Tiberius Galerius Paulinus: New page:
{{Senate Session|Dec|5|2000}} Senate action for 5 December 2753 as posted in the “old Tabularium” This appears to be the FIRST Tribune report. Tiberius Gal...

2008-08-09T23:29:44Z

New page: <div class="scriptum"> {{Senate Session|Dec|5|2000}} Senate action for 5 December 2753 as posted in the “old Tabularium” This appears to be the FIRST Tribune report. Tiberius Gal...

New page

<div class="scriptum">

{{Senate Session|Dec|5|2000}}

Senate action for 5 December 2753 as posted in the “old Tabularium”
This appears to be the FIRST Tribune report.
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus, Censor 9 August 2761 A.V.C.

Senatvs Consvlta
Senate Voting Results
5 December MMDCCLIII
as published by tribune Lucius Sergius Australicus

Savete quirites!

COMPLETE Results of Voting on the November Senate Agenda

Proxies for A. Gryllus Graecus and M. Iunius were cast by L. Cornelius
Sulla
Proxies for M. Iucundia Flavia were cast by Q. Fabius Maximus

Item the First.
Reimbursement procedure for Magistrates of Nova Roma
Shall this be done?
L. Cornelius Sulla: No
A. Gryllus Graecis: No
M. Iunius: No
C. Aelius Ericius: No.
M. Cassius Julianus: NO. * The proposed procedure is an excellent start,
but was done in a hurry since there was a "crisis" over Censorial
funding. That has been dealt with in the short term, so there seems to be
time for everyone who has ideas to present them. This can be worked out
and completed next vote.
Patricia Cassia: Uti rogas (yes).
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister: UTI ROGAS. We have to start somewhere on
this, and most of the proposal is perfectly sensible
M. Minucius Audens: NO (Negat)! (I agree with my Colleague Senator
Germanicus that, in my view, to pass a flawed Consultum is far worse than
to wait for a reasonable time to get it right. There is a saying which
applies: "We never have the luxury to get it right the first time, but
always have sufficent resource to correct it!!!" )
C. Tullius Cicero: Negat, this has not been sufficiently discussed.
N. Moravius Vado: NEGAT/ANTIQUO/NO Good in principle, but I cannot
support it as it stands. It needs much more careful, unhurried work,
especially on detailed procedure for claiming, assessing claims,
reimbursement, and audit. I strongly suggest we co-opt a committee, from
citizens with professional experience, and including the Quaestores, for
encoding such procedures as proposed law. Project funding - in fact, the
whole issue of project management - needs a whole manual, not just part
of one Senatus Consultum.
Q. Fabius Maximus: Negat. This procedure was rewritten twice from varius
submissions. It still needs some tweaking. Suggest it is polished and
resubmitted for Dec. Call.
M. Iucundia Flavia: VTI ROGAS I agree with Cassia. We have to start
somewhere. If we keep changing the text, it will never get done.
M. Marcius Rex: NEGAT More time for discussion needed
T. Labienus Fortunatus: NEGAT There is much of value in this proposal,
but the quaestores' role is incorrect.
D. Iunius Palladius: Iunius Palladius votes no
L Equitius Cincinnatus: Antiquo (Negat/NO)
M. Octavius Germanicus: NEGAT. While a procedure is needed, this one has
the Quaestors choosing whether to approve an expense, which is not proper.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus: NEGAT There seem to be both structural and
grammatical errors with this proposal.
YES 3; NO 15; AB 0
ITEM 1 FAILS

