crawl with dinner at Silverbow.








Our friend Sharman was down from Anchorage last weekend and in the four days she was here, we ran into her three different times before we met her for dinner with her Juneau friends last Sunday.

Last night we had dinner with the Juneau friends who live three blocks down the hill in a wonderful ol house with high ceilings, wood trim, and lots of green plants, and, last night, lit candles. 

A delicious dinner with good folks and cats.  












Today, I took a lazy run over the bridge to Douglas to get this picture I missed last week when I discovered - at this spot - that my credit card was missing.  Grey and drizzly, but still a great view back toward Juneau.

And then I stopped at the Foodland on the way home and as I came out there was someone feeding the ravens.  Not sure this is a good idea. 

And as I made it to the stairs up the hill I ran into Lisa Demer, the ADN reporter who's in town for three weeks replacing Sean Cockerham.

Tonight we're headed to dinner with people we've never met, but  I met their daughter a while back - a former Peace Corps volunteer whose parents, she told me were volunteers in Thailand 1967-69, the same time I was there.  The teacher Joan volunteers with gave her a note with their phone number and a message they wanted us over for dinner.  Small, small world.  But no, I didn't know them in Thailand, but they did know one of the people in my group who was near them. 

The bread is almost done in the oven, the Saints are up by fourteen with just a few minutes to go, and we need to go pretty soon.

How Do You Know Who's Been To Pebble Mine?

When you go into the front door of the Capitol, just to the right of the stairs, there's this wooden board with little packets of papers.  New ones are added several times a week.  If you are a legislator, the new packets get delivered to your office.  Well, I'm not sure if Representatives get stuff for the Senate and vice versa.   There's a variety of topics covered.  Some of the regular ones are the House and Senate Journals, which tell you what has happened, and the House and Senate Committee Announcements, which tell you what is scheduled to happen. (You can double click the pictures to enlarge them.)

  

 Most of this stuff (probably all) is available online.  I'm still learning where to find specific things.   BASIS has more than you can read, so you don't have to be in Juneau to see this stuff.  Here are some of the links from the BASIS link:

• Bills
  
  
  • Statistics
  • Actions by Date
  • Awaiting Action
  • Governor's Vetoes
  • Passed Legislation
  • Bills in Committee
  • Sponsor Summary
  • Requestor Summary
  • Subject Summary
    
• Committees
  
  
  • Member Information
  • Minutes and Audio
  • Hearing Schedules
  • Conference Committees
    
• Session
  
  
  • House and Senate Calendars
  • Journal Text Display
    
• Session Laws
  
  
  • 2009
  • 2010
  • 2009-2010
    
• Tools
  
  
  • Statute Information Retrieval System (SIRS)
  • Bill Tracking Management Facility (BTMF)
  • Executive Orders Current
  • Executive Orders Archive
  • Gavel to Gavel
    
• Archive
  
  
  • The 25th Legislature (2007-2008)
  • The 24th Legislature (2005-2006)
  • The 23rd Legislature (2003-2004)
  • The 22nd Legislature (2001-2002)
  • The 21st Legislature (1999-2000)
  • The 20th Legislature (1997-1998)
  • The 19th Legislature (1995-1996)
  • The 18th Legislature (1993-1994)

So, the other day, as I was checking if there was a new committee schedule, I came across this document.  I've been going through it in short spurts when I've had time. 

  

It lists various kinds of information about legislators and their staffers.  Were I still a volunteer staffer,  and because I'm on a couple of steering committees, my name would be in here as well.  (Actually, I would have had 30 days from start of 'employment' to file, so it probably wouldn't be in the 2009 Report.)  For the record I'm on the Statewide Steering Committee of DELTA and on the Steering Committee of Healing Racism Anchorage both of which I've mentioned at various times in the blog.  

