F. Galerius Aurelianus flamen Cerialis A. Apollonio Cordo and the SPQNR. Salvete.
<snip>
I have commented in the past that Cordus writes as if he were being paid by the word but he corrected me on why he writes so. However, I must now say to him that he has written just what I have been thinking while following these posts on the Comitia. Well Done, Cordus!!! I could never have put it so well as you have just done.
Citizens, the current proposed changes to not simplify; they comfuscate! They do not clarify; they pull up the dregs and cloud the wine! It is typical of the pattern of that has been developing in our organization for several years to move away from simplicity and well-thought out rules and by-laws and to just slap another coat of whitewash on the crumbling edifice of Nova Roma.
Why do we need suspended citizens or socii? We do not. Why do we need complicated by-laws for resignation of citizens or magistrates? We do not. We need to recognize that Nova Roma can have simple amendments to our original Constitution and well-framed by-laws. If a magistrate uses his or her entire term to make one meaningful change to our Constitution or by-laws, it is worth far more than many patches of the wall or our organization.
There is nothing wrong with simply allowing a person to post on the Main List, "I, Nunc Biberius, immediately resign all my offices, public and religious, along with my citizenship for [good/bad] reasons," then let the person have nine days to reconsider and cancel it. If he doesn't, strike him from the rolls of citizens and magistrates, call for an election to replace him, and go on. If he reapplies in the future, make him go through the procedure for a new citizen, if he wants his old name back (and no one with the same name objects) let him have it, and tell him he cannot run for public office or apply for a religious office for one year from the date his citizenship is approved.
If a magistrate resigns his office for good reasons or just because he is sick of it, he or she cannot run for public office for one year from the date of the end of his original term. Period. If a magistrate chooses good assistants, he can still delegate duties of the office as long as he is responsible for seeing they are carried out. Resignation of office or citizenship should be the last action considered, not the first.
As flamen Cerialis and a Plebeian citizen of Nova Roma, I add my hand and voice to Cordus' and say vote NO to these changes in the upcoming Comitia. I say that we should demand that our magistrates do more than slap a coat of plaster on the face of Nova Roma and offer changes that allow the citizens to vote to fundamentally correct the flaws to our Constitution and by-laws. I say we need to purge ourselves of the leges dealing with the Socii and suspended citizens. I say we need to purge ourselves of a ridiculous legal actions & trials and let the Praetores moderate the lists as they are meant to do. I say we need to encourage Nova Romans to stay in our organization by offering real world activities, events, and celebration of the public and private rites of the Religio Romana.
I ask Dii Immortales to grant our magistrates and citizens to strength, character, and will to help Nova Roma now and in the future.
*******************************************************************************
A. Apollonius omnibus sal.
I thank the consul for her replies to my earlier
questions. I understand from them that although she
may be prepared to consider some changes to these
proposals, she is entirely happy with the basic
policies they contain and will not be changing those.
In my opinion it is those basic policies which are
flawed, and I feel it would be a waste of the three or
four days which remain of this contio if I were to
attempt to persuade the tribune and the consul of
that, so I shall simply explain to you, fellow
citizens, why I think we should reject these
proposals.
First it may be useful to note the various practical
problems with these two proposals. To illustrate
these, let me tell you a story. I'll interrupt the
story from time to time to explain how it relates to
the proposals before us.
- - In A.D. 2010 there is a citizen of Nova
- - Roma called C. Marius. Marius has a son
- - who is also a citizen of Nova Roma and whom,
- - in traditional Roman fashion, he has named
- - C. Marius. Marius (the father) is a
- - quaestor. He sends a message to this list,
- - and to the announcements list, and to every
- - other list he subscribes to, saying "I
- - resign my office of quaestor effective
- - immediately".
Now, in ancient Rome he would, of course, have been
regarded as immediately losing his office. An election
would have been organized as soon as possible to
replace him. Under the lex Moravia Minucia, however,
things would be different...
- - Nobody informs the consules that this has
- - happened. Marius stops doing his job
- - collecting and recording payments of tax.
- - After several weeks, people begin to
- - complain that their payments have not been
- - acknowledged. The consules explain that,
- - according to the lex Moravia Minucia article
- - IV, they cannot hold an election to replace
- - Marius until three people inform them that
- - he has resigned. "But," say sensible
- - citizens, "you *know* he's resigned". "Yes,"
- - they say, "but he didn't inform us directly,
- - so we have to wait until three witnesses
- - inform us directly". Three exasperated people
- - duly do so. An election is held.
This is, indeed, the position under the proposals
before us. The idea that a resignation cannot be
legally valid unless it complies with certain
formalities is an old one in Nova Roma. It is
enshrined in the lex constitutiva itself, and also in
the lex Cornelia Maria de civitate ejuranda.
Presumably at some point someone thought there was a
good reason for having this rule. And apparently the
tribune and the consul still think it's a good idea,
because they have adopted it from the area of
resignation of citizenship and brought it into the law
on resignation of office. This is in spite of the
possible consequences, such as we have in the story.
Well, back to Marius...
- - Marius is getting fed up with Nova Roma. He
- - writes again to all the lists he subscribes
- - to, saying "I immediately resign my
- - citizenship". Three conscientious people
- - write to the consules to inform them of
- - this. Unfortunately in this case it is the
- - censores who need to be informed. Nobody
- - informs them.
This is not a great novelty. It is what happens at the
moment under the lex Cornelia Maria. Or, rather, it's
what doesn't happen. The law says it should happen.
But the censores are sensible people. Only current and
former censores can tell us the precise number of
times they have actually received written notification
from three witnesses that a person has resigned, but I
can make a guess: zero. Certainly I've worked in
censorial offices several times and I've never seen it
happen. During the last two censuses a significant
number of people contacted by the censorial offices
responded asking, even demanding, to be removed from
the list of citizens. These responses were generally
addressed to provincial governors or censorial
scribes, not to the censores personally. Under the
strict legal rule of notification to three witnesses,
the censores would have had no power to register these
resignations as legally valid, but of course they used
their common sense and registered them.
This is an outstandingly clear example of a rule which
is so impractical that it has been completely ignored.
And yet these proposals seek not only to perpetuate it
but to expand it into new areas of law and to place
icnreasing reliance upon it. I cannot see the sense of
that. Our law, surely, should recognize the current
reality and give the relevant magistrates the
discretion - to be exercised, of course, collegially,
as all censorial powers are - to decide what
constitutes a resignation and what does not.
- - Meanwhile, the census is going on. Marius
- - is contacted by the scribes doing the census.
- - He responds and says that he does not want
- - to be considered a citizen of Nova Roma any
- - more. The scribe who receives his message
- - passes it the censores. The censores say,
- - "have you got two other witnesses?" "No,"
- - says the scribe. The censores do not register
- - Marius' resignation as valid.
Well, this just illustrates the problem I mentioned
above. Of course in reality the censores might well
ignore the lex Moravia Minucia as they currently
ignore the lex Cornelia Maria, but there's not much
point proposing a lex and then saying "it's okay,
people will ignore the stupid parts". But now there
arises a further problem, newly introduced by these
proposals...
- - Marius' resignation has not been registered
- - as valid by the censores. But he has also not
- - responded to the census in a way which would
- - allow him to be registered as a full citizen
- - according to the lex Fabia de censu. The
- - censores check the leges. The lex Fabia says
- - that a citizen who is not registered at the
- - census becomes a socius; the lex Moravia
- - Minucia also says that a citizen who does not
- - respond to the census has his citizenship
- - placed "in temporary suspension".
Now, what are the censores to do with Marius? Is he a
socius? A "suspended" citizen? Both? The lex Moravia
Minucia does not explicitly repeal the "socius"
clauses of the lex Fabia, so presumably it does not
intend to abolish the socii. Can a person be both a
socius and a "suspended" citizen? It would be very
strange. A socius is, as the lex Fabia makes clear,
not a citizen. He enjoys none of the rights of
citizenship. A "suspended" citizen under the lex
Moravia Minucia, however, enjoys all the rights of
citizenship except the right to vote. This means he
actually enjoys greater rights than a probationary
citizen during his 90-day probationary period. So
presumably a "suspended" citizen is still a type of
citizen, like a probationary one. And yet it seems
that someone who fails to be registered at the census
is to be classed as both a socius (non-citizen with no
citizen rights) and a "suspended" citizen (a type of
citizen with almost full rights). How is this
possible? If it is not, how do the censores choose
which status to give a person?
This is important not only because a socius and a
"suspended" citizen have very different rights, but
also because they have very different ways of
reacquiring citizenship. "Suspended" citizens have a
bewildering array of different ways in which they can
resume their citizenship, each with a different time
limit. They can do it by asking the censores: this can
be done until the beginning of the next census (which
under current law would be two years but could vary in
the future) or until five years have passed, whichever
is earlier. They can do it by paying their taxes: this
can only be done within a year of being placed in
suspension. They can do it by responding to the
following census: this of course depends entirely on
when the next census happens. A socius, on the other
hand, has only one way to do it: he can write to the
censores at *any* time, however long after he ceased
to be a citizen, and ask to be reinstated. The
censores can then reinstate him.
So we have a strange situation. A person who fails to
respond to the census may be a "suspended" citizen, or
a socius, or possibly both. If he is a "suspended"
citizen he has almost all the rights of citizenship;
if he is a socius, he has none at all. On the other
hand, if he is a "suspended" citizen he can only
become a full citizen again within certain time
limits, whereafter he loses his citizenship completely
and becomes a plain old non-citizen; if he is a
socius, however, he can regain full citizenship even
many, many years after he lost it.
Well, on with the story...
- - The censores decide to categorize Marius as
- - a "suspended" citizen. He remains involved
- - with some Nova Roma projects, however. He
- - is elected aedile of his local oppidum. A
- - few people object, but he points out that,
- - as a "suspended" citizen, he has all the
- - citizen rights except the right to vote, so
- - he is legally competent to hold this office.
- - After a while he starts selling Roman food
- - through the Macellum, which as a "suspended"
- - citizen he is allowed to do. Some of his
- - customers experience unacceptable delays in
- - delivery and complain to the aediles curules.
- - The aediles remove Marius from the Macellum,
- - but he appeals using provocatio, which is a
- - right he still possesses as a "suspended"
- - citizen. He is given a trial in the comitia.
This part of the story just illustrates some of the
rights which "suspended" citizens would enjoy under
the Moravian Minucian proposals. You may think it
slightly odd that someone who has twice attempted to
resign his citizenship and has failed to answer the
census is still able to exercise all these rights.
Well, yes, I suppose it is odd, but that's the lex
Moravia Minucia for you. But now here's a twist:
- - During the trial, the census - the second
- - census since Marius tried to resign
- - originally - is coming to an end. In fact,
- - it comes to an end before the trial does.
- - Marius, of course, has not bothered to
- - respond, and indeed he has not even been
- - asked, because the censores don't bother
- - to contact "suspended" citizens. At the
- - end of the census, the censores, in
- - obedience to the lex Moravia Minucia,
- - revoke Marius' citizenship entirely.
- - The prosecutor in the trial notices this
- - and announces it to the praetor who is
- - presiding over the trial. The praetor
- - immediately throws the case out of the
- - comitia because Marius no longer has the
- - right of provocatio or the right to appear
- - in the comitia. The aediles curules throw
- - Marius out of the Macellum because he no
- - longer has a right to sell his wares there.
- - Rather upset, he asks the censores how to
- - stop all this happening. They tell him that
- - now he is a non-citizen, and the only way
- - he can resume his lost rights is to apply
- - to become a "new" citizen. So he fills in
- - the application form. In accordance with
- - the lex Moravia Minucia article VI.A, the
- - censores ask him why he resigned and why he
- - returned. He says, "Why? Does it affect
- - whether I'm allowed to return?" "No," they
- - reply, "it makes no difference at all, but
- - we are obliged by the lex Moravia Minucia
- - to ask you." "Am I obliged to answer?" The
- - censores check their text of the lex Moravia
- - Minucia and tell him that he is not. So he
- - doesn't.
Yes, indeed, this is what the proposed lex says: "the
former citizen is directed to state in his or her
application the reasons behind the initial resignation
of citizenship, and the nature of the reasons
influencing the desire to have it reinstated". It
doesn't say, however, that the person concerned is
obliged to give this information, only that he is
directed to do so; nor does it give the censores the
power to take any action based on the answer, or even
require them to keep any record of the answer for
statistical purposes. What fun. And now the final act
in the drama...
- - Marius asks to be given his old name, C.
- - Marius. The censores explain that there is
- - already a C. Marius in Nova Roma, so
- - according to the lex Moravia Minucia he
- - cannot have that name. He explains that this
- - is his son. The censores say that makes no
- - difference: he cannot have the name.
That's right, citizens. Although there is no general
rule in our law saying that two citizens cannot have
the same name, there is a specific rule - it is in the
lex Cornelia Maria and look, here it is too in this
radical new written-from-scratch lex Moravia Minucia -
that a citizen who has resigned and then returned
cannot have the same name as any existing citizen.
Why? Who on earth knows?
And what becomes of our hero Marius? He probably gives
up and goes away forever, or at least until Nova Roma
has some more sensible procedures for dealing with
citizenship.
I think that story illustrates most of the practical
problems with these proposals. But the problems are
deeper than that. The problems are, essentially, the
same problems that exist under the current system, but
worse. The consul said that "we are proposing the
existing legislations [sic] regarding resignations be
repealed, and starting from scratch". If this is
"starting from scratch" then I am a pink elephant.
These proposals do not depart in any way from the
fundamental ideas behind the lex Cornelia Maria, the
lex that has caused all the problems so far. It even
contains several of the same clauses.
Before the lex Cornelia Maria, no one had any real
problem identifying what was a valid resignation.
True, the lex constitutiva had the rule about three
witnesses, but that wasn't a big problem because there
was no rule that those three witnesses had to report
to the censores. As long as three witnesses witnessed
the resignation, it was valid. Since almost all
resignations happened on big e-mail lists, that wasn't
a problem. The problem was just that there were quite
a lot of valid resignations. The purpose of the lex
Cornelia Maria was to stop people resigning. To this
end, it adopted two main strategies. First, it made it
harder to resign in the first place. This was mainly
achieved by saying that what a reasonable human being
would recognize as a resignation is not recognized by
the law as a valid resignation unless it is
communicated in a certain way and not revoked within a
certain time. Secondly, it made it harder for people
who successfully resigned to come back.
Both of these strategies were radical departures from
the ancient Roman rule that a citizen could give up
Roman citizenship without going through any formal
procedure and could, thereafter, resume that same
citizenship with ease. And, surprise surprise, both
caused seriously problems. The second was quickly
recognized as a problem and was eventually whittled
down by the lex Equitia, but some of it still remains
in these proposals: notice that a citizen who leaves,
comes back, and leaves again cannot come back for a
further two years. Why? Who knows? But the real
problem is the first of the two strategies: the
divergence between what common sense recognizes as a
resignation and what the law recognizes as a
resignation.
Do the proposed leges abandon this strategy? They do
not; on the contrary, they take it even further. They
create extra administrative hoops which must be jumped
through before on can successfully resign, some of
them entirely outside one's own control. Under these
proposals, a resignation of citizenship will only be
valid if *someone else*, namely a censor, issues an
"official acknowledgement" of the resignation. Anyone
can see that this is absurd. If you leave an
organization and the organization then writes to you
and says "we officially acknowledge your departure",
what do you think? I would think, "you acknowledge
what you like, chum, but I've left and that's a fact
whether you acknowledge it or not". If we insist on
maintaining a distinction between what any sensible
human being would regard as a resignation and what the
law regards as a resignation, we only succeed in
making the law look stupid.
And not only do these proposals adopt the same basic
strategy of creating a discrepancy between legal and
factual resignations, they actually export this
discrepancy to an area of law previously unaffected by
it. At the moment, at least, common sense prevails
with regard to resignation of magistracies: if someone
says "I resign my office with immediate effect", he
loses his office with immediate effect. The only
problem arises when he resigns his citizenship while
holding office. Why does this problem arise? Because
his resignation of citizenship is not recognized as
having immediate legal validity, but his resignation
of office is. This creates inconsistency because
citizenship is governed by a stupid rule and public
office is not. The proposed solution? The consul and
the tribune proposed to have both citizenship and
public office covered by the stupid rule. Well, sure,
it solves the inconsistency, but it means we now have
two stupid rules in stead of one. Under these
proposals a resignation from office, like a
resignation from citizenship, would not be legally
valid unless communicated to a certain person in a
certain way and then acknowledged by that person in a
certain way. This is total madness.
No, these proposals do not "start from scratch".
Repealing one lex and replacing it with another lex
based on the same fundamental ideas (and in fact
containing several identical clauses) is not "starting
from scratch". It is the act of someone who believes
that there is really no fundamental problem with the
current system, we just need more of the same.
That is what these proposals give us: more of the
same. More discrepancy between what a reasonable human
being would recognize as a resignation and what the
law will recognize as a resignation. More hoops to
jump through before you can successfully leave Nova
Roma or lay down your office. More obstacles when you
return. More different and overlapping sub-categories
of citizenship. More administrative work for
magistrates. More complexity. More of the same.
And finally, and most importantly, more divergence
from what the Romans did. It constantly baffles me
that we claim to admire Roman culture and yet when any
practical problem arises nobody seems to stop to ask
how the Romans solved it. The vast majority of our
legislation is based on the arrogant assumption that
we, with our total of eight years experience of
running a Roman republic, can come up with better
solutions than the people who did it successfully for
half a millennium (or, at best, based on a total
failure by legislators to actually find out what the
Romans did and try to apply it). These proposals
attempt to solve a problem relating to resignations of
citizenship and of office. We know how the Romans
solved these problems. We know how to put their
solution into practice. It could be easily done. Yet
the consul and the tribune have chosen not to do that.
They have chosen, in stead, to go in the opposite
direction, taking the un-Roman elements of the current
system and significantly increasing them.
Why? Here is the consul's answer:
"We cannot mirror antiqua [sic] in every way. Nova
Roma has two important aspects to consider: For one,
we are a voluntary organization, with citizens of dual
citizenship...our macronational lineage and NR
citizenship. Two, regarding the case of magisterial
resignations, we have to consider that we are dealing
with procedures of resignation of corporate
executives, not just 'magistrates within Nova Roma'."
She does not explain why either of these facts
prevents us from adopting the Roman practice. We are
voluntary organization, she says. So was the Roman
republic: people did not have to be citizens if they
didn't want to be. They could give up their
citizenship with remarkable ease. They did not have to
inform any particular magistrate, or state their
intentions in any particular venue. They just had to
leave. Which is more in keeping with a voluntary
organization: the Roman system, which allows people to
leave very easily and return equally easily, or the
lex Moravia Minucia, which puts huge administrative
hurdles in the way of anyone going out or coming back?
Magistrates are corporate executives, she says. And
this is a reason for setting up a system which could
result in an executive resigning his post but not
being accepted as having done so unless three other
people inform a fourth person who actually already
knows? In the ancient republic, a magistrate who said
"I resign my office" immediately lost his office. Is
there some rule of corporate law in the state of Maine
which says that the secretary of a non-profit
corporation who says "I resign as secretary of this
corporation" cannot be taken to have resigned?
The consul goes on to say, "Granted, it can be said
that resignation of citizenship was hardly
commonplace (but not totally unheard of) in antiqua
[sic] .... neither was the resignation of a
magistrate. In this 21 Century, by virtue of
macronational rights which can't be extinguished by
the NR constitution or laws... citizens have the
'right' to resign...the right to say "I know longer
desire to be associated with Nova Roma as a
member/citizen". Or, "Remove my name from your
membership roster"." She later adds, "we are never
going to be able to make resignations 'go away'
because they lack historical precedent".
These comments tell us nothing about why the Roman
practice is unsuitable for Nova Roma; they tell us
only that the consul does not understand the Roman
practice. The ancient Romans did not forbid people to
give up their citizenship: on the contrary, they made
it very easy for them to do so, much easier than these
proposals do. The fact that the consul doesn't
understand this is a sign that she never seriously
investigated the possibility that ancient Roman
practice might be suitable for Nova Roma. She cannot
have investigated it, or else she would at least know
what that practice was. She has, as most of our
legislators have done over the years, made up a
"solution" out of thin air and then stuck a few Latin
words on top of it.
Let me quote you one final sentence from the consul,
one which encapsulates almost every reason why we
should vote against these proposals:
"It isn't how close or how far away we are from the
Ancient Mos that has caused arguments about
resignations here in the past...it is the ambiguous,
fragmented language of our current resignation
legislation."
Well, there you have it. She doesn't understand how
the Romans handled these issues, and yet she
confidently asserts that ancient tradition is totally
irrelevant to the situation. She considers that the
problem with the existing legislation is not any
fundamental strategic flaw but merely ambiguous
language: in other words, the solution is more of the
same. She criticises the current legislation as
"ambiguous" and "fragmented", and yet she proposes to
expand those ambiguities and fragmentations to new
areas of law and to introduce a few new ones as well.
Citizens, these proposals are based on two fundamental
failures of understanding. They are based on a failure
to understand what is wrong with the current system,
and they are based on a failure to understand the
proper Roman solution. We should have no hesitation in
voting them down.
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre.
http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]