Item the Second
It is proposed that Nova Roma enact the following policy on financial
controls
Shall this be done?
L. Cornelius Sulla: Yes
A. Gryllus Graecis: Yes
M. Iunius: Yes
C. Aelius Ericius: Yes.
M. Cassius Julianus: YES.
Patricia Cassia: Uti rogas.
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister: UTI ROGAS. Same points apply
M. Minucius Audens: YES (Vti Rogas)!
C. Tullius Cicero: Vti rogas, there should be a permanent treasury staff.
N. Moravius Vado: NEGAT/ANTIQUO/NO For reasons similar to those stated
above, I cannot give this my approval.
Q. Fabius Maximus: Uti Rogas
M. Iucundia Flavia: VTI ROGAS
M. Marcius Rex: Negat More time for discussion needed
T. Labienus Fortunatus: UTI ROGAS
D. Iunius Palladius: Palladius abstains. I think that we should start
moving control of the
treasury towards a more permanent, professional staff.
L Equitius Cincinnatus: Vti rogas (Yes)
M. Octavius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS
YES 15; NO 2; AB 1;
ITEM 2 PASSES

Item the Third
Legio V Alaudae (The Larks) request Nova Roma Sponsorship
Shall we sponsor the Legio?
L. Cornelius Sulla: Yes
A. Gryllus Graecis: Yes
M. Iunius: Yes
C. Aelius Ericius: Yes.
M. Cassius Julianus: YES. * I also am not overly concerned over having
too many small legions. Sponsoring new startups only gives us an
opportunity to grow Legions which are more connected to Nova Roma, and
made up with a greater percentage of Citizens.
Patricia Cassia: Uti rogas. (While some have expressed concerns about
sponsoring too many small legions, I think this is exactly the purpose of
our sponsorship program - to give these legions a place to find one
another and arrange projects in cooperation.)
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister: UTI ROGAS
M. Minucius Audens: YES (Vti Rogas)!
C. Tullius Cicero: Vti rogas, this is part of our goals.
N. Moravius Vado: UTI ROGAS/YES Though I feel we should not go on to
sponsor an infinity of legiones, as I said earlier, I wish them well.
Q. Fabius Maximus: Uti Rogas. Although we should start thinking of
requesting greater numbers of recruits in legiones before we grant them
sponsorship. Alaudae has a special place in my heart, since it was one
of the first legiones I constructed.
M. Iucundia Flavia: VTI ROGAS
M. Marcius Rex: UTI ROGAS
T. Labienus Fortunatus: UTI ROGAS
D. Iunius Palladius: Palladius votes yes
L Equitius Cincinnatus: Vti rogas (Yes)
M. Octavius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS I had originally suggested the
sponsorship program way back when, and am quite pleased that it is being
continued.
YES 18; NO 0; AB 0;
ITEM 3 PASSES

Item the Fourth.
Incorporation of Switzerland into Province Germania.
Shall we do this?
L. Cornelius Sulla: Yes
A. Gryllus Graecis: Yes
M. Iunius: Yes
C. Aelius Ericius: Yes. * If there is later any objection from Italian,
French or Romany Swiss, we can adjust borders and/or name at that time.
I assume it will be considered the Regio of Helvitia.
M. Cassius Julianus: YES.
Patricia Cassia: Uti rogas, though I wish we had been able to hear from
more actual
Helvetian Citizens before making this choice.
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister: ABSTINEO.
M. Minucius Audens: YES (Vti Rogas)!
C. Tullius Cicero: Vti rogas, I don't see the combination as a problem.
N. Moravius Vado: ABSTINEO/NO VOTE/ABSTAIN Although no French- or
Italian-speaking citizens have objected (I admit I do not know whether
there are any to object), there may be objections in future. Also, as
there is no one in this House to speak for the particular interests of
the cives of Gallia or Italia, I feel unable to support this motion. And
could we give the regio a more Roman name, like Helvetia, please?
Q. Fabius Maximus: Uti Rogas This will set the record straight.
M. Iucundia Flavia: VTI ROGAS Though what about all the French speaking
citizens? When I was there I thought they made up a third of the
population. Do they really want to be part of Germania?
M. Marcius Rex: UTI ROGAS
T. Labienus Fortunatus: UTI ROGAS
D. Iunius Palladius: Palladius votes yes
L Equitius Cincinnatus: Vti rogas (Yes)
M. Octavius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS. Yes, but if a French or
Italian-speaking citizen of Helvetia prefers to be considered part of
Gallia or Italia, I hope the censors would allow that.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS We are merely formally confirming
the status quo.
YES 16; NO O; AB 2;
ITEM 4 PASSES