There are several categories of information published in the Disclosure Report:

• Memberships on a Board of Directors
• Close Economic Associations (basically in some sort of business relationship from employee, to website consultants, to renters)
• Gift of Travel and Hospitality (By far the most entries)
• Gift Received by Family Member Because of Legislative Connection

Here's what one of the entries looks like for travel (I blurred out the names because I didn't want to highlight just one person, in this case it's the information in general that's important):

 

I figured I should be able to find these reports on line, and probably they are out there.  I checked at the APOC (Alaska Public Offices Commission) but the best I could do there was reports through 2007.  I'm sure more recent stuff is there, but I couldn't find it.

(The other day I had trouble finding a list of the Legislative Council members on BASIS.  I could only get an old list.  I called and they helped me.  I had somehow gotten onto a cached version and not the 26th Session, so there are a lot of ways to go wrong.)

So, I googled specific info out of the hard copy report and got

SELECT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
YEAR 2009 DISCLOSURES
Reported from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009

By playing with the URL I got, I was able to get to a page on the Alaska Legislature site that links to the annual disclosures, so you can see the 2009 disclosures here.   [I can't seem to open that file so if it doesn't work for you either, here's a google cached version.]  I'm not sure how one would get to this particular page from the home page. The ethics button on the bottom gets you into the ballpark. I'll have to try all the possibilities.





This has both more (it includes the Senate for instance) and less (it doesn't say which legislators the staff members work for nor does it break down the costs) information than the booklet I picked up.  But electronic means I can cut and paste the information to the blog.  Since the Pebble Mine is a major Alaska policy issue, I picked out all those people I could find who got trips to Pebble Mine.

And I don't mean to imply that if people fly to Pebble Mine courtesy of the company, that they've done something wrong.  This is a major policy issue facing the state.  Seeing the actual location is important to help someone understand the situation.  But the purpose of disclosure is to make it transparent for the public to know and then follow this down the line.  So, you can ask your legislators, if they're on the list, if going to Pebble with a Pebble Mine advocate changed their minds in any way and what they got out of it. 

A key problem with getting information from one side of an issue in a non-public setting is that the other side doesn't have a chance to challenge what is being said.  So if a person is swayed by such an encounter (and this could happen at a private meeting in an office just as well) the other side doesn't know what was said and can't say, "Wait a minute, you left out the fact that two weeks later the company went bankrupt" or whatever else was unsaid.

If you are smart and a critical thinker, such a trip shouldn't be too problematic.  But if you aren't a critical thinker, especially if you are ideologically predisposed to favor the development of the mine, having just the mine owners' take on things could distort your ability to evaluate this objectively.

So, based on setting my search function for "Pebble Mine" here's the list of people I got who have visited courtesy of the company in 2009.  If they're legislators, it will say Rep. or Sen. before their name.  The others are legislative staffers.  I'm not going to go through all the records to pick out which legislators the staffers work for.  Sorry, I'm not quite that anal.
[I think the first dates are when they reported (they have 30 days) and the second date is when they traveled.]

SENATE

• 08-19 07-28 Michael Rovito $800     The Pebble Partnership-tour of proposed Pebble Mine site; airfare and meals; Iliamna, AK
  
• 08-19 08-09 Patricia Walker  $800     Pebble Ltd. Partnership-helicopter tour Pebble mine proposed site; airfare  and meals; Iliamna, AK
  
• 08-19 07-28 Sen Menard  $800     Pebble Partnership-tour of the proposed Pebble Mine site; airfare and meals; Iliamna, AK
  
• 08-25 08-18 Matthew Moser  $800    Pebble Limited Partnership-site tour of proposed Pebble Mine; airfare and meals;  Iliamna, AK
• 10-13 09-21 Andy Moderow  $694 Pebble Partnership; tour the Pebble job site in Iliamna, AK; airfare and meals
  
• 10-23 09-23 Sen Olson  $694   Pebble Limited Partnership; visit and inspect Pebble Mine core drilling sites and related processing facilities; airfare, lunch and helicopter tour; in and near Iliamna, AK
  
