Alaska Community Services Lobbying for Mentors for Those Aging Out of Foster Care

The hallways of the Capitol are crawling with people lobbying for one thing or another.  While there are professional lobbyists, most seem to be relatively ordinary people with ordinary jobs who only come down here once in a session.   Here are two people talking with a legislative staffer about their program and he's gathering data for his boss.  This is in the new public lounge in the Thomas Stewart Building. 

In my new perch in the staff/public lounge I get to meet a few, but there's a limit to how many I can film and post about.  But I do want to keep putting people up so you don't forget that they are here.  I wanted to get a picture of the stairwell today, packed with people, but I was already late for something.

Here are two people from Alaska Community Services who were lobbying for a program to recruit, train, and coordinate mentors for kids aging out of the foster care program.  I have a soft spot for this sort of work since I did some mentoring for kids like that at Covenant House.


Studies show mentors have a big positive impact on kids like this.  Here's a quote from a former foster kid from their handout about the transition he had from being in the foster care system and then aging out:

"It's just like one day everybody is there for you and the next day, you are on your own.  I didn't understand what my credit score was.  I didn't understand anything about how to find an apartment, or how to buy a car or how not to be taken advantage of."

All the ways that mothers and fathers and older siblings and aunts and uncles and family friends their their young adult relatives, these kids have to figure out on their own, because that network doesn't exist for them at all.  Think what you or your children would have done at that age thrown out into the world with no one to go to for help.  That's why mentors can make such a big difference. 

[In the background in the video, you can see Sen. French come into the Thomas Stewart building from the bridge from the Capitol Building, the try to go up the stairs and see they are blocked off because they are finishing them, then head to the stairs at the other end of the building.]

"sifting through haystacks of legislative history searching for the needle of legislative intent"

Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justice Walter Carpeneti gave the Annual State of the Judiciary Address to the Joint House and Senate at 11 am this morning.  He began by acknowledging the need for separation of powers, but today emphasized the importance of cooperation and collaboration.  



This is well worth listening to and today I figured out how to embed Gavel to Gavel video. [Turns out to just be audio.]



Basically he said:

• We're set up to have separation of powers and that's important  but  today he's going to focus on our interrelationships though
• Introduced Supreme Court Colleagues
• Reasons why the court sometimes seems aloof
• required by law not to talk about cases
• must be impartial, not influenced by public opinion, political pressure 
• Gave examples of Court System Collaborating with other branches
• Criminal Justice Working group - with members including Commissioners and court employees, meet 8 times a year to resolve minor problems that balloon into much bigger and more expensive problems.  
• One example:  Not enough space for attorneys to talk to clients, so the attorneys began calling for hearings just so they could talk to their clients, but that triggered very expensive response to set up the often unnecessary hearings
• Two example:  Working on astounding 66% recidivism rate
• Judicial Council and ISER research project to reduce the  - first couple of days out of prison the highest risk.  
• Alaska offender reentry task force. 
• Court system reaching out to schools 

• holding oral arguments at high schools 
• youth court support
• work with teachers
• Color of Justice program 
• Mini Lunch seminars with legislators
• Recognizing the Alaska Judicial Council 
• evaluates applications for judicial office
• Evaluates judges standing for retention
• Volunteers do enormous work and make ours "one of the finest and most professional court system in the world"
• The numbers 
• Court is 1% of the State Budget - 800 employees  44 locations
• Compare to US Supreme Court
• US -  9 justices,  77 opinions per year  or @ 8/judge
• AK Supreme Court - 5 justices, 110 opinions or @ 22/judge
• AK Appeals  - 3 justices, 65  opinions or @ 22/judge
• Trial courts
• Alaska Superior Court:  500 cases per judge per year
• Federal District Court:   200 cases per judge per year
• The Odds
• Here he looked at Alaska's tiny 700,000 population within a country of over 300 million, yet five national justice related organizations are headed by Alaskans this year - what are the odds that would happen?

• National Association of Women's Judges - Dana Fabe
• National Appellate Court Clerks - Marilyn May
• National Conference of State Court Administrators - Stephanie Cole
• National Association of Law Librarians - Catherine Lemann
• Chair of the National Center for State Courts’ Consortium for Language Access to Courts - Brenda Aiken.

 As I was trying to verify the names on that final list, I discovered the text of his speech is at the Alaska Supreme Court Site.

[Pictures of Justices standing for the introductions:  1.  Stowers; 2. Christen;  3. Winfree;  4. Fabe]

[Update:  I forgot to connect to the haystack reference.  It's in Chief Justice Carpeneti's speech:

These mini law seminars will address topics identified by you as particularly helpful to your work crafting the laws of our state. It is our hope that they will also help members of the judiciary learn more about the legislative process — a process that can seem as mysterious to us as the legal process must sometimes seem to you. As someone who has spent many hours of my judicial career sifting through haystacks of legislative history searching for the needle of legislative intent, I very much look forward to these sessions and am confident that they will be mutually beneficial.]

Blogger Tourettes

"Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (Tourette Syndrome or TS) is a neurological disorder which becomes evident in early childhood or adolescence before the age of 18 years.  Tourette syndrome is defined by multiple motor and vocal tics lasting for more than one year.  The first symptoms usually are involuntary movements (tics) of the face, arms, limbs or trunk.  These tics are frequent, repetitive and rapid.  The most common first symptom is a facial tic (eye blink, nose twitch, grimace), and is replaced or added to by other tics of the neck, trunk, and limbs. . .

There are also verbal tics.  These verbal tics (vocalizations) usually occur with the movements.  These vocalizations include grunting, throat clearing, shouting and barking.  The verbal tics may also be expressed as coprolalia (the involuntary use of obscene words or socially inappropriate words and phrases) or copropraxia (obscene gestures). Despite widespread publicity, coprolalia/copropraxia is uncommon with tic disorders." [From here.  Emphasis Added]

So, if a blogger whose career has included being in corrections, a Harbor Master, in radio, and a respected classical musician among other things who writes about politics has outbursts of "[seemingly] involuntary use of obscene words or socially inappropriate words and phrases" are we seeing a case of blogger Tourettes?

Words fascinate me and I like to watch people who know how to use them well. It's an art form.  Some words, like fuck, used to be reserved for very special situations and settings.  When someone used them outside those settings, they got people's attention because they were so rarely used in what used to be called "mixed company."  But now the words are used so often that they have little shock value, though people still notice their inappropriateness.  I lament the loss of those words which can be used in times of crisis to communicate how extreme the situation is. 

To throw them at someone like mud, doesn't fit my notion of 'appropriate' on a blog that purports to be a serious force for social and political change. When Phil Munger called Sarah Palin a slut, I winced.   As I walk around the Capitol building these days and introduce myself as a blogger, people's eyebrows rise and I hear words like credibility.  In part this is due to people like Phil when he's having a bout of blogger Tourettes.

And so when he gets threatening comments in response, my reaction is similar to when someone jumps into the lion's cage at the zoo.  I'm sorry he's hurt, but that's why they give out Darwin awards. I'm sure someone will accuse me here of blaming the victim, and I agree that the threats are inexcusable.  But given that other local bloggers have suffered the same fate, it seems prudent not to poke the crazies (on the other side) in the eye with gratuitous insults.  Can you explain how this is different from Limbaugh and Fagan?  You give the Tea Party folks solid evidence that the left has its share of frothing madmen.

Free speech gives us the right to say many things (though not to libel), but just because one may, doesn't mean someone should. 

I've covered this ground in other posts (here's one on blogging guidelines for instance) and I'm tired of repeating it. And Mel Green has already done a better job than I'm doing.  But I do want to say this on the record.  I've emailed Phil with my specific problems and asked him to explain himself.  I'm not objecting to obscenity per se, but I think it is counterproductive in a serious political blog.  Unless it is necessary to the story (and sometimes even then) it distracts from the message, alienates some allies, and confirms the negative stereotypes of those of differing ideological persuasions.

So, Phil, I ask you again to explain the purpose of your expletives and gratuitous insults and why you think their use does more good than harm on your blog. Or perhaps get tested for blogger Tourettes.

2009 Disclosures Part 2 - What's the Difference Between Good and Bad Travel?

As a faculty member, I went on state paid trips once or twice and sometimes even three times a year.  I went to conferences to present papers generally.  Those gave me opportunities to get feedback on the work I was doing and to meet and talk with others doing similar research.  I would generally come back from such trips greatly stimulated and with new ideas for research and for teaching.  In some cases I had trips paid for by someone other than the State of Alaska.  For example, I was invited to serve on an international panel studying the ombudsman.  This was sponsored by the International Institute of Administrative Sciences headquartered in Brussels, Belgium.  I went to three, three-day meetings in Brussels paid for by the IIAS over a three year period where we met and discussed research on the Ombudsman and produced a book that was a review of Ombudsman offices and issues around the world.  I had two chapters in that book.

Toward the end of my academic career, I felt it was important that when I went on such trips that I write a travel report.  I thought this would accomplish several goals:

• Force me to take good notes and keep track of the events I participated in (ie what panels I attended at conferences) and people I met with contact information, and references for particularly useful organizations and new ideas.  
• Keep me accountable to my dean and students by documenting how I spent my time and the benefits I got and the university got from the trip.
• Allowed me to share the information I got with other faculty members and students.  

I'm sad to say, not many others followed that model.  But when the University sent me to a conference in Kuala Lumpur, I knew that my travel report would document that I spent my time well and made valuable contacts and leads for further research and relationships for the university and would answer anyone who questioned the trip.  

I say all this because I do believe that travel to conferences and training programs is extremely valuable.  But there are also pitfalls:

• People who use conferences as an excuse to get travel paid for by the state or some other entity.
• People who plan conferences near resorts or relatives or to get mileage.
• People whose travel is paid for by other organizations that will expect something in return from the travelers down the line.  
• People whose travel becomes an opportunity for an interest group to lobby the legislator where others with opposing views have no chance to challenge any misleading facts or interpretations.

I'm sure you can come up with other potential pitfalls.

So, we have good reasons for legislators to travel and we have good reason to be concerned about such travel.  At a minimum, abuse just means that the state pays for travel that has no state benefit.  At the worst, travel leads to legislators being coopted by their patrons and working for the interests of those patrons and not the people of Alaska.  So how might we evaluate such travel?   Let me take a stab at some questions to ask:

If paid for by the State:

• What useful information, contacts, or other benefits for the State of Alaska did the legislator get from the trip?
• To what extent was the purpose of the trip related to issues facing Alaska and the constituents of the legislator?
• Was the meeting or conference one that presented a balanced view of the issue or was it dominated by one perspective?  
• How many trips did a particular legislator take? 
• How has the legislator used what was learned to benefit Alaska?

If paid for by an outside entity:

• All the previous questions are relevant to this as well
• Is the entity one that has a specific private interest in what the legislature does or is it more of a public service type institution that promotes general capacities and knowledge useful to legislators?
• Does the legislator balance viewpoints on different trips?  (If they go to Pebble Mine with the Pebble Limited Partnership, do they also participate in forums from environmental groups?)
• Does the legislator have some expectation of campaign contributions or future work that may be tied to the trip sponsor?  

All of this is difficult to determine.  But ethics laws around the world recognize potential problems and for this reason they require that such travel be disclosed so that the public can scrutinize trips and ask questions of the legislators.

So while I was perusing the 2009 Disclosure Report information that was published last week, I notice one trip that was considerably more costly than other trips.  In fact, it was so expensive that I looked carefully through the list to see if any others were even close to it.  So as I looked through the trips I thought it might be interesting to see how many trips there were which were reported to be over $2000.

At this point, I'll simply list the information as it comes from the Disclosure Report.  I will try to follow up and talk to legislators about their trips and how they share what they learned on the trips with others. 


And I'd warn readers not to assume that any of these trips were not legitimate trips through which the legislator gained valuable experience and knowledge for the State of Alaska.  But also don't assume that everyone on the list went on these trips with the interests of the people of Alaska as their top priority.  Look through the factors above and then if you have questions, call or email the legislator in question so that you don't jump to false conclusions.

OK, so, here's the list.  NOTE:  These trips were NOT paid for by the State of Alaska.  In some cases the influence for those who paid was probably benign.  If they were general public interest organizations with missions to generally improve legislative skills and knowledge, the State probably got a good deal.  But if they were organizations that have some vested interest in the State of Alaska, we probably need to look a bit deeper.  Not assume wrong, but check. (I think I've got all the trips reported that were over $2000, but it is possible I missed some.)

[Note I'm pretty sure the first number (ie 08-28) is the report date and the second number (08-05) is the travel date.  They have 30 days to report.  The Disclosure Report marks the late reports with *.]

08-28 08-05 Sen Wielechowski $2,013.47 CSG [Council of State Governments] West-CSG West Western Legislative Academy; faculty/curriculum expense; Lodging, meals, ground transportation, conference fees; Colorado Springs, CO

*10-01 08-05 Sen Thomas $2,013.47 CSG-West; educational conference on being an effective legislator; leadership team building; decision making, time management, legislative ethics; lodging, meals, ground transportation and conference fees

09-21 09-12 Sharon Kelly  $2,022.48 Rasmusson Foundation; Philanthropy Northwest Annual Meeting; airfare,  lodging, meals, ground transportation, conference fees; Skamia Lodge, OR

06-30 06-22 Rep Joule  $2,069.40 NCSL (National Council of State Legislatures] State Tribal Relations-National Native Issues Conference; airfare, lodging, meals;  San Francisco, CA

01-02 11-17 Sen McGuire $2087.29 CSG [Council of State Governments]; airfare/lodging/meals; teach leg academy classes, host CSG mtgs & Dinners as CSG-West president; Colorado Springs, CO

12-21 12-07 Rep Neuman $2,133.63 Pacific Northwest Economic Region; Energy Horizon Conference #2 to educate Legislators on North American energy infrastructure and delivery system; lodging and webinar credits; San Diego, CA

09-29 08-28 Pete Ecklund  $2,244.50 City of Unalaska; fly-in to visit Unalaska community, meet residents, tour city and view completed projects and project in progress and areas needing improvement; airfare, accommodations and meals [This [and Sharon Kelly] seems to be the only non-legislator[s] on the list with a trip valued at more than $2000. ]

03-17 03-08 Rep Gatto  $2,249.68 Heartland Institute; airfare/meals/hotel; International Climate Change Conf;  New York City, NY

06-29 06-07 Sen Stevens $2,280.03 Republican State Leadership Committee 2009 National Meeting, Nashville, TN; airfare, meals, ground transportation

01-12 01-01 Sen Davis  $2,397.71 Women in Gov’t; airfare/meals/transp/hotel; 15th annual state directors and Biennial first term leg’s conf; Tampa FL

*11-20 09-11 Sen Meyer  $2,500 Council of State Governments; attended Toll Fellowship Program Leadership Training in Lexington, KY; airfare, lodging, meals and conference fees

10-01 09-20 Rep Olson $2,500 National Association of Insurance Commissioners; annual meeting; airfare,  lodging and meals; Maryland/Washington, DC

12-30 12-08 Sen Stedman $2,689.11 PNWER Energy Horizon Institute; webinars, conference and teleconferences in San Diego, CA; educate legislators on the North American energy infrastructure and  delivery system

07-16 06-05 Rep Holmes  $2,700 National Strategy Institute-Bilateral political exchange designed to foster international democracy and understanding; lodging, meals, ground transportation and museum entrance fees; Seoul, Korea

10-26 10-10 Sen Davis $2,982.84 Women In Government; International Legislative Trip-4th Annual Global Partnership on women’s health and women in government; airfare, lodging, meals and ground transportation; Paris, France and Brussels, Belgium

*08-18 07-12  Sen Menard  $3,333.90 State Legislative Leaders Foundation-Emerging Political Leaders Program class tuition; airfare,
lodging, meals, ground transportation, conference fees; Charlotteville, VA

08-04 07-11 Rep Holmes  $3,901.08 State Legislative Leaders Foundation-Emerging Political Leaders Program-designed to Cultivate and enhance leadership skills in future leaders; airfare, lodging, meals, ground transportation, books, reading material, tuition and fees; Charlottesville, VA

07-31 07-08  Sen Stevens  $3,990.39 Senate Presidents Forum-Renewable Energy Summer Forum; airfare, lodging, meals,  ground transportation; Berlin, Germany

06-09 05-16 Rep Holmes  $4,245.63 Aspen Institute-Catto Fellowship meeting on global environmental & energy issues;  airfare, lodging, meals, ground transportation, and conference fees; Wye, Maryland

04-07 03-25 Rep Holmes  $4,435.20 Aspen Institute; airfare/lodging/meals/conference fees; attend the Catto  Fellowship meeting/conference; Aspen CO

11-02 10-04 Sen Stevens  $5,293 Senate President’s Forum; US/Russian Relations: An in-depth discussion on the  politics and economy of Russia; airfare, lodging, ground transportation and  visa/consulate fee; St. Petersburg, Russia

11-20 10-27 Rep. Johnson  $17,974 Saudi Arabian Government; NCSL requested Speaker of House to send an Oil and Gas representative to participate in a study tour. This was a trade mission to Saudi Arabia with the goal of increasing relations between USA and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; airfare, lodging, meals and ground transportation; Riyadh, Damman, and Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Divesting Alaska Funds From Iran

The State Affairs Committee didn't start this morning until 8:15am, which meant I wasn't late. The topic was a bill sponsored by Rep. Gatto.

HB (House Bill) 241 An Act relating to certain investments of the Alaska permanent fund, the state’s retirement systems, the State of Alaska Supplemental Annuity Plan, and the deferred compensation program for state employees in companies that do business in Iran, and restricting those investments; and providing for an effective date.”

[You can get the whole bill itself (It's five pages) here, but as I write, the committee substitute isn't yet available there.  Here are the links to documents related to today's hearing from the State Affairs Committee:

ocument Name	Bill or Subject (if assigned)
06 CPD position paper on Iran.pdf
10 witness bio 2-9-10 David Gottstein.pdf
11 David Gottstein accompanying material.pdf
12 witness bio 2-9-10 Akiva Tor.pdf
13 witness bio 2-9-10 Sarah Steelman.pdf
02 HB0241A.pdf	HB 241
03 explanation of changes HB 241.pdf	HB 241
04 sponsor statement HB 241.pdf	HB 241
05 sectional summary HB 241 Version R.pdf	HB 241
07 background info 1, HB 241.pdf	HB 241
08 background info 2, HB 241.pdf	HB 241
09 background info 3, HB 241.pdf	HB 241
14 HB241-REV-TRS-02-05-10 Iran Divestiture.pdf	HB 241

Introduced by Representative GATTO, Ramras (The capitalized name indicates he is the person who introduced the bill, then any others are co-sponsors who signed on later.)

I've been wondering about the usefulness of these rough notes here on the blog since many of the meetings are recorded by Gavel to Gavel and available online. This one was broadcast live and you can listen to it now here.

I've decided that when I take my notes on my laptop, I might as well post them.  Even though you can listen, it's easier to scan the notes to get a sense of it and decide if you need to get the details by listening to it.

Quick Overview

Basic Premise:  Companies doing business in Iran enable the government to continue to develop nuclear capability to fulfill their threat to wipe out Israel and also to continue to develop weapons - notably IED's - that kill American soldiers in Iraq.  Thus, by investing in those companies, the State of Alaska is assisting in the killing of American soldiers and in Iran's goal to destroy Israel.  The bill calls for the Permanent Fund, State Retirement Funds, etc.

Questions: 
1.    How will the divestment happen?
2.    What will it cost?
3.    Will it make a difference?

Answers:
There are about 20 states that already do this and the Federal government already has something like this in place.  The state will only have to use existing lists of 'scrutinized' companies already identified by the other states and not have to do the research itself.  The bar would be a $20 million investment. 

More Questions:
1.    Are Alaska oil companies on the list?
2.    If we are partners with the oil companies on the list, does that make Alaska a terrorist supporting organization?

It was an interesting discussion and witnesses included the Commissioner of Revenue Pat Galvin, Alaska Permanent Fund Director Michael J. Burns.  Also the former State Treasurer of Missouri, Sarah Steelman. testified by phone about the Missouri experience and the philosophy of terror-free investing.  David Gottstein, Alaska's AIPAC chair, testified by phone from Anchorage about the threat of Iran.



Rough Notes - DISCLAIMER - I typed as fast as I could, there are gaps, and probably mistakes where I couldn't keep up or hear.  Check the Gavel to Gavel tape for more accurate details. 

Opened at 8:15am by Chair Lynn.

Bill sponsored by our good friend and Committee member, co-sponsored by Ramras and Keller.

Gatto: My aide will introduce it

Tom Reiker: Not just a symbolic bill. Iran is diffeent from a hostile country such as Venezuela, Iran is actually sponsoring military action against us in Afganistand and Iraq. A nation we are at least indirectly fighting on the ground. The bill is to make all Americans, not just the soldiers on the ground, safer.

Make a list of scrutinzed companies. $20 Million is the bar for investment in Iran. The funds covered (see above). Department of Revenue makes a list of scrutinzed companies and turns over to the funds. For other funds where our money is co-mingled, we would encourage fund managers to divest. Based on Massachusetts doing a similar bill, and our size, it is estimated we would pull out half billion dollars out of Iran which would decrease their ability to pursue nuclear weapons and military in Iraq.

Provisions significant undertaking to enforce, so we did taylor the bill to piggy back off of lists other governments have compiled, which is why we changed the language to ‘scrutinized companies’ and the same with the $20 million bar, so this is consistent with other governmental.

We have several witnesses we are excited about.

Gatto: Thank you. We had a different bill before us, divestiture from Sudan. That was because genocide was being practiced. That isn’t the case in Iran. It is difficult to know who is elected in Iran??. We do know they are producing nuclear materials. They are awash in oil, so don’t know why they need nuclear. But we know they are arming their allies, and they want to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. Israel is already talking about boots on the ground. Word is they are producing and will want to sell it and it won’t be to US or Canada. Iran, for all the oil they have, they have to import gasoline. So sanctions against their ability to import things they need.

In earlier legislation, we had difficulty of seperating money going to military, it’s hard for APF to separate those stocks going to iran.

We have to take a good look at those people whose goal is to wipe another country off the face of the earth. We can’t stand by and hope for the best when we have an opportunity to do something.

Lynn: What are the other states and how many?

Tom Reiker: About 21. Missouri was the first, through executive branch. California, Mass, Maryland.

Questions?

Johnson: You indicated on page 2 line ? Is importing gas a direct investment?

Tom Reiker: I don’t believe, need further guidance, that a direct exchange like that, that our influence the kind of thing our bill is targeting…

Johnson: Do we have a list of companies?

Gatto: We do, People will testify.

Johnson: What about oil companies in Alaska on the list? Exxon?

Reiker: I don’t think any oil company in Alaska.

Johnson: I want to see a list.


Pat Galvin: Commissioner of Revenue: Not here representing Permanant Fund or other boards, but for Administration and Dept. of Revenue. We will be responsible for implementing the bill. And the sponsors have drafted the bill i a way that makes it easier to implement than most such bills.

Impact, if any, diversion of funds from companies that otherwise would be appropriate investments.

Seaton: Page 2 starting line 12-21. Commissioner shall update quarterly, shall make reasonable efforts to examine all companies to see if they are scrutinized company. As I read it, you are required to scrutinized. Gives you things you can use, doesn’t say you can’t use others. This is not a significant item?

Galvin: I also landed this morning, and haven’t had a chance to read the CS [Committee Substitute], and my understanding from the sponsor is it is intended to allow the department to utilize existing lists and previously prepared investigatory material. We’ll look at the language to see it doesn’t exceed that.

Seaton: I would like the dept to make that analysis. As I read it it’s more difficult.

Galvin: i would like to comment on behalf of the governor on the general policy carried out through this bill. Generally the governor would be skeptical to mix our investment policy with social or political goals. But he does recognize that on occassion we need to isolate nation states, particularly when there is an attempt to avoid armed conrflcit. The Gov. will look at the bill to determine if it meets those circumstances. I’m not here to say the Gov approves, he will check to see if it is appropriate.

Lynn: Not so much social, as political and possibly national security.

Gatto: I don’t know if it’s a secret to anyone, but a lot of the weapons that show up in Iraq are made in Iran. They are very much involve in a war with our soldiers. if there is anything we can do to prevent the killing and maiming our boys and girls. We don’t know if this will affect our profits. The last thing we should be doing is to support Iran in any way. Our moral obligation.

Burns: Michael Burns, Exec Dir. of Permanent Fund. No testimony prepared. Just here to answer questions.

Lynn: We discussed divestiture in Darfur. Not the same. Any comparison, remarks comparing - is this apple and oranges, or just fruit?

Burns: Just saw this morning. Board has longstanding opposition to social investing. Darfur was a major exception. This is different.

Lynn: Wasn’t there some change you approved when discussing Darfur?

Burns: We did pass a resolution in support of those bills proposed. We did support it, but just narrowly and didn’t change policy for tha specific blll.

Lynn: This, appears more political and national security bill, would you agree?

Burns: Yes sir I do.

Petersen: I notice there is a zero fiscal note. Charges to sell stocks? Possible losses in selling stocks?

Burns: At times we’e looked at trading epenses, The differnce in the cost here, is the Commissioner of Revenue has the montioring responsibility. I don’t know tht we hae anything that rises to the $20million mark. I was surprised to hear the half billion level. I haven’t seen the list.

Gatto: With 21 states already establishing list of companies to divest. Would that not have a downward pressure on those stocks and so it would be wise to divest?

Burns: I don’t know.

Gatto: One would expect that pressures from so many countries to divest, this would be a good time.

Burns: Might would be the operative word.

Galvin:

Seaton: Page 3, line 11, business operations. List oil related activities. Retail sales of gasoline and related products. If you look at sales of one of our major producers going intto that country, what would you have to do to be sure this fuel wouldn’t go into military vehicles. Does that mean any oil company that sold diesel or gasoline would automatically be on this list? You need to get back to us on that.

Galvin: Wil have to gt back to you. My reading of the bill, would not, if a producer would refine a gasoline product that was sold to company outside of Iran which then sold it to Iran, not our job to follow the chain of product. It would be the company tht makes the final sale.

Seaton: If we had a wholly owned subsidiary of one of our refiners, if they sold related products - not sure what that means - say jet fuel, that subsidiary sold that product w/in Iran, without certificant for retail sale only, so I’m trying to figure out, what kind of chain of ownership would you the commissioner be required to look at? If a subsidiary of major oil company, would that throw them onto the list? You’ll need to look into that.

Galvin: Following up that line of inquiry, the intent to which the subsidiary will affect the determination as well.

Seaton: If someone forms a subsidiary, they could do whatever they liked and avoid the intent.

Gatto: I believe SEaton mentioned jet fuel and diesel. Iran has refineries and make those products, but they have more trouble with gasoline.

Seaton: Maybe the commissioer will get back to us - “and related products” what does that mean? While we produce jet fuel in Alaska, we may import it too.

Sarah Steelman by audio - Pleasure to share with you about this important issue. Former state treasurer of Missouri, and started this in Missouri, we were the first to divest. Speaking at request of Rep. Gatto. I’m also in charge of a divestment free fund. I will tell you about what happened in 2005 in Missouri. When I took office it was shocking for me to find out we were funding the people we were fighting. The previous treasurer was using foreign companies to invest the state’s money, which did the oil for food scandal and is still investing in Iran today. I started asking questions about our inevestments. Found we were doing nothing to prevent us from investing in companies investing in iran. We started the first terror free fund. We screened out these companies from our folio. We showed we could make the same return on investment by keeping the same type of portfolio. We then had UBS and other investors.

Set up nations first terrorism free policy for pension fund, and police and fire fighter terror free investment plan. A lot has changed in last five years, but much remains the same. I applaud you for taking this up today. The threat posed by Iran has increased, yet we still invest in Siemens and Nokia who are helping the Iranian government stifle the people.

Pleased that your fund manager isn’t taking a position opposed to this bill. There is defiitely room for debate, but the arguments we heard were wrong, untrue. - States shouldn’t set foreign policy, poor investments, costs too high. I know it is too high NOT to do this. Empowerment Financial Group offers fund for individuals to have terror free investments. No US $ should ever end in the hands of terrorists. Be happy to answer any questions. I’ve listened to your questions earlier about potential oil companies. Petro China signed a deal. French oil company. BP Got out. Royal Dutch Shell was there.

Lynn: Thank you. Questions. Did you miss the snow storm?

Steelman: We got more snow here than you have up there.

Lynn: Juneau has no snow ont he ground.

Steelman: You’re kidding?

Mr. David Gottstein: Thank you for allowing me to testify. Thank you. There has been a lot of thought and detail put in this so you know what we are asking here. I’m also Alaska chair of the AIPAC.

Sobering issue. US and the world under attack from radical islam. Terrorists incidents happening weekly. Radical islam that controls most of the muslim world. Arrests around US and Christmas airplane show we are under siege. All sahre embracing of Jihad against the west. Heart of radical Islamic movement and most dangerous is Iran. Their vast wealth and radical Islam, allows them to build nuclear power. Prospect of nuclear Iran with ability to launch missiles including Europe, with Israel in their sights.

Only good outcome is we get iran to change their behavior. ARsenal includes diplomacy, sanctions, blockades, then military. Sanctions have mixed results. We should use all non-violent means possible before more …

Digress from my prepared remarks to address the issues.

1. Divestiture in Iran package, 1996.
2. Iran refined petroleum ??? whatever fuel

Both passed by US Congress. It makes moot some of the questions asked earlier, because the president has the right to say it is illegal for insurance companies to insure tankers going to Iran. This is aimed at reducing the ability of Iran to raise money through use of their refineries. One day the state would own shares in a company, the next day they would not. It wouldn’t change any other relationship the state had with the company.

Reading… chance to influence positively, Iran’s president aims to wipe israel from the planet and would have serious consequence and middle east would turn into a firestorm. Seldom are you asked to grasp with national issues. Able to join in the ost serious war effort since the fight against Nazism.

provided committee with lists I’ve faxed during the others’ testimony.

Lynn: Thank you very much. I appreciate most of your comments.

Anyone else on line? In the audience? Close public testimony. Committee discussion.

Seaton: I appreciate some of the testimony, but i think in some ways we’re beyond our level of expertise. We’re talking about alqaeda and racical islam. We need to be aware we need to be much more clear, I’m not an expert on these things. Make sure we aren’t indicting all of a religion and we have bill before us and need further definition on the bill.

Lynn: I agree with that, and I think the distinction between radical islam and islam. Not talking about Al qaeda. We are talking about nation survival. What can we do here in Alaska, if we don’t invest in these countries we do one small part.

Johnson: I am concerned and I think Gottstein sums it up. He mentions Shell, One day were doing business and the next they are still doing business with the companies. This may be one of those feel good kind of things. We haen’t een any evidence of any problem or effect. I don’t hold it up, I have doubts we do much good with these feel good bill.

Lynn: National security is very feel good.

Johnson: If I thought it did any good I would support it.

Lynn: Does it do any harm?

Johnson: That’s why I’m not opposed.

Peterson: .. missed it -

Seaton - we have Royal Dutch Shell. If it is fine to do business with these companies, but we can’t buy their stock, but basically be in partnership with them. I’m not sure of the effect. Hope we will get a little more information.

Johnson: SEaton raises interesting issue. Since we are partners with these company, do we qualify as someone who should be on the divestiture list? Are we know bad guys?

Wilson: As I look at the list, it amazes me that 9 of the 36 are from Malaysia and …???
I think we need to think where most of them are from. We are partners with some. I think we need more information just to make sure. I would like to know for sure if there would be ramiication for Alaska because we might have a partnership.

Seaton: Some of this we’ve asked the commissioner to gt back to us. We are looking at in the finance aspects. Commissioner would gt from the Department of Law about subsidiaries. Our partnerships in the wells that these companies have.

Lynn to Galvin: Seaton’s asked these questions. How long would it take to get that information?

Galvin: hard to hear.

Gruenberg: # of us were interested in …. this seems structured the same way. Has your position changed since Darfur. No change on bill, but situation changed.

Lynn: Don’t want to go down that path talking about Darfur.

Mr. Cane: I’d have to talke time to research deeper concerns. A few days at least, depending on depth of questions

Gatto: i think we could research this info to April 20. There is no end to the details we could look up. I count number of GI’s no longer with us. ⅔ killed, not in battle, but by IEDs and these come from Iran. This isnt’ to destroy the country of iran. This is to help save our soldiers. These are manufactured in Iran, They have the labels on them. I wish this bill wiould end Iran’s involvement. it does something to lessen the losses. If people want to investigate, let them. But pass the bill. Later, we can find out it has no effect. So what? It won’t hurt our portfolio. If you find out in your portfolio, some is helping IRAN. Would you not act, even if it meant you would lose a few dollars. I would, I hope you would, I hope the Prmanent fund would. I’m looking beyond money. Go to some of the memorials. Do it. Thank you.

Gatto: It made it somewhat easier ????? If divestiture had no effect, none. Why would BP remove their investments?

Petersen: It might be pretty dangerous for the employees to be working in that environment. In some places, employees taken for ransom. Oil companies may have hard time getting employees to go their and work. It could be political.

Brief at ease.

Lynn: I basically support this bill, but I have some questions, if meets agreement of committee, would like to bring it up next meeting - APOC, SC decision on campaing, if we have time I’d bring it back, if not then next time.

Gatto: OK

Lynn: Close out this hearing. Thrusday, overview on Citizens United overview.

Carol Comeau in Juneau

Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau was in Juneau lobbying Monday.

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.