Item the Fifth,
Certification of the Sodalitus Musarum as a Nova Roman Sodalitus.
Shall we do this?
L. Cornelius Sulla: Yes
A. Gryllus Graecis: Yes
M. Iunius: Yes
C. Aelius Ericius: Yes.
M. Cassius Julianus: YES.
Patricia Cassia: Uti rogas. May the Gods inspire them.
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister: UTI ROGAS
M. Minucius Audens: YES (Vti Rogas)!
C. Tullius Cicero: Vti rogas
N. Moravius Vado: UTI ROGAS/YES This Sodalis will, divis volentibus,
enrich our cultural Romanitas and especially the Religio Romana.
Q. Fabius Maximus: Uti Rogas
M. Iucundia Flavia: VTI ROGAS
M. Marcius Rex: UTI ROGAS
T. Labienus Fortunatus: UTI ROGAS
D. Iunius Palladius: Palladius votes yes
L Equitius Cincinnatus: Vti rogas (Yes)
M. Octavius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS
YES 18; NO 0; AB 0;
ITEM 5 PASSES

Item the Sixth
Quintus Sertorius has asked to be considered for appointment as
Propraetor of Canada Occidentalis.
Shall he be appointed?
L. Cornelius Sulla: Yes
A. Gryllus Graecis: Yes
M. Iunius: Yes
C. Aelius Ericius: Yes. * [Much cheering, fanfares and flower petals!]
M. Cassius Julianus: At last! I vote an enthusiastic YES, and am
gratified that his patience held out long enough to see this done.
Patricia Cassia: Uti rogas. He has shown himself to be enthusiastic,
dedicated and energetic on behalf of Nova Roma.
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister: UTI ROGAS
M. Minucius Audens: YES (Vti Rogas)!
C. Tullius Cicero: Vti rogas, Sertorious is perfect for the position.
N. Moravius Vado: UTI ROGAS/YES He is a man of proven diligence,
enthusiasm, diligence and ability.
Q. Fabius Maximus: Uti Rogas
M. Iucundia Flavia: VTI ROGAS
M. Marcius Rex: UTI ROGAS
T. Labienus Fortunatus: UTI ROGAS
D. Iunius Palladius: Palladius votes yes
L Equitius Cincinnatus: Vti rogas (Yes)
M. Octavius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS. He has worked hard for this, and will
make an excellent praetor.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS
YES 18; N0 0; AB 0;
ITEM 6 PASSES

Item the Seventh
The Praetor of Germania has requested that Senate might approve the
opening
of the Limes Cooperation between the Provinces.
Shall we approve this?
L. Cornelius Sulla: Yes
A. Gryllus Graecis: Yes
M. Iunius: Yes
C. Aelius Ericius: Yes.
M. Cassius Julianus: I vote YES. (And am in agreement that we should be
more proactive and work toward starting such efforts ourselves.)
Patricia Cassia: Uti rogas.
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister: UTI ROGAS
M. Minucius Audens: YES (Vti Rogas)!
C. Tullius Cicero: Abstaino. I am not clear on this issue.
N. Moravius Vado: UTI ROGAS/YES The sharing and emulation of best
practice, and mutual assistance, deserves approval. The Limes
Co-operation facilitates this. I speak from experience.
Q. Fabius Maximus: Uti Rogas
M. Iucundia Flavia: VTI ROGAS
M. Marcius Rex: UTI ROGAS
T. Labienus Fortunatus: UTI ROGAS
D. Iunius Palladius: Palladius votes yes
L Equitius Cincinnatus: Vti rogas (Yes)
M. Octavius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS. Standards are a good thing.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS
YES 17; NO 0; AB 1;
ITEM 7 PASSES