• 10-23 09-23 Tim Benintendi  $694   Pebble Limited Partnership; visit and inspect Pebble Mine core drilling sites and related  processing facilities; airfare, lunch and helicopter tour; in and near Iliamna, AK
  

HOUSE

• 08-19 08-09 Charles Heath, Jr.  $800   Pebble Partnership-tour of the proposed Pebble Mine site; Iliamna, AK
  
• 08-21 08-18 Jennifer Senette   $800    Pebble Limited Partnership-tour of Pebble Limited Partnership site; airfare, meals, ground transportation; Iliamna, AK
  
• 08-21 07-28 Rep Holmes   $800   Pebble Limited Partnership-on-site helicopter tour of proposed Pebble Mine area; airfare and meals; Iliamna, AK
  
• 08-21 08-18 Rep Olson  $800  Pebble Limited Partnership-overview of proposed mine site; airfare, lodging & meals; Iliamna, AK
  
• 08-24 08-18 Rep Petersen   $800   Pebble Limited Partnership-helicopter site tour of potential Pebble mine and Pebble operations; airfare and meals; Iliamna and Newhalen,
  
• 08-24 07-28 Konrad Jackson   $800   Pebble Limited Partnership-tour of proposed mine site; airfare and meals; Iliamna, AK
  
• 08-27 08-28 Rex Shattuck  $800  Pebble Limited Partnership-onsite briefing/overview of project; airfare and meals; Iliamna, AK
  
• 08-28 08-18 David Dunsmore  $800  Pebble Limited Partnership-helicopter tour of Pebble operations in Iliamna and potential mine site; airfare and meals; Iliamna and Newhalen, AK
  
• 09-08 08-09 Mike Kelly  $800 Pebble Ltd. Partnership; tour the proposed mine site; airfare, helicopter tour and lodging; Anchorage – 200 miles SW in Bristol Bay region
  
• 09-08 08-09 Rep Coghill  $800 Pebble Partnership; tour of Pebble Mine; airfare and lunch, Iliamna, AK
  
• 09-08 08-09 Rep Wilson   $800 The Pebble Partnership; tour Pebble Mine area; airfare and meals; Iliamna
  
• 09-22 09-11 Nick Henderson   $743.98 The Pebble Partnership; Legislative tour; airfare and lodging; Iliamna, AK

This is just one destination.  The disclosure list has lots of trips.  Now, in some cases legislators and staffers may just be taking advantage of the donor's largess to see different parts of Alaska, the US, and the world.  In other cases, the accumulation of trips from donors of the same ideological perspective, might well seal a legislator's or staffer's brain from taking in opposing ideas.  In other cases the traveler will learn a lot about issues facing the legislature and will be more informed when making decisions.  Probably, there are differing aspects of all three of these outcomes in most trips.

While I suspect that all who went on trips would agree that some people could be unduly influenced, I doubt any see themselves as vulnerable.

Again, here's the link to the 2009 Disclosures.

Juneau First Friday - Juneau Douglas City Museum

From the Holy Trinity Church we walked a few more blocks over to the City Museum where the 12X12 show was opening. This is the show where all the entries have to be 12 inches by 12 inches. All were at least fun and a few were terrific.

[From top to bottom, left then right:  Noelle Derse - A Boy's Dream;  Clare Brooks, Woodland;  Megan Eagle, Computer Age of Nothing; Jeff Brown, Maze;  Joanne Sam, Untitled; Andrew Moeser, Albatross] [My dilemma was that I got home and realized a couple of the titles weren't clear.  Do leave all the info off?  That didn't seem right.  Maybe someone will fill in the blanks in the comments.  Otherwise I'll go back to the museum and fix it later. Done.]

This one by Fumi Matsumoto recalling the World War II Japanese internment camp at Manzanar  showed more originality than most. 

And this one by Cameron Byrnes seemed to attract the most attention while I was there.

