V.A. Regilla, Tribuna Plebis, Popularibus Romani, Quiritibus salutem
plurimam dicit:
Senate Voting Results, A. U. C. ante diem IV Idus Aprilis MMDCCLXV.
PRESIDING MAGISTRATE
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
ANNOUNCED SCHEDULE
01:00 AM MOUNTAIN TIME 25-MAR-2012 : Call to order. Debate period
commences.
01:00 AM MOUNTAIN TIME 31-MAR-2012 : Debate period ends.
01:30 AM MOUNTAIN TIME 31-MAR-2012 : Call to vote. Voting period
commences.
01:30 AM MOUNTAIN TIME 04-APR-2012 : Voting period ends.
23:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 07-APR-2012 : Calculation of votes and call to
close to be issued after end voting and before this time.
QUORUM
Marcus Minucius Audens is absent but has assigned his proxy vote to
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar. Therefore as per XI.J of the SENATUS CONSULTUM DE
RATIONE SENATUS MMDCCLXV he is deemed present. No other absences have
been posted. The quorum is achieved. The minimum number of votes
necessary to pass a Senatus Cconsultum is set at 10 "UTI ROGAS" votes.
The following Senators or voting members of the Senate voted in
chronological order:
[CniC] Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
[MMA] Marcus Minucius Audens
[TGP] Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
[CPD] Gaius Petronius Dexter
[CTVG] Gaius Tullius Valerianus Germanicus
[LCS] Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
[SCVIA] Statia Cornelia Valeriana Iuliana Aeternia
[QFM] Quintus Fabius Maximus
[TIS] Titus Iulius Sabinus
[CEC] Gaius Equitius Cato
[PUSV] Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator
[LECA] Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
[ATS] Aula Tullia Scholastica
[MCGG] Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus
[GPL] Gaius Popillius Laenas
[MCJ] Marcus Cassius Julianus
[QSP] Quintus Suetonius Paulinus
The following 2 senators or voting members of the Senate did not cast a
vote or did not cast a vote on time and absence was not announced or
justified in line with the Senatus Consultum on Defining a Quorum and
the LEX OCTAVIA DE SENATORIBUS:
[DIPI] De. Iunius Palladius Invictus
[CVA] C. Vipsanius Agrippa
AGENDA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM I: Method of converting citizens from capite censi status to
assidui status.
SENATUS CONSULTUM ON THE PROCESS FOR CONVERTING CAPITE CENSI CITZENS TO
ASSIDUI CITIZENS
I. If a citizen who is classed as capite censi wishes to pay the annual
tax, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Nova Roma shall examine the
assidui centuries to determine which centuries citizens with similar
amounts of century points have been placed in by the censors.
II. The CFO having determined, by the means at section I of this Senatus
consultum, the likely range of centuries that the citizen wishing to pay
the annual tax may be placed in, based on the number of century points
that citizen has accumulated, shall select the highest numbered century
in that range. The applicable class for that century shall be the class
the citizen is assigned to for the purpose of determining
his/her tax rate.
III. The tax rate for the class the citizen is assigned to for the
purpose of determining his/her tax rate shall be the annual tax due and
payable by that citizen.
Voting:17, (Uti Rogas: 13, Antiquo: 4 Abstineo: 0)
Item I carried.
[CnIC] UTI ROGAS
[MMA] UTI ROGAS
[TGP] UTI ROGAS
[CPD] ANTIQVO. The simple, obvious and fair advice of T. Sabinus
convinced me.
[CTVG] UTI ROGAS
[LCS] UTI ROGAS
[SCVIA] UTI ROGAS
[QFM] UTI ROGAS
[TIS] ANTIQVO. Even if I understand the tax reason I can not agree with
the mixture between the job of corporation officers and of magistrates.
We have magistrates.
[CEC] ANTIQVO - we have censors whose job it is to watch these issues. I
don't care if they don't do it fast enough for anyone - the People have
elected them and placed them in their magistracies. I see once again the
shrinking box of individual magisterial authority being replaced by
senatorial fiat.
[PUSV] UTI ROGAS. While I have some reservations that these may encroach
upon the duties and authority of the Censors, the pragmatism I see in my
Roman forebears nags at me. Lending this to the CFO seems a useful tool.
I ask only that the CFO report to this body on whether or not this has
been both useful and beneficial so that we can revisit this if
necessary. I also ask that the CFO keep in lockstep as is practicable
with the Censors in handling matters affecting Citizens and Citizenship.
[LECA] UTI ROGAS
[ATS] ANTIQVO. As Sabinus noted, we have magistrates for this.
[MCGG] UTI ROGAS
[GPL] UTI ROGAS
[MCJ] UTI ROGAS
[QSP] UTI ROGAS
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM II: Recent statements of Aula Tullia Scholastica.
SENATUS CONSULTUM ON THE SENATE REPRIMAND OF AULA TULLIA SCHOLASTICA
I. Aula Tullia Scholastica, senator and censor, in message number 20415,
posted on the Senate list on March 12th 2012, gave an account of her
interaction in an email exchange with Gaius Claudius Axenrothus, citizen
of Nova Roma.
II. Aula Tullia Scholastica characterized Gaius Claudius Axenrothus as a
possible misogynist in message number 20415.
III. Aula Tullia Scholastica characterized Gaius Claudius Axenrothus as
immoral, an almost certain major misogynist, and introduced the
suspicion that he may well have altered the contents of her email to him
(message number 20469, posted on the Senate list March 22nd 2012).
IV. The Senate is satisfied that:
A. The content of Aula Tullia Scholastica's post 20415 conflicted with
the content of an email she sent to Gaius Claudius Axenrothus, dated
March 4th 2012 (contained in message 20418, posted on the Senate list on
March 12th 2012) to such a degree that the a reasonable person could
only conclude she lied in statements she made in post 20415.
B. That Aula Tullia Scholastica's statements on the Senate list as at
section II and III of this Senatus consultum regarding the character of
Gaius Claudius Axenrothus were such that a reasonable person could only
conclude that they were made in an effort to malign his character and
divert attention and responsibility from herself to Gaius Claudius
Axenrothus.
V. As a consequence of section IV of this Senatus consultum, Aula Tullia
Scholastica has violated her oath of office, as sworn by her (as per the
Lex Iunia de iusiurando) in message number 2364, posted on the Nova Roma
Announce list on January 1st 2012, in that she has broken the following
sections of her oath:
A. "upholding the honor of Nova Roma" - by lying on the Senate list and
maligning the character of a citizen of Nova Roma;
B. "acting always in the best interest of the people and the Senate of
Nova Roma" - by lying on the Senate list and maligning the character of
a citizen of Nova Roma;
C. "swear to honor the Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my public dealings"
- by dishonoring herself before the Gods and Goddesses of Rome and shown
them disrespect, by lying on the Senate list and maligning the character
of a citizen of Nova Roma;
D. "pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and private life" " by lying
on the Senate list and maligning the character of a citizen of Nova
Roma;
E. "Âœto protect and defend the Constitution of Nova Roma"Â " by
violating her constitutional duty as censor to "Âœsafeguard the
public morality and honor"Â by herself lying on the Senate list and
maligning the character of a citizen of Nova Roma
F. "fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of the office of censor
to the best of my abilities" "by violating her constitutional duty as
censor to "Âœsafeguard the public morality and honor"Â by herself
lying on the Senate list and maligning the character of a citizen of
Nova Roma;
VI. As a consequence of section V of this Senatus consultum the Senate
reprimands Aula Tullia Scholastica for a violation of her oath of office
by lying, failing in her constitutional duty and the maligning of a
citizen's character.
VII. Should Aula Tullia Scholastica apologize for violating her oath of
office by lying, failing in her constitutional duty and the maligning of
a citizen's character by means of posting such an apology on the Senate
list and where such an apology is to the satisfaction of both the
consuls holding office when such an apology is posted by her, then after
the consuls post to the Senate list their acceptance of her apology,
this Senatus consultum shall automatically be deemed to have been
repealed.
Voting: 17 (Uti Rogas: 11, Antiquo: 6, Abstineo: 0)
Item II carried.
[CnIC] UTI ROGAS
[MMA] UTI ROGAS
[TGP] UTI ROGAS - Senior magistrates of Nova Roma or even citizens in
general may not like different aspects of Nova Roman society as it is
currently formed. They do however owe the republic their best efforts.
Informing a new citizen that Nova Roma is a fine experience except for
those citizens and magistrate who BELIVE XY and Z and are bent on
driving out anyone who disagrees with them is not showing or doing your
best. If my colleague had discussed matters pertaining to her office and
nothing more we would not be here. If my colleague has not voiced an
opinion, to a new citizen, about HER views of what Nova Roma was, we
would not be here. If my colleague had kept her negative opinions to
herself we would not be here. I do not want her to leave Nova Roma but
would like her to act like she wanted to stay. Reluctantly I vote for
the reprimand.
[CPD] ANTIQVO. All this Item is sadly a farce. This reprimand is a
political act, we, the Senate, have no access to the mailbox of Caesar,
Sulla and Aeternia to know what they send as private mails to the other
citizens. So, Caesar, if someone is your friend, as Cincinnatus, a
justice trial against him is a farce, if it is your enemy a such sad
method may be suggested as a SC? It is a shame.
[CTVG] UTI ROGAS. This is an extremely difficult decision to make. But I
cannot help but conclude, based on ATS' own testimony, that she did
indeed abuse her position as Censor and as a Senatrix of Nova Roma to
defame Nova Roma. There is not definitive proof that this is so - but
definitive proof is elusive in any case - but I accept for the purposes
of this matter that the "reasonable person" standard is workable, and I
think that any reasonable person presented with the facts and ATS'
statements would conclude that she abused her position in this way. That
being my conclusion, I need to follow to their logical end my previous
statements - that this particular kind of defamation would be
actionable, and that the proposed reprimand would be the appropriate
action. So I must reluctantly vote for the reprimand. I dislike doing
so, in part because I have a great deal of respect for ATS and her
contributions to Nova Roma. Anything more than this reprimand should
certainly require a trial, which must wait until ATS' term of office has
ended, if anyone wishes to pursue it.
[LCS] UTI ROGAS - No one is more deserving of a reprimand in Nova Roma
than one who is placed in a position of interacting with new citizens
and then trash talking said members of organization to brand new
citizens - and then lying to the Consul and Senate of Nova Roma (on the
Senate email list no less). It is my hope that Scholastica will reform
her ways so to not be reprimanded again, but that means an old dog has
to learn new tricks. Frankly her discussions in the Senate list and her
hemming and flat out NOT taking complete responsibility for her own
actions tells me that she will continue doing what she has done. I hope
I am wrong. As for Dexter's comment is Aeternia or I, or Caesar accused
of slamming the organization in private? If so, I would sure like to
see said emails! I am confident that Aeternia and Caesar share opinion
because Dexter's comment makes no sense.
[SCVIA] UTI ROGAS. This was a tough decision, a very tough decision. I
vote yes to this reprimand in lieu of harsher punishment. I also hope
this incident gives Senatrix A. Tullia Scholastica time to reflect on
her actions, we need to allow our new citizens to come to their own
conclusions even if that Magistrate in question happens to disagree with
them. Let our new citizens have the right to make up their own minds,
for they are intelligent beings and not mindless sheep. In the future
the Senatrix will hopefully have more of a care what she says while in
private correspondence, because it is now made quite clear that these
new citizens will research what a Magistrate will say to them. As far as
my colleagues statements in his votes, I'm curious to know what e-mails
he is referring to? Why would I send e-mails bashing the organization I
work extremely hard for including nights of lost sleep? This is an
attempt at a conspiracy theory and a badly planned one at that, I
suggest my colleague takes a step back and stops throwing mud where mud
is not need to be thrown. Else he will find himself covered in mud so
badly he will not ever be able to be rid of it. In other words I
strongly suggest a very productive hobby for C. Petronius because this
is not it.
[QFM] ANTIQUO. If Aula Tullia wants to be an idiot, or perceived as an
idiot, that's her problem. Denying she was to the BoD could be
considered High Crimes blah blah etc. However since there are no rules
in place about misleading, deceiving or plain obstructing the BoD with
no stated punishment the BoD cannot punish her. You can say "Bad, bad,
Aula Tullia, don't do it again..." There I said it.
[TIS] Antiquo. I don't think we need contracts for privacy how some
believe. Respecting the other privacy is a standard of high education.
[CEC] ANTIQVO - This is really difficult. I truly do not like the things
that were written in the email, and I think they do grave injustice to
all those about whom it was written. It shows a lack of critical
discernment on the part of the writer. The only challenge I am having is
that we have not *proven* that it was written - *in the form we have
read* - by Tullia Scholastica. She says it was not. Earlier reprimands
were made based on actions of magistrates acting as magistrates. This is
not. I think we are rushing to judgement when we should have more time
to allow further investigation.
[PUSV] UTI ROGAS. I am definitely conflicted here. However, with freedom
of thought and expression do come the burden of individual
responsibility. An officer of the corporation/magistrate of the state
can be held to a higher standard than someone not in a position of such
responsibility.
[LECA] UTI ROGAS " Which is worse, abusing your position to further your
personal agenda, or lying (perhaps "˜intellectual dishonesty" is a
better way of expressing the situation). Answer-Both.
[ATS] Antiquo. I shall address this more fully later, but in case the
mail does not get delivered, antiquo. As Petronius noted, this is a
farce. Other terms might be applied.
[MCGG] UTI ROGAS
[GPL] UTI ROGAS
[MCJ] UTI ROGAS
[QSP] ANTIQVO. I see no real good coming out of this exercise given the
thin ice NR has been on over the last 2 years and have no desire to see
more people perhaps quit throwing more fuel on the fire.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM III: Annual tax rate for a new citizen unassigned to a century.
SENATUS CONSULTUM ON THE PROCESS FOR ASSESSING THE ANNUAL TAX FOR NEW OR
RETURNING CITIZENS
I. If a person has become a citizen of Nova Roma less than twelve months
before the date that they wish to pay the annual tax, and they have not
yet been assigned a century by the censors, then that person shall be
automatically assessed as being a member of class 5.
II. If a person who was formerly a citizen of Nova Roma has reclaimed
his/her citizenship, but has not yet been assigned a century by the
censors then the process for determining the century and class for, and
the annual tax due and payable by, that person shall be the same as the
process in the SENATUS CONSULTUM ON THE PROCESS FOR CONVERTING CAPITE
CENSI CITZENS TO ASSIDUI CITIZENS.
Voting:17 (Uti Rogas: 13, Antiquo: 4, Abstineo: 0)
Item III carried.
[CnIC] UTI ROGAS
[MMA] UTI ROGAS
[TGP] UTI ROGAS
[CPD] ANTIQVO. The simple, obvious and fair advice of T. Sabinus
convinced me.
[CTVG] UTI ROGAS
[LCS] UTI ROGAS
[SCVIA] UTI ROGAS
[QFM] UTI ROGAS
[TIS] ANTIQVO.
There are already procedures in the censorial office handling various
situations. If are not, the censors can fix them via edicts.
[CEC] ANTIQVO - for precisely the reason stated for Item I. We already
have a process in place, and magistrates to oversee that process. The
Senate should stop trying to restrict the ability and authority of the
magistrates of the Respublica.
[PUSV] Uti Rogas. While I have some reservations that these may encroach
upon the duties and authority of the Censors, the pragmatism I see in my
Roman forebears nags at me. Lending this to the CFO seems a useful tool.
I ask only that the CFO report to this body on whether or not this has
been both useful and beneficial so that we can revisit this if
necessary. I also ask that the CFO keep in lockstep as is practicable
with the Censors in handling matters affecting Citizens and Citizenship.
[LECA] UTI ROGAS
[ATS] ANTIQVO, for similar reasons.
[MCGG] UTI ROGAS
[GPL] UTI ROGAS
[MCJ] UTI ROGAS
[QSP] UTI ROGAS
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM IV: Forum Hospitum and the ludi. **VOTE FOR EITHER IV.a (LUDI
ALLOWED ON FH) or IV.b (LUDI PROHIBITED ON FH) but not both**
ITEM IV.a: Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and
participation in the ludi
SENATUS CONSULTUM ON THE MEANING OF "INTERNAL AFFAIRS"Â IN RESPECT
OF FORUM HOSPITIUM
I. In respect of Article V of the Senatus consultum "ÂœForum
"Creation of a forum for guests (non-citizens)"Â, the use of the
phrase "Âœinternal affairs"Â shall not prohibit discussion of, or
participation in, a ludi or similar celebration or any competition on
the Forum Hospitium list.
II. Citizens or non-citizens of Nova Roma who are members of the Forum
Hospitium list shall be encouraged by the praetors and the moderators of
Forum Hospitium to participate in such ludi, similar celebrations or
competitions as a means to promote Nova Roma.
III. The praetors and the moderators of Forum Hospitium shall not reject
any post that is solely concerned with such ludi, similar celebrations
or competitions.
IV. The praetors and the moderators of Forum Hospitium shall ensure that
any such post as at section III of this Senatus consultum is approved
for posting in an expeditious manner.
V. The use of the term "Forum Hospitium"Â in this Senatus consultum
shall refer to the list operating under the web address of
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova_Roma_/
<
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova_Roma_/> which is also commonly
referred to, and has been named on the Yahoo! Group page "Forum
Hospitum"Â. For the purpose of this Senatus consultum the term
"Forum Hospitium"Â shall be considered to be interchangeable and one
as the same as "Forum Hospitum"Â.
Voting: 12 (Uti Rogas: 11, Antiquo: 1, Abstineo: 0)
Item IV.a carried.
[CnIC] UTI ROGAS
[MMA] UTI ROGAS
[TGP] UTI ROGAS
[CPD] ANTIQVO. This is the silliest Item I never read in this house. In
both the version this SC summons and forces the future praetores. In the
"a" version the future praetores are summonned to *not reject* any post
on the Ludi and "similar", in the version "b" the future praetores are
summonned to *reject* any post on the Ludi and "similar". That is
stupid. And more, this SC supersede the Constitution in forcing the
future praetores in their management and moderation of the FH when the
current SC gives them the choice to manage and moderate it at their
conveniance and compromise according to the provinces allowed to the
praetores in the Constitution. I think that Cornelia Aeternia is not a
good inspiration for you. Of course, a such Item coming after my
election as praetor, if it passed, will not summon me to respect it. The
laws may not have retroactive effects and the Chess rules does not
change during the game. More, usually one has to vote "yes" or "no" or
"abstain", it is not possible to be forced to vote for only one version
with 2 conflicting versions suggested, when both versions do not follow
the Constitution. It is a gross manoeuvre.
[CTVG] UTI ROGAS
[LCS] VTA ROGAS on A = allowing the Ludi to be on the FH list. This
should be, and always has been a non-issue except that one Praetor has
such a narrow interpretation of the law - one that has never ever been
taken before and so it resides with the Senate to resolve the matter
hopefully for all time. Everyone, citizen or not should be allowed to
view, enjoy and participate in the Ludi.
[SCVIA] UTI ROGAS. I thank the members of the Senate for stepping in to
resolve the impasse my colleague and I find ourselves with . I
understand completely my colleague wishes to follow the law to the
letter as we both should, but on this matter I disagree with him on what
is considered "internal". The Ludi should be available to those who
participate on Nova Roman lists, and people have the right to celebrate
their deities enough said. If we take that away from them, what else
are we going to take away? The direction my colleague wants to take is
in good spirit but will bring much harm in the long term future.
[PUSV] Uti Rogas. Here, I am only aggrieved that our Praetors did not
come to a compromise themselves. I think the Ludi are a good window upon
our culture here in Nova Roma and think they should at least be reported
about in the "outer hall."
[LECA] UTI ROGAS
[MCGG] UTI ROGAS
[GPL] UTI ROGAS
[MCJ] UTI ROGAS
OR
ITEM IV.b: Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. forbidding discussion and
participation in the ludi.
SENATUS CONSULTUM ON THE MEANING OF "ÂœINTERNAL AFFAIRS"Â IN
RESPECT OF FORUM HOSPITIUM
I. In respect of Article V of the Senatus consultum "Forum Creation of a
forum for guests (non-citizens)"Â, the use of the phrase "internal
affairs"Â shall prohibit discussion of, or participation in, a ludi
or similar celebration or any competition on the Forum Hospitium list.
II. The praetors and the moderators of Forum Hospitium shall reject any
post that is concerned in any way with such ludi, similar celebrations
or competitions.
III. The praetors and the moderators of Forum Hospitium shall ensure
that any such post as at section II of this Senatus consultum is
rejected for posting in an expeditious manner.
IV. The use of the term "Forum Hospitium"Â in this Senatus consultum
shall refer to the list operating under the web address of
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova_Roma_/
<
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova_Roma_/> which is also commonly
referred to, and has been named on the Yahoo! Group page "Forum
Hospitum"Â. For the purpose of this Senatus consultum the term
"Forum Hospitium"Â shall be considered to be interchangeable and one
as the same as "Forum Hospitum"Â.
Voting:5 (Uti Rogas: 0, Antiquo: 3, Abstineo: 2)
Item IV.b failed.
[TIS] Antiquo. Here first I have objections about the way the item was
routed and presented, forcing me to decide with an yes or a no to
sub-points and second, I believe we need to learn to respect the
magistrates area of jurisdiction.
[CEC] ANTIQVO - for precisely the same reason as stated for Items I &
III. Let our magistrates do their work and keep the Senate's noses out
of it. We have collegial magistracies precisely because of situations
like this. It doesn't matter if it's frustrating; that's just the way it
goes, and trying to specifically circumvent the collegial system is a
terrible, terrible idea. If the Senate is simply going to decide all
these issues why bother electing magistrates?
[QSP] ABSTINEO.
[QFM] ABSTINEO. We elect magistrates and give them curule authority for
a purpose. If these two feeble minded ego ed out people cannot come to
an agreement, the best thing is retain the status quo and let the next
pair elected decide. It is not our place to do so. Even if we own the
thing. This screw-up is precisely why I have always believed and said
the Senate should over see the main lists. Thanks to the Praetors for
proving my point.
[ATS] Abstineo. Perhaps it is time to revisit the relevant SC (or
whatever) and clarify matters. Likely it needs a tune up for more than
one reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valete optime
Posted by A. Liburnius Hadrianus for V. Æmilia Regilla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