Item the Eighth.
Additional Internal Senate Procedures.
A. The Senate shall conduct its business within full view of the
Citizenry. This will be implemented by allowing all Citizens to read
(but not post on) the Senate e-mail list. Exceptions are provided.
Shall we allow this?
L. Cornelius Sulla: No
A. Gryllus Graecis: No
M. Iunius: No
C. Aelius Ericius: Yes.
M. Cassius Julianus: NO
Patricia Cassia: Uti rogas. It is my understanding that in ancient Rome,
Senate discussions could be heard by (and were regularly discussed by)
Citizens while they were going on. It is also consistent with the idea of
helping Citizens of Nova Roma to feel more involved and to
contribute their knowledge and ideas.
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister: NEGAT. I am persuaded by the arguments of
Australicus on this point.
M. Minucius Audens: NO (Negat)! (I do not believe, in my view, that any
useful information can be gained by the Citizens of Nova Roma from
hearing deliberations on the Senate Floor, and I am likewise absolutely
certain that much harm and confusion would result from such a proposal.
Finally it does not appear to be historically correct. I honor Senator
Fortunatus for his abiliy to look past the immediate discussion, and
pledge to him my support in the future toward keeping the Citizens of
Nova Roma properly informed.)
C. Tullius Cicero: Vti rogas, I am satisfied with the restrictions.
N. Moravius Vado: NEGAT/ANTIQUO/NO As I have said before, if it proves
unworkable, it will be hard to revoke or amend. I would, however, support
any future proposal to allow individual citizens read-only access on
application (especially magistrates and other officials), for a limited
period and to a limited number at any time.
Q. Fabius Maximus: Negat. I have already made my reasons known. If the
Republic didn't do it, why should we? The Senators conducted business
out doors, until they had to debate topics. Then they went inside.
There had to be a reason for this. I think I was so they wouldn't be
intimidated by the populace.
M. Iucundia Flavia: NEGAT It was not done in old Rome. We are
attempting to recreate the Roman republic.
M. Marcius Rex: Negat I bow to Sergius Australicus for his
constitutional law opinion on this particular proposal.
T. Labienus Fortunatus: NEGAT I have, no doubt, surprised many with this
vote. I came into this debate much in favor of the idea, though I had
some slight qualms about the technicalities of its execution. I remain
torn between a desire to provide a transparent government and a wish to
maintain the mos maiorum. I have long argued that one of the major
questions facing Nova Roma is how much to keep of the old versus how much
to add of the new. It is not a question that will be answered quickly or
easily.
Additionally, the major reason that I originally felt that this body's
deliberations should be open to the populace is because of the tendency
to use senatus consulta to decide issues that should be taken before the
comitia. Often, we treat our decisions as though they create law, and we
have occasionally acted as though we have a right to discipline
individual citizens--effectively acting as a closed court in which the
accused is not even assured of being allowed to defend him or her self.
If we take onto ourselves the powers of the comitia, then we must be
exposed to scrutiny and answerable to the people for our decisions.
However, I am heartened by the fact that almost every candidate for major
office has made building the institutions necessary to rectify the
problem of the Senate's arrogation of powers that are not its by right
the center of his or her campaign. Therefore, in light of those campaing
promises, and in an optimistic spirit, I opt to maintain the mos maiorum.
D. Iunius Palladius: Palladius votes no
L Equitius Cincinnatus: Antiquo (Negat/NO)
M. Octavius Germanicus: NEGAT. I refer once again to the line from Twain
(or Bismarck) about sausage-making.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus: NEGAT I am guessing, based on on the votes of
some of my colleagues, that we are to vote individually for each half of
this item. If I am mistaken in this
assumption, then my vote for the combined 8th item is NEGAT. (May I
suggest that in the future such items be split into two for clarity's
sake?)
YES 3; NEGAT 15; AB 0;
ITEM 8A FAILS

