Cn. Iulius Caesar V. Valerio Voluso sal.
My answers to your questions and points.
VVV: "I must admit that I share Petronius Dexter's concerns about the feasibility of handling seven parallel initiatives, particularly when at least six of
the seven are quite ambitious and would take a great deal of time to manage in one year."
CnIC: As I said to Dexter, the main reason for the failure of some consular agendas in the past has been that, (a) the debates did not follow a structured time line (b) the senate calls were late and infrequent (c) the consuls relied on others during debates to produce solutions. In respect of these issues, (a) is simply basic meeting organization skill, setting clear and transparent guidelines for what the debate/contio is about, what the options are and presenting those in formal motions for voting. As to (b), that is simple time management skill, knowing the available calendar days for debate in senate or comitia, keeping your eye on the ball enough to plan for requesting the auspices, allowing enough time for possible negative ones, knowing the rules on calling the senate/comitia into session and the rules for the process that follows. As to (c), the consulship above all else is the one magistracy where the incumbent cannot solely or partly rely on
others to do the work of innovation. If it happens then that is a bonus, but the default position must be that the consuls have to have a clear range of options to kickstart a debate. I say debate as distinct from a formal contio in senate or comitia.Â
VVV: "Given the difficulty in getting citizens to devote time to participating in the Ludi, not to mention presenting themselves as candidates for election to key magistracies or participating in the various sodalities, I am wondering who is going to participate in all of these initiatives?"
CnIC: The short answer is me, any colleague I might have, the praetors, you and your tribunician colleagues, other magistrates, the senate, and the people. The degree of participation of the people is unknown, but they MUST be given the opportunity, and a genuine one, to have a voice. A direct one, and not just the voice of the Tribunes alone. If all but me fall by the wayside I can promise you that I will present options and proposed solutions. Then each magistrate, each senator, and each citizen will have the choice as to whether they participate, and the degree to which they do so. Matters will be offered for debate, sent to contio, put to the vote. Â
VVV: "A complete rewrite of the Constitution is no small task if it is to be achieved transparently and with full public disclosure and debate - and I do agree with you that such is the correct way to proceed - then it involves not only reviewing the current Constitution, but also the entire body of law currently in effect, since almost every law currently enacted
refers to the present Constitution. We have well over 50 laws to which this applies."
CnIC: Yes we have a plethora of laws. In rewriting and renumbering sections of the Constitution there are two main risk areas. Naturally the first is that there will be leges that reference an old section of the Constitution. Secondly that changes to the Constitution will invalidate certain laws in their entirety or partially. Dealing with the first issue, we have two options. Option (A) is to scan each law for a reference to the Constitution and prepare a lex that amends the existing law to either a renumbered section, or inserts a new section and deletes old ones. Option (B) is to provide a mechanism in the Constitution that allows for an edictum of a magistrate to interpret which section of the Constitution is referenced by a law as the need arises. That would have to be written in as clearly under normal circumstances an edictum cannot overrule a lex. By preference and through long association with reading all of our legal code, I am confident I
can prepare a lex to be debated in the normal manner. Again, I can do the leg work and present the draft for debate first to the Senate, to afford everyone maximum time for debate and discussion, before it even goes to comitia.
VVV: "I do applaud your emphasis on putting in place an effective framework of legal interpretation (very much needed). That only adds to the scope of the enterprise. I could easily see this initiative alone consuming all your time as consul, and certainly as a tribune it would also consume a great deal of my colleagues time, and mine, in reviewing every tiny detail of the new Constitution and new body of law, as well as the interpretative framework. In fact, I can't imagine that we would have much time to devote to very much else!""
CnIC: The requirement concerning interpretation is to provide a mechanism for the future, which can be used to resolve contentious matters of meaning. We don't have to interpret it now, but just design a process. That process would be built into the Constitution itself, which of course currently does not exist.
VVV: "There is also a great risk that legislation under the current Constitution and legal framework would be put on hold, so as to be incorporated into the new, and if the new Constitution fails to be ratified and implemented by the end of your term of office."
CnIC: Nothing needs to go on hold. As per my above comments on renumbering, the current entire legal code would continue to operate until such time as there were changes. As to proposed new legislation, since the majority of alterations to the current Constitution will involve fleshing out specifics and obviating points of future conflict, which in the past have been on the minutiae of meaning, I think it extremely unlikely that any proposed new legislation would suddenly find itself "unconstitutional" after the new Constitution were to be enacted. Additionally all this requires is that firstly the Constitution be the first order of business, and that any new law is parsed against the draft one in its extant state at the time a new law is being debated. Good project and time management will ensure coordination.  Â
VVV: "Since you do have project management expertise:
1. Could you perhaps provide a brief outline your risk mitigation
strategy?
2. How do you prioritize these seven initiatives in terms of importance?
3. What volunteer resources are available to you - who would do the
actual work?
4. What do you anticipate being the total expenditure/budget to achieve
the goals of these initiatives (rough estimate)?"
CnIC: As per the above bullets:
1. The primary risks are (a) disorder in the senate and comitia calendar - the timing of days of debate, contio and voting. The next risk is comes with emergent situations hogging the limelight and de-focusing people from these seven tasks. As I said in my statement, these will likely happen. It would be a good thing if they didn't, but since some drama and crisis usually grips Nova Roma at least once a year, then we must allow for it happening. I have watched all of them unfold since 2004, and seen how easily they become the core issue. That is partly the problem that an overreaction to often a small spark is fanned into a flame, that quickly becomes a raging inferno. I work in a macronational environment that experiences the same, and crisis management is to put it simply a required feature of my job. At the same time I have to still multi-task and meet deadline son existing projects. So the risk mitigation strategy is for (1) to produce clear
timelines and publish them so we all know the cut-off points, and the trigger points for the next phase. Just the acting of developing and publishing them will not only aid transparency but also serve as a tool to keep us all on track. As to (2), they key is in how I, and any colleague, manage a crisis. Also how you and your colleagues manage them too. We all have a responsibility to discharge our duties, but I am sure we can all do it in a professional and businesslike manner that ensures that the flame flickering on the candle doesn't become the inferno that burns the house down.Â
2. Well of course like many work environments one could say they are all "urgent" ;) Maybe you have experienced that wonderful grading system in your macronational work? In essence they are all urgent and since they can run in tandem I hesitate to grade them, but if I had to choose, then on a personal level I see them being:
A. Constitution & webpage tool access & support to collegia legislative agenda.
B. Macro/NR law issue
C. IT needs
D. Recover webpage to US provider
E. Incentives to citizens
My rationale for this ordering is that the Constitution is a large project and must be commenced immediately. Webtool access is a matter of importance and also necessary so we can adequately determine what can be patched, if anything, until the IT review is complete. The collegia need to be consulted and space made available for anything they require rendered into a lex. The sooner that happens the better, even if the answer is "currently zero". The questions still need to be asked, and also reassessed on a regular basis.
Next macro/NR law. As you will see in my answers to another of your questions, I attach utmost importance to this process being started and progressed to the point where it is either concluded or so well under way it is impossible to derail it in 2013 by the consuls dropping the ball.Â
IT needs can be started ASAP, and are not dependent on the result of the examination of the viability of patching the current system, since I start from the perspective of looking at the functions we have now in areas such as the censorial database, that we are likely to have, population shifts, and decide what tools are available to do the job well, but at a cost effective rate. Our IT needs have to be constrained by our budget, and specifically by our revenue flow and the avilability of people to administer systems. NR has relied on specialists in the past and they have either quit in despair or stomped off in a huff over political "issues". Either way we have been left high and dry, so an essential feature for me of any system, or component part of it, is that it doesn't require a specialist to maintain it.Â
Recovery of the webpage is simply good practice that all of the assets of the corporation need to be subject to the same judicial system as the incorporation state.Â
Incentives to citizens takes last place because until we can demonstrate to the people that we are making determined and successful steps to eradicate the same tired old issues, no one will be convinced that NR has got its focus back. The perennial complaints about the tax are understandable, but at the same time one simply cannot splurge money from the treasury unless you know you have a plan and capacity to recoup it. Signing up to undertakings that require a yearly fee that our income cannot replace is unacceptable. Equally getting involved in the ludi and other areas of interest only seem attractive when judged as part of a healthy, viable and dynamic organisation that has its focus on its core business and mandate. As we can demonstrate problems being resolved we increase the likelihood that people will be more willing to invest time and energy.
VVV: "I believe you wrote a paper on this issue, which I read with interest earlier this year. I can't remember where it was posted. Could you provide a link to that paper? Do you still stand by that original analysis and proposed solution, or is it no-longer in line with your current thinking? It seems fixing this should take priority over an overhaul of theConstitution and dependent body of law - or is the one dependent on the other?"
CnIC: It can be found in the files section of this list. It is titled Nova Roma Reborn.Â
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/files/NovaRomaReborn.pdf
Yes, I stand by the analysis and the solution. It is vital that Nova Roma Inc. abide with all requirements placed on it under Maine law. Anything else is fanciful absurdity. The senate has the obligation and fiduciary responsibility to ensure this happens, as in corporate terms it serves as the Board of Directors of the incorporated status of NR. However this dual wearing of hats, corporate and res publica, has been the catalyst either for irresponsible calls to ignore Maine law, or for conflicts between the demands of that law and the workings of a res publica. I characterize it as two elements stored together that become combustible when mixed. Maine law and NR law simply don't fit well. The result - an explosion. The solution is to separate the two yet keep them inextricably linked by a third element, in this case a contractual agreement. NR Inc. would then function on "normal" non-profit lines, one member one vote, an elected board etc. and
follow Maine law to the letter, while subcontracting in effect to the res publica side. The latter would be "private" and not non-profit, but at the same time not have access to ANY funds or assets. All those MUST remain in the hands of the non-profit. The res publica entity would provide the framework of the res publica, senate, comitia etc. The point? The res publica becomes an arms length entity from NR Inc. and freed from the dicatates of non-profit laws that conflict with Roman legal principles, yet all the assets and funds never pass from the control of Nr Inc. Only through this method can we escape from the intrusion of Maine law that simply is inconsistent with our general legal system and governance model in a res publica.
VVV: "It really doesn't matter where the provider is located, what matters is applying due diligence to ensure financial stability, data accessibility and protection. You could very easily host the site on a US-based provider and still lose all your data assets."
CnIC: I am thinking Voluse of our current situation. Our former CIO packaged it off to a contact of his, and frankly it isn't a national or multinational company as far as I can see. In the past private individuals have hosted it. I can easily foresee it in the future ending up on someone's server who is either closely connected with, or themselves in, Nova Roma and then our problems start when access is cut off to magistrates (happened before) and passwords change, become unavailable, levels of access are not granted etc. Having the provider under the same jurisdiction enables more cost effective legal remedies to be pursued if that happens. It is simply good business practise, but you are correct it doesn't prevent it happening, but it may have a deterrent effect. Some jurisdictions do not permit foreign nationals or entities to sue their citizens, or only after an absurdly long process. If the individual doesn't have assets in the US for
example, and has no likelihood of doing so or travelling there, unless they willingly submit to US court jurisdiction, then they are outside our reach. That is unacceptable risk to the corporation assets.Â
VVV: "I would rather the consul work on much higher level concerns such as items #1 and #2 above and bundle #3 with #4, and #5 into a single initiative and form a volunteer working-group that includes input from our more technically experienced citizens. It is for the consul to champion the initiative, set budget limits, provide the business requirements (some of which you have outlined) and ensure that the Senate is behind the initiative. Is this how you anticipate proceeding?"
CnIC: Yes. I have some background with program design and database management, but involving those whose bread and butter it is makes absolute sense. Also though we need representation from your typical end user without such a technical background. My job, and my colleague, would be to provide the framework for the discussion, having set that through senatorial debate and a senatus consultum. Even the senate debate could see initial input from experts. What I will not do is sign up to a plan that only looks at a "made in NR" approach to IT. I would push for cost effective off the shelf options before I fritter our money away on some lumbering beast that only a few can maintain. As I said before, when they have quit that has left us up the proverbial creek minus paddle.Â
VVV: "Has this not been on-going all last year? It seems unlikely negotiation will be any more successful this year than it was last year. Have you weighed the cost of legal action against the cost of reimplementing the site on another system?"
CnIC: Apparently it has. Our former CIO stated, apparently, he only wanted to treat with one person. As to negotiation, we won't know until we try again. Yes I have weighed the cost, and it maybe that if we extract the data we need, assuming we can from our current level of access, that we import it into a new engine and delete the old application. If however we find we cannot do without the tools, or that the data is locked in and we can easily transpose it, then we should investigate all avenues, including the legal option. The final decision would be the Senate's as it would be an expenditure item, and we would need to run a risk analysis on loss of the data versus cost of a legal action. is it worth it? Those debates must start as soon as possible.
VVV: " This item seems to me to be tightly linked to #5 below. It would seem a great pity to waste money on acquiring access to data via legal means - particularly when it will not guarantee that you will get everything - only to discover that such data (code) is no longer of much use. That is why I suggest making 3, 4 and 5 as a single initiative under a single working-group or task-force."
CnIC: The analysis of the data from what we know and can access can indeed form part of the work of such a group, and they can provide an assessment of the liklihood of what we might be able to transport from one application to another, if anything. Then the discussion will involve others such as the Censors to determine what they need, and what they can do without.
VVV: "I would concur with the reasoning of using a senatus consultum as an appropriate legal instrument for implementing, provided that there is real and significant outside discussion."
CnIC: Good planning on my part will ensure that we can run a discussion in the Senate with the tribunes giving a summary on an ongoing basis. There are rules constraining this but I am sure that without direct quotes and establishing a process between the consuls and the tribunes, real time reporting on a summary basis can happen. It serves the interests of all and is within the mos maiorum of old. As long as certain basic courtesies are respected to our existing manner of doing business in the senate I see such a process as productive and meritorious.Â
VVV: "However, I'm a little concerned about fiscal policy being in any way linked to technical infrastructure considerations. Shouldn't we have a known budget and constraint already in place before considering technical solutions? I have never been involved in a technical strategy consultation where the budget was entirely unknown. At the end of the strategy it may certainly be the case that what is delivered is a report that shows what can be delivered for the initially stated budget ranges provided, and what an adjusted budget would look like if all the technical needs are to be met. Surely, fiscal policy should be set and that policy forms one of the constraints under which technical considerations are discussed?"
CnIC: Well I have equally been involved in system design where the debate over what is in scope and what is not started at the outset, along with the demands for more budget allocation. As I see it the bottom line is our CFO can easily provide the new consuls and senate with a quick analysis. It will be a figure determined by looking at our minimum revenue flow, extrapolated upwards (or more likely downwards at the moment), versus our existing financial commitments. Then after leaving an appropriate amount for emergent expenditures, we will end up with a figure that is the maximum we can spend. A vital consideration though outside of the budget is that the system(s) must be low maintenance and not skilled personnel dependent. I will not see us spend money so in the future we can be held hostage again. We will have a figure Voluse, and if we have to trim our cloth to produce a functional suit, then that is what we must do.
VVV: "Could you say how you intend to re-energize the Senate? Isn't the problem that too much goes on "up top" and there is very little for new citizens to do or participate in once they have waited 90 days to become a citizen, other than watching endless arguments on ML between magistrates and "old timers"?"
CnIC: Bang on the nail Voluse. Also a matter I addressed in my paper. Add to that the absurdity of our current century point system where you can climb the ladder without any input, together with the over-exuberance of people wanting to do something then finding out that it demands more of them than they were prepared for and vanishing half-way through a project or a term of office. It is endemic. The Senate has seen it all before. The same arguments, the same issues. That my colleagues sit rather mute is no surprise. Additionally the current structure does nothing to empower the Senate. They meet at the whim of the Consuls. I intend to strengthen their ability to ensure Consuls adhere to policy set by the Senate, and to make it a body whose voice must be heard by the Consuls of the day, whether they want to hear it or not. Empowering it and making it less of a rubber stamp for the latest round of inane policy decisions will help in that goal.
Much as with the people, the Senate will believe it when they see it. If they see resolution to these same tired out old issues, then I believe they will participate more readily.Â
VVV: "How do we get the upcoming generation of citizens involved and energized, and to stick around, seems a lot more important than energizing the Senate - it appears to me that the Senators are energetic enough, but not always in the most productive ways. I'd like to see the Senate supporting the people and promoting the cultural life of NR on ML, ratherthan indulging in their own pet projects or squabbling on ML."
CnIC: Our political life is one successful revival ;) Again I agree that as much as income, new citizens are vital. I have always wanted an inclusive approach to citizenship, rather than an exclusive one. NR will always have a sink effect, where people flow in and flow out, but retention will be based on relevance, and relevance involves curing these relatively simple problems, that Dexter named the seven headed hydra. New citizens must wonder why we simply don't address them and "get it done". I have always wondered that myself, but again, it all comes down to keeping focus. I also address this in my paper.
VVV: "I think this is simply a matter of fulfilling the oath of office, or did you have something more specific in mind, over and above that?"
CnIC: It isn;t about the oath per se, but again common sense to ask the collegium pontificum if they have any items they have tucked away which need a lex as opposed to a decretum. It is courtesy and good planning.
VVV: "I fully agree with this; that 2012 needs to be a year of restructuring. I think that has become painfully obvious. However, we need to be careful of being overly ambitious - it is better to under-promise and over-deliver than to over-promise and under-deliver. That is why I think it is very important to prioritize and clearly identify the available resources, both human and financial for any project or undertaking. If you were to commit to only items 1 & 2 of your objectives I would say that itself is quite ambitious."
CnIC: As I said to Dexter, I have been mulling these issues over for two years. I have been at the forefront of the debates, in the senate, in the forum and in correspondence, with all the principal "players". In one style of problem analysis you can break issues into "problems" and "messes". A mess is something there is no obvious solution to. Over the last few years there has been so much debate on these issues, at least six of them and four in particular, that many have lost sight of the fact that the debates produced the options, explored the issues. usually something intruded, the focus was lost, a drama started and a 'crisis" erupted and the sight of the ball was lost. Months later we would collectively pick it up and completely forget, or so it seemed, where we had got to and start the whole wretched process again.  These are not messes Voluse, just problems that appear messes. Consular direction is needed to cut through that web of confusion.
When it does not happen, for whatever reason, and this has been going on for years, then it is hardly surprising we are still plodding around the same circular track. With good planning, focus, a timetable and a modicum of goodwill then 365 days should be enough. I will offer the opportunities for debate and input, and if it doesn't happen in any venue, senate or comitia, I will put matters to a vote. It is up to people how much they want to participate, but if ample opportunity is afforded and people stay silent, a vote still we will have.Â
VVV: "Again, I wish you luck in the campaign and thank you for your time in taking some of my observations and comments under consideration."
CnIC: Many thanks, and again congratulations upon your election.
Optime vale.
________________________________
From: Nicholas Cowham <
nykcowham@...>
To:
Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Consulship - my opening agenda
Â
V. Valerius Volusus C. Iulio Caesar S.P.D.
Firstly, I am happy to see you standing for the position for consul and
wish you the best of luck in your campaign. I also appreciate you outlining
your proposed program. I do have a few questions and observations I'd like
to present to you.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