But for me, the absolute standout was this one:

Rachel Juzeler's Hidden Work Series:1989, w/ fortunes.  I realize that there may be a lot of folks who really scratch their heads over this one.  "But what is it?"  This one is for people whose brains don't demand everything be served up in instantly recognizable packages, who like being challenged with the unexpected, and who can appreciate the shapes, the colors, the forms.  A dynamite piece.

The food was provided by the Juneau Dental Society and I was impressed.  It was basically healthy.

But then I went into their exhibit.  Oh dear.  Maybe at a trade show. But this was a museum. The Mouth Power exhibit logo was fine, and I expected something with artistic taste, not some tired commercial art.  Reminded me that most of the stuffed bears in glass boxes at the Anchorage Airport were shot by dentists. 

But the kids did seem to enjoy playing dentist.

Juneau First Friday - Holy Trinity

I got an email invitation to walk down the hill a couple of blocks to see the new Holy Trinity Church for the First Friday Art Walk when there was going to be something about puppets.

We passed St. Ann's Parish Hall - where the Holy Trinity Congregation met after the fire - and the last block to the new, not yet completely finished church. Before the fire, Holy Trinity was one of the oldest churches in Juneau.

 

We got into Holy Trinity in the middle of a puppet show presentation about the puppets of the church, how they were made, and tricks of puppeteering. 

  

  

That goat is also a puppet.  

  

These puppets were in the back of the hall.

  

And all along a couple of the walls were puppets made by younger members of the congregation.  [kids at the charter school across the street.  A reader emailed that Aaron Elmore, of HT and Theatre in the Rough,  HT's resident theater company was an artist-in-residence at the Charter School and taught them how to make puppets]

  

The ceiling of the new building is starkly stunning.

 

More puppets.

Legislative Council on Public Relations, Facebook, and Other Issues

I got to the Capitol at 8am Thursday morning to hear the discussion in the State Affairs Committee over Rep. Gruenberg's bill to apply proportional representation to the Legislative Council and the Legislative Audit and Budget Committee.  You can read about that here with background on these committees.

[Front left, Rep. Stoltze; in blue Rep. Peggy Wilson; at the end of the table Rep. Harris, Chair; I think the next person in Pam Varni, head of Leg. Affairs Office;  Rep. Nancy Dahlstrom;  and on the far right, Sen. Johnny Ellis.]

So I thought I should see a Legislative Council meeting and there was one at 4pm Thursday.  This is the group made up of Senators and Representatives to deal with joint issues and to act for the Legislature during the interim between sessions.  So they should be covering weighty stuff.

There were a lot of housekeeping issues.  You can see all the details below.  They did talk about the Request for Proposal that was characterized in the press a while back as hiring a PR firm to lobby against protections for beluga whales and polar bears.  The best soundbite of the day came from Senator Ellis:   "Scientists doing science is fine if it is professional. Politicians doing science will get us a black eye."

There was also a long discussion about allowing access to Facebook on Legislative computers.  Right now it is blocked.  They postponed the decision.  Details in the rough minutes below.



Below are my rough notes. WARNING:  I typed as fast as I could, but there are gaps, mispellings, and probably paraphrasing as I tried to catch up. As always, I'm offering this to give an overall sense of things, but don't rely on the details completely. I apologize in advance to anyone I've seriously mischaracterized.  Let me know and I'll make  corrections.  I've been something of a perfectionist most of my life, but I know if I go for perfection here, there will be nothing posted.  Notes in [Brackets] are my notes of explanation as I write this now.

I've taken the online agenda and then written my notes between the lines:



LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL JOINT COMMITTEE * Feb 04 Thursday 4:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532 - Legislature


Feb. 4, 2010 4:05 opened
1.  Roll Call: Harris, Chenault, Dahlstrom , Stoltze, Wilson, Guttenberg, Sen Davis, SEn Egan, Sen Ellis, Hoffman, STedman, Stevens. [I didn't catch everyone, and there was someone audio-conferenced in.  I believe it was Senator Lyman Hoffman]
2.  Approve Minutes
3.  FY09 Audit - [ I don't have notes.]

4.  Sanctioning of Charitable Events: 
[One of the waivers for lobbyists giving gifts to legislators is giving tickets to charity events.  So, they can buy tickets to such events and give them to the legislators and their staff.  There is a $250 limit.  But, the charities have to be approved.  And so, if I understood this right, the Leg. Council was approving these charity events.]
Thanksgiving in March;
Legislative Skits;
Neighbors Feeding Neighbors;
Fahrenkamp Classic Events;
Kenai River Classic Event -
Shamrock ???
Approving charitable events approved.

5.  Late Per Diem Requests - Travel & Per Diem Policy Approval
Speaker Chenault and for Rep. Gruenberg-
Stolze - can we have a round contrition from both members?
Chenault - I don’t grovel very well, as you know.
Stolze - I withdraw my objection
Approved.

6.  New per diem policy  [If I were any good, I'd link to it, but I'm way behind on things as it is and I can't find it immediately.  I couldn't bring up the documents for this meeting on my computer, so I don't have the backup.  Sorry.]


7.  Presentation of State Flag Policy - To present a flag flown over the capitol to families of legislators or former legislators when they die.

8.  Fosler Law Group Contract Amendment - Extends Mr. Foster’s contract for one year, not increasing the contract amount. Balance of $28K, offers services to Leg. Council and member. He doesn’t charge if we don’t ask him to do anything.

Item 6 back, [Rep. Stedman came in late and had a comment on Item 6 so it was reopened]  Harris: ... even though we approved it - Per diem policy. Sen Stedman, can you give us your concern.
Stedman: Apologize for being late, was in another meeting. Page 3, about eating allowance. If I leave from Sitka to Anchorage and return the same day, I have to take the 6am flight out and don’t get back until 11pm. [I think the issue was that the new regulations don't allow reimbursement for food you eat on the day you leave home.  And this was what he was questioning.]
Harris: I’ll have Pam give explanation.
Pam: This policy goes along with travel officers guidelines. Not affected during session since you already get a meal allowance. Only for the interim time. Your suggestions don’t go along with the ?? guidelines.
Harris: We’ll leave it in place and come back to it at next meeting.
Not revisiting our vote, just brought it back so member could discuss it.

9.  Revisor's Bill - Kathryn Kurtz, Leg. Affairs Agency. One job is to create bill to to clean up the language (I think). Cleaning up problems with the language and references - ‘and’ or ‘or’ etc. References explaining why the change was made. If approved, can be introduced by the Rules Committee.  [The Legislative Affairs office reviews parts of the statutes each year and then recommends changes which don't change the law, but simply clean up the way it is written - typos, consistency, etc.]
Harris: I remember these things being really thick. Things must be getting better.


10.  90-Day Session Report - [Each House was asked to do a report on how the new 90 day session is going.  The House wrote a report, but the Senate committee sent in three separate 'reports' from the three members.  I don't have copies of these.]
Harris: Sen. Egan says he wants to cut it down to 60 days cause he’s tired of his home town….[Egan represents Juneau]
From the Senate it’s sort of a mixed bag
????: I beg your pardon
I didn’t say you were a bag, just a mixed bag.
And from the House a report that is unanimous.

Stoltze: Thank you, debate ongoing ad naseum, part of the fabric of the session. Just happy with the 90 day session. Reflect there’s no desire on the part of this committee to change, just passing on the report.
Wilson: Process question. So it does take a bill?  Our Constitution says we have 120 days, do we have to do anything?
Harris: You can do anything you want and I’m sure someone will litigate. I think the Constitution is clear that we are not to go over 120 days.
Some of you aren’t speaking into the mikes and you aren’t being picked up.
OK, well, send them [Reports] on.


11.  Building Naming Policy Discussion -
Brought to me by Sen. Stevens.
Stevens: Just seemed to me as ???
Harris: process for naming for someone who isn’t a House or Senate member. And also concerned about naming about someone who is still alive.
Stevens: We could name it after someone who later does something outrageous
OK, take it up and bring it back.
Stolze: I appreciate the level of caution. Concerned about Beltz room, someone said, Who was William Beltz, I take those issues seriously, have a lot respect for the past history. Hasty moving toward people we have emotions and friendship for. Deeper appreciation for the longer history. People who reigned and ruled in this room that staffers know nothing about. I’d like to reserve some of the real lions of this process. We should not forget our richer past.
We’ll bring it back.

12.  IT Subcommittee Recommendations: 
-Web Filtering Authority; [This is about having a joint committee to decide on what sites to block on the Legislative computers.  Now it is done separately by each House.  The proposal, as I understand it, is to have just one authority on this.]
Curtis: Info SErvices manager for Leg. Affairs. Establish who is in charge for web filtering, which sites should be blocked and allowed. This is to consolidate so we have one policy maker and both chairs have worked on this together.
Stedman: Committee action to
Harris: Not sure, brief at ease.
Harris: Motion will be that Leg Council decision making body for blocking sites, and Leg Council chair in charge of making exceptions. I don’t intend to be a dictator, every issue that comes up we don’t need to have a meeting of the whole committee.
Stedman: Clarification. Comm will take positive action on list of websites and chair can override that if brought by particular legislator.
Harris: Yes, probably staff members will do a lot of this. Part of the issue was that the Speaker and Pres may have different policies and they want a uniform policy and this the that body for both.



-Facebook Access - [Facebook is currently blocked on Leg. computers.  People have requested it be accessible.]
Curtis: number of offices ask for access to FB.com to better communicate with constituents. For years we have had different interpretations. Now requesting to lift the block on FB and see if this works, in terms of virus, campaign issues, etc. Let them use it for three months to see if it is something we want to do.
Dahlstrom: If this goes through I suggest it be 30 day, not 90 days because we would be out of session by then. Concerned about virus, but mostly ethics, even if it is unconscious. Everything we do has pitfalls, Need to be cautious. I think FB is great, but should do it on their personal computers, i-Phones. I would be a no vote on this.
Harris: I believe it reads to only be during the session. I think that deals with your time issue.
Wilson: This brings up something. I cannot use my personal computer and get on the network in the building.
Harris: I thought we fixed that.
Wilson: You did, but if we are going to open up, maybe I should go back.
Curtis: Originally we were looking at 90 day session, but yes, that’s what we meant.
Stoltze: Where has been the impetus. I don’t have facebook, my neices and nephews do, I heard one of our former politicians uses it. I don’t understand the boundaries and barriers of this. The public doesn’t see the problems we see. I hear about teenagers and pedophiles. How do we keep that off our system. I’m confessing a total lack of knowledge on this. I don’t know enough to vote other than negatively.
Harris: Any folks on IT subcommittee want to talk.
John: John Bitney, I work in your office and on the committee. When we started this discussion about FBI on legislative systems I was skeptical. I would say the discussion your having common in other legislatures and board rooms. It’s a heavily used system and several offices have come to ask for access with legislative computers. We discussed it with the Ethics committee. If this were a pproved, if your office begins to use it. You can’t start it and ignore it. If you open a site you need to actively manage it, partake and keep and eye on it. Valuable tool, but requires active management and monitoring.
Stoltze: Said social networking, makes me shy about this. Maybe I’m totally off base technologically, What are we opening ourselves up for. If someone decides to be a social networking, while I’m working on the budget, I don’t want to see personnel doing a whole new activity. I’ve heard people spend a whole evening on FBI. I’m really nervous about this. ….
Wilson: Curt, how does security, because I was told if I connected to the network I’d be a security risk. We’re opening up to the whole world.
Curt: FBI is the most popular website on the internet, about 200 million users. When you have lots of usage, it’s a target for hackers. Those are the security related issues. Great way to exchange info and that info could be laden with virus and trojans.
Gatto: If someone asks you to friend them, I just say no if I don’t know them.
Curt: I have a FB account, don’t do much, checking it out for job.  I had someone ask me to be their friend, it turned out to be a cousin I didn’t know. If your constituent asks and you say no….
Gatto: Bitney says if we don’t maintain it we’re in trouble

Harris: move it to next meeting

13. Personal Service Contracts/PERS Waivers -[I didn't understand what they were talking about]
Skiff Lobaugh: Memo from Pam Varni, Jan. 26
Stedman: I think it’s a bad call, impact isn’t so severe on treasury, retire Friday, then get your pension and show up Monday and get your salary and pension.
Need to have continuity amongst ourselves. Employees compensated well, have good benefit package. I understand some after 30 years have to cap out. That’s just embedded in the system. Not good public policy.
Skiff: Differences between executive and legislative employment. Leg. and Exec has differences that makes the comparison different.
Stedman: As legislators we have employees who are hired for a session then terminated, possibly hired for the interim. We have a quirk in the sytem how we operate. But overall, I think it isn’t a good practice. Gun shy with this policy.
harris: What would you like, mull it over a bit?
Stedman: Mull it over, no need for a new committee.
XXXX: I would agree, this is a big policy call and will affect how other employees are treated in the future.
14.  RFP 505 - Public Relations Consultations -[this is about the Request for Proposal that got a lot of attention earlier, when it was characterized in the press as asking for  a PR firm to advertise against protections for beluga whales and polar bears.]
Harris:  In Leg. Council we put money into Leg Council to look at Global Warming and Endangered species. Intended for Execs to spearhead it. What this proposal does, Eddie Grasser has talked to you, requests a proposal for people around the country, what the leg. should do to address this issue. We have belugas and polar bears and we need to see what is out there and help us defend ourselves, work with other states. We have the proposals back. Haven’t seen them, They are all sealed. I would appoint subcommittee to evaluate the proposals. We money in the interim

Break -

Concerned about black eye for Alaska.
Eddie, proposal ended up being a conference and proposal after that from what we find out after that. We want to look for a balanced approach, both sides being invited. If you don’t do that you will have a black eye. My discussions with leg leg. Actions would be things only legal for the governor can do legally.
Ellis: Scientists doing science is fine if it is professional. Politicians doing science will get us a black eye. We need to be mindful that there is great pr damage that could come from this if we do it wrong.
Harris: I agree, you want to sit on this?
Stoltze: I share STedman’s concerns about time. Go in with some concerns as Sen. Ellis. Follow your leadership as always, sometimes with more trepidation than others. I think we have a firebreathing AG working with F&Game my pref is to give him the money to work with other AG’s in the US. Just because we have money, doesn’t mean it is imperative to spend it. The misuse of ESAs affects North slope and ESA’s permeate every part of the state. We had NS borough talking about how ESA’s affect their borough. Appreciate Sen. Ellis’ concerns. I’ve been a skeptic, cautious nature, frugal nature. Model myself after first governor on frugality.

I’ll appoint a subcommittee, not right now, see who wants to be on it.


15.  NOBEL Conference Funding Request.
Davis: Package for Request for Conference to be held in Anchorage, Group black state elected officials. ABout 365 African American elected to state legislature in 48 states. I would like to get 1000, but even 500 would be good. I’m proud of my state. They are going to sightsee and spend money here. I’m requesting $50,000 to cover the conference, Marriot Hotel in Anchroage. I’ve hosted other Womens Conferences. I have reputation in Lower 48 where people think they have to come to my state because they’ve heard about my conferences. $50K would just be a portion, we are getting money from other sources

Stedman: IN support, I was in San Diego, several of her colleagues, they were all excited about coming up, if it weren’t for Sen. Davis, but it’s a good opportunity for the State. Don’t know what the budget has.

Dahlstrom: I support strongly, but I would like to know if I would be able to come if I am not black.?

Davis: This is open to everyone.

?????; I support it….
Motion by Harris.
Passed.

16.  ESA - Executive Session: Legislative Office Space -  [Since this was in executive session, I had to leave.]

17.  Other Business

Sitka's Mayor, Scott McAdams, In Juneau - Lobbyist or Advocate?

[Update Aug. 26, 2010:  More recent Scott McAdams video available speaking to Democratic Unity Dinner after 2010 primary election.]

As I've said, I'm trying to convey what it is like in and around the Capitol Building in Juneau. And one thing that stands out for me is the constant stream of people coming to talk to their legislators.  In an earlier post about receptions and lobbyists,  a staffer left a comment correcting my characterization of school children as lobbyists.  Lobbyists get paid, while advocates are volunteers.  I knew that wasn't all of it, so I looked it up in the statutes.  (This isn't as hard as it may seem.  I simply googled "Alaska Statutes Lobbyist Advocate" and that got right to the statutes.)

AS 24.60.990. Definitions.

(12) "lobbyist" means a person who is required to register under AS 24.45.041 and is described under AS 24.45.171 , but does not include a volunteer lobbyist described in AS 24.45.161 (a)(1) or a representational lobbyist as defined under regulations of the Alaska Public Offices Commission;

(14) "registered lobbyist" means a person who is required to register under AS 24.45.041 ;

Based on (12) and (14,) lobbyist and registered lobbyist sound an awful lot alike.  

So, the link to AS 24.45.041 doesn't tell us much more but gives the information needed to register as a lobbyist.  Lobbyist is further is described under AS 24.45.171

(11) "lobbyist" means a person who

(A) is employed and receives payments, or who contracts for economic consideration, including reimbursement for reasonable travel and living expenses, to communicate directly or through the person's agents with any public official for the purpose of influencing legislation or administrative action for more than 10 hours in any 30-day period in one calendar year; or

(B) represents oneself as engaging in the influencing of legislative or administrative action as a business, occupation, or profession;

"Advocate" shows up once in this section:

(9) "influencing legislative or administrative action" means to communicate directly for the purpose of introducing, promoting, advocating, supporting, modifying, opposing, or delaying or seeking to do the same with respect to any legislative or administrative action;

The next link takes us to  Exemptions.  This would then apply to people who get compensation to influence more than ten days in a thirty day period. 

AS 24.45.161. Exemptions.

(a) This chapter [60 Standards of Conduct of Title 24 Legislature] does not apply to

(1) an individual

(A) who lobbies without payment of compensation or other consideration and makes no disbursement or expenditure for or on behalf of a public official to influence legislative or administrative action other than to pay the individual's reasonable personal travel and living expenses; and

(B) who limits lobbying activities to appearances before public sessions of the legislature, or its committees or subcommittees, or to public hearings or other public proceedings of state agencies;

(2) an elected or appointed state or municipal public officer or an employee of the state or a municipality acting in an official capacity or within the scope of employment;

(3) any newspaper or other periodical of general circulation, book publisher, radio or television station (including an individual who owns, publishes, or is employed by that newspaper or periodical, radio or television station) that publishes news items, editorials, or other comments, or paid advertisements, that directly or indirectly urge legislative or administrative action if the newspaper, periodical, book publisher, radio or television station, or individual engages in no further or other activities in connection with urging or advocating legislative or administrative action other than to appear before public sessions of the legislature, or its committees or subcommittees, or public hearings or other public proceedings of state agencies;

(4) a person who appears before the legislature or either house, or standing, special, or interim committee, in response to an invitation issued under (c) of this section.

So, I don't seem to find the term 'advocate' in the sense of a non-paid lobbyist, but the term "voluntary lobbyist" did appear in AS 24.60.990. Definitions (12).
.

Now, when we get to the Mayor of Sitka, I suppose he fits into the category of "less than ten days in a thirty day period." But, even if he did lobby that much, he would be exempt because he would be doing it as an elected official.  So, maybe he's an advocate or maybe he's a 'volunteer lobbyist."  Here's what he had to say Thursday:






The reference he made to expanding the legislature was the subject of the State Affairs committee earlier I covered earlier this week.