B. II. The votes of individual Senators, along with any rationales they
offer with their votes (i.e., in the same e-mail as the vote itself),
will be made available to the Citizens by the Tribunes of the Plebs,
either by forwarding them to the main Nova Roma e-mail list or by
posting them to the Nova Roma web site.
Shall this be done?
L. Cornelius Sulla: Yes
A. Gryllus Graecis: Yes
M. Iunius: Yes
C. Aelius Ericius: Yes.
M. Cassius Julianus: I vote YES, and suggest that there should be a
record of Senate votes posted to the website. No Senator should be
*forced* to explain their vote, but an option for such should definitely
be included.
Patricia Cassia: Uti rogas.
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister: UTI ROGAS.
M. Minucius Audens: YES (Vti Rogas)!
C. Tullius Cicero: Vti rogas
N. Moravius Vado: UTI ROGAS/YES This House as an institution, and many
of its members as individuals, have suffered from an undeservedly
negative perception by the populus. I trust this will go a long way to
remedying the matter.
Q. Fabius Maximus: Uti Rogas. This has always been allowed. Lists were
often put up on the sides of the Rosta so those that could read could
inspect them.
M. Iucundia Flavia: VTI ROGAS
M. Marcius Rex: UTI ROGAS
T. Labienus Fortunatus: UTI ROGAS
D. Iunius Palladius: Palladius votes yes
L Equitius Cincinnatus: Vti rogas (Yes)
M. Octavius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS. Although the process itself should be
conducted in privacy, the people do have a right to know who supports
which items. Even though we are appointed for life, many of us run for
elected office as well, and should therefore be held accountable.
I also believe this to be historically correct, as the Tribunes (and
door-slaves) did inform the people what happened within the Curia.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS As long as this doesn't turn into
the "thin edge of the wedge", I don't see any harm in it. I haven't been
able to find anything that speaks of Senate votes being a secret ballot.
YES 17; NO 1; AB 0;
ITEM 8B PASSES

Item the Ninth.
Change to the Electoral Procedure Re: Multiple Candidates
To ensure a consistent standard for future elections, these two mutually
exclusive proposals are now placed before the Senate:
VOTE FOR BOTH or ABSTAIN.
A. "One Vote"
L. Cornelius Sulla: Yes
A. Gryllus Graecis: Yes
M. Iunius: Yes
C. Aelius Ericius: No.
M. Cassius Julianus: A. One vote. Octavius has made an excellent case
for this.
Patricia Cassia: A. One vote. I am persuaded by Octavius' arguments on
behalf of historical accuracy.
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister: UTI ROGAS. I am persuaded here by the
argument for consistency with Roma Antiqua and by the immediate
practicalities. I do think, however, that it is unfortunate that we have
attempted to have a full number of Centuries with a small number of
citizens. This rather destroys the point of the Century system,
irrespective of the silly results of treating a century as "tied" when
one citizen votes.
M. Minucius Audens: YES (Vti Rogas)!
C. Tullius Cicero: Negat. If there is more than one selection there must
be more than one vote to reflect the opinion of the citizen.
N. Moravius Vado: NEGAT/ANTIQUO/NO People have a right to vote for as
many candidacies as there are posts to be filled. Votes will be spoiled
as a result of misunderstandings. This will be contentious. Ancient
practice is not always best practice.
Q. Fabius Maximus: Uti Rogas. We do have to come up with a better system
eventually.
M. Iucundia Flavia: NEGAT This is not a full vote. It is half a vote.
Why should the citizens stand for that?
M. Marcius Rex: UTI ROGAS
T. Labienus Fortunatus: UTI ROGAS
D. Iunius Palladius: Palladius votes **NO** on this item, which should
more properly be
called the "half a vote per voter proposal."
L Equitius Cincinnatus: Vti rogas (Yes)
M. Octavius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS. This fixes a flaw in our system in a
historically correct way. Each person selects *one* candidate for consul
or praetor, just as our ancestors did. A beneficial effect of this is
that both competing viewpoints will be represented in the Consulate, and
the consuls will serve as controls on each others power -- as the
founders of the Republic intended.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS My arguments in favor of this
option have already been presented.
YES 13; NO 5; AB 0;
ITEM 9A PASSES

B. "Multiple Votes, Ties Awarded to All"
L. Cornelius Sulla: No
A. Gryllus Graecis: No
M. Iunius: No
C. Aelius Ericius: Yes.
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister: NEGAT, for the reasons above
M. Minucius Audens: NO (Negat)!
C. Tullius Cicero: Vti rogas, as above.
N. Moravius Vado: UTI ROGAS/YES It has been said that this system would
favour political parties. There are no political parties in NR. May the
gods spare us that! It has been said that this system gives people more
than one vote for each candidate. Mea sententia, it is better to give the
voters more votes than they ought to have, rather than deny them the
votes they ought to have.
Q. Fabius Maximus: Negat. Too many potental problems though I liked the
effort.
M. Iucundia Flavia: VTI ROGAS What problems? People get to vote for who
they want. Isn't this what it is all about?
M. Marcius Rex: NEGAT
T. Labienus Fortunatus: NEGAT A very good try, M Octavius.
D. Iunius Palladius: Palladius votes YES
L Equitius Cincinnatus: Absto (abstain)
M. Octavius Germanicus: NEGAT. It seemed like a good idea at first,
mathematically and logically sound, but it is not historically correct,
it also encourages factionalism by allowing an entire "party" to be voted
in, and it changes the balance of power by allowing some votes to be
counted twice.
YES 5; NO 10; AB 3;
ITEM 9B FAILS

Item the tenth
Addition of a Third Rogator.
To include a third elected or appointed Rogator, with only two needed to
oversee the electoral process.
The third to act as backup
Shall this be done?
L. Cornelius Sulla: Yes*My comments on this proposal is that it should
be taking to the Comitia and the Lex Vedia amended. Otherwise according
to the Legal precedence
section in the Constitution, this Senatus Consulta means very little.
A. Gryllus Graecis: Yes
M. Iunius: Yes
C. Aelius Ericius says: It would help the Republic to function if we
had a couple
of spares for this highly essential post. We should so recommend this to
the Comitia.
M. Cassius Julianus: I vote YES. I also agree with Germanicus that there
should actually be *four* trained Rogators at any time as opposed to
three.
Patricia Cassia: Assuming this is actually a recommendation to the
Comitia rather than an attempt to overturn a Lex (which we can't do), Uti
rogas.
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister: UTI ROGAS - provided that this is to be
understood as a recommendation for legislation, not as an
unconstitutional attempt to amend a lex by s.c.
M. Minucius Audens: NO (Negat)! (The item is not worded properly to be
voted upon by this August Body. A change in the proper Lex should be
submitted for approval and then voted upon by the people. Again, in my
view, a flawed Consultum is worse than no decision at all.)
C. Tullius Cicero: Vti rogas
N. Moravius Vado: UTI ROGAS/YES
If the Senate is entitled to co-opt a Dictator in an emergency, it would
seem absurd for the Senate not to take ythe initiative to co-opt back-up
Rogatores (I would favour two), when the machinery of government is in
danger of breaking down. Consul Q. Fabius has every right to feel
exasperated. So do I. A general agreement to bend the rules of the
Constitution in cases such as those we have experienced this year, when
the Comitia cannot work and elections cannot be held is, I believe, fully
pardonable when a shortcoming in the Constitution has us backed into a
Catch-22 situation.
It is the spirit of the law, not the letter of it, which is important at
times like these. So I am voting for something that is unconstitutional
and therefore (technically) illegal. I hope it is the last time I shall
feel I need to do such a thing. I hope this passes the vote, and goes to
the Comitia for ratification (assuming we have enough Rogatores to allow
this to happen).
Q. Fabius Maximus: I say yes it should be done and sent to the Comitia
for ratification.
The Consules will write a lex and put it to the people next week.
M. Iucundia Flavia: NEGAT It is unconstitutional as written.
M. Marcius Rex: UTI ROGAS I concur with Senator Labienus on this issue
T. Labienus Fortunatus: UTI ROGAS I agree to this only inasmuch as we
shall secure a replacement for either of the two elected rogatores in
anticipation of the eventuality that one of them may prematurely lay down
the task. We do not have the power to alter a lex, and I urge the
consules to draft an appropriate lex and put it before the people during
the upcoming election.
D. Iunius Palladius: Palladius votes NO
L Equitius Cincinnatus: Antiquo (Negat/No) As Germanicus pointed out this
is not something we can do, but I do think this should be something that
is on the first comtia call.
M. Octavius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS. I am aware that the lex specifies two
Rogators; therefore the third must be strictly considered a backup, who
will assume the position when one of the primaries fails to fulfill their
duty.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus: NEGAT The Senate lacks the legal authority to
alter a Lex. The item, as presented, is unconstitutional in my opinion.
If it does pass, I would urge the Tribunes to exercise their power of
intercessio in such cases. (I would absolutely support a Senatus
Consultum that urges the Lex be amended by the Assembly...)
YES 13; NO 5; AB 0;
ITEM 10 PASSES LEX TO BE SENT TO THE COMITIA

Item the eleventh
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo requests to be Propraetor of Canada Orientalis.
Shall we allow her?
L. Cornelius Sulla: Yes
A. Gryllus Graecis: Yes
M. Iunius: Yes
C. Aelius Ericius: Yes.
M. Cassius Julianus: I vote YES. Pompeia Cornelia Strabo has proven
herself to be both dedicated and enthusiastic. I believe Nova Roma will
benefit greatly by having her in this office.
Patricia Cassia: Uti rogas. Pompeia Cornelia is a thoughtful and mature
person who will represent us well.
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister: UTI ROGAS
M. Minucius Audens: YES (Vti Rogas)!
C. Tullius Cicero: Vti rogas, Cornelia is well suited to the position. I
am pleased to see both Canadian positions will be filled for the first
time.
N. Moravius Vado: UTI ROGAS/YES She is as worthy of the office as Q.
Sertorius is of that of Propraetor Canadae Occidentalis, for the same
reasons.
Q. Fabius Maximus: Vti Rogas. Though is it my imagination or are most of
the Cornelii
Provincial Praetors?
M. Iucundia Flavia: VTI ROGAS
M. Marcius Rex: UTI ROGAS
T. Labienus Fortunatus: UTI ROGAS
D. Iunius Palladius: Palladius votes yes
L Equitius Cincinnatus: Vti rogas (Yes)
M. Octavius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS
YES 18; NO 0; AB 0;
ITEM 11 PASSES

Item the Twelfth.
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus requests the creation of a province called
Argentina and requests the Provincial Praetorship.
Shall we create the Province?
C. Aelius Ericius: Yes.
M. Cassius Julianus: I vote YES, although I agree that the province
should be called Argentinia.
Patricia Cassia: Uti rogas (though I am with Germanicus in wishing it
were called Argentinia).
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister: UTI ROGAS
C. Tullius Cicero: Vti rogas.
N. Moravius Vado: UTI ROGAS/YES Although I think it is more a matter of
the Senate approving what has already been created.
Q. Fabius Maximus: Uti Rogas.
M. Iucundia Flavia: VTI ROGAS
M. Marcius Rex: UTI ROGAS
T. Labienus Fortunatus: UTI ROGAS
D. Iunius Palladius: Palladius votes yes
L Equitius Cincinnatus: Vti rogas (Yes)
M. Octavius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS
YES 18; NO 0; AB 0;
ITEM 12a PASSES

Shall we make him the Provincial Praetor?
L. Cornelius Sulla: Yes
A. Gryllus Graecis: Yes
M. Iunius: Yes
C. Aelius Ericius: Yes.
M. Cassius Julianus: YES
Patricia Cassia: Uti rogas.
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister: UTI ROGAS
M. Minucius Audens: YES (Vti Rogas)!
C. Tullius Cicero: Vti rogas.
N. Moravius Vado: UTI ROGAS/YES
Q. Fabius Maximus: Uti Rogas
M. Iucundia Flavia: VTI ROGAS
M. Marcius Rex: UTI ROGAS
T. Labienus Fortunatus: UTI ROGAS
D. Iunius Palladius: Palladius votes yes
L Equitius Cincinnatus: Vti rogas (Yes)
M. Octavius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus: VTI ