IPR received the following from Mike Kane, regarding an LPF effort to censure him:
Motion to Censure Mike Kane – Alexander Snitker
I move to censure Mike Kane for the following:
Repeated violations of our Libertarian Party of Florida Standing Rule, Article IX, Section 6.
Recurrent misconduct by; Violating the unspoken confidentiality of members’ private contact information by distributing that information to third parties without consent from or without respect for the members of this assembly
LPF Standing Rule, Article IX, Section 6, states:
Section 6. All archives, document stores, electronic data, etc. that were created by, at the direction of, or authorized by the LPF remain its property and such archive or web entity should be owned and operated as directed in 1. However, the LPF expressly acknowledges the right of any person to compile and publish public information, so long as the compilation or publication cannot be reasonably mistaken as action taken by or authorized by the LPF.
“All archives, document stores, electronic data, etc. that were created by, at the direction of, or authorized by the LPF remain its property and such archive or web entity should be owned and operated as directed in 1.”
The first sentence of this standing rule in quotes above addresses ownership (copyright). It says nothing whatsoever about confidentiality.
“However, the LPF expressly acknowledges the right of any person to compile and publish public information, so long as the compilation or publication cannot be reasonably mistaken as action taken by or authorized by the LPF.”
This sentence only deals with the LPF and it’s official business. It doesn’t mention confidentiality at all (again).
Mr. Snitker and the members who voted to censure are inferring that “the LPF expressly acknowledges the right of any person to compile and publish public information” means only “public” (which the LPF sees as non-confidential) information may be published. Just because the standing rule expressly authorizes the publication of public information doesn’t mean the publication of non-public information is prohibited.
If they want to impose a confidentiality rule, then the LPF should actually introduce confidentiality rules — not try wrongly apply a copyright rule to do something clearly doesn’t apply to. For the record, I would vote against said rules, as I have been and will continue to be an advocate for complete transparency.
On May 29th 2013 Mike Kane, without approval of the chair, submitted a copy of the draft minutes of the LPF 2013 Annual Convention, which he obtained from Secretary, Lynn House, on a private online forum open only to members of the LPF EC. Although the Annual Business Meeting Minutes are not formally “approved” until the next Annual Business Meeting, they are made public after a review of the minutes by the EC is complete. Prior to these e-mails being made public, it was a clear violation of said Standing Rule. Mr. Kane was warned verbally and via electronic communication about his infraction by the chair.
I obtained the draft minutes of the convention, and posted them here to IPR. – https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/05/mike-kane-libertarian-party-of-florida-post-convention-report/
If you read the report, I clearly explained how this was in no way official. Only draft minutes with some of my opinion. Said draft minutes are public information and I could have done this regardless of whether I was a member of the Executive Committee or not. I will do it next year so that people know how the convention went.
On September 13th 2013 Mike Kane, without approval of the chair, and without approval of Elsa Martinez, successfully submitted to be published a chain of private, “EC member only”, e-mails, which contained an on-going conversation between multiple members. Elsa Martinez, rightly presuming the emails would not be made public in their raw form, did not alter her email signature, which contained her (then) private cell-phone number. Again, the chair warned Mr. Kane via electronic communication.
I would truly like to know where this was published. Regardless of whether or not her phone number was published, it doesn’t violate the standing rule at all.
Why would anyone think the compilation or publication was an action taken or authorized by the LPF?
Is Elsa Martinez scared that someone from her region might actually call her? This ivory tower mentality must end.
On September 17th 2013, the Chair, via email and the LPF Executive Committee private Facebook Group, urged the Executive Committee to take disciplinary action in regards to Mr. Kane’s repeated violation of the Standing Rules and reckless behavior. Mr. Kane also received this notice.
There was no violation of this Standing Rule.
On September 22nd 2013 during the last meeting of this assembly, Mike Kane, without approval of the chair, was distributing real-time minutes of our business on the LPF Solutions Page. Among these minutes was an inaccurate roll-call vote tally. Mr. Kane acting as an Executive Committee member who was currently on the call, clearly gave the assumption that his comments were representative of the LPF EC. Mr. Kane was immediately verbally reprimanded by the chair during the meeting and was removed from the LP Solutions page by the chair.
The EC calls are open to the public and anyone can call and listen in. I never said it was an official LPF publication, I simply posted a roll call vote as an individual. This, again, isn’t in violation of this or any other standing rule. It should be noted that people were voting on whether or not to shut down a certain forum, so I thought the users should know who voted in favor of shutting it down and who didn’t.
Mr. Kane has been given ample knowledge that his continuing infractions could result in further disciplinary action and made the decision to continue to disregard the Standing Rules put in place by the LPF Executive Committee. As a member of the Executive Committee, Mr. Kane must act within the same confines of our governing documents as the rest of this assembly. Failure to censure Mr. Kane at this time, would send a message that our Standing Rules are somewhat meaningless. Considering we spend a good amount of time during our meeting amending our Standing Rules, it would be hypocritical of the EC to not enforce them at this time by approving the censure of Mr. Kane.
Not one time has any one of the officers (Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, or at-Large Directors) of the LPF called me to discuss any of these bogus allegations. In fact, I haven’t spoken with the state chair ever over the phone, and it’s been months since I’ve spoken with the Vice Chair. I do not even have the Treasurer’s phone number.
Readers should note the motion was introduced by the Vice Chair — who talks a great game about building the party but clearly his actions speak louder than words.
It should be also be noted that a similar draft motion was sent by LPF secretary Lynn House who ended her email by saying “Please note that Florida has a broad public records law, and that all correspondence to me via email may be subject to disclosure.”
To me, this seems like just another way for a certain group of individuals to purge those who don’t fall into line with their agenda and goals.
Just as late as last week, I was criticized publicly by the Chair for contributing money to the David Nolan Office Fund.
It’s truly unfortunate that I have to spend valuable time responding to such silly allegations, especially from folks who claim to be on the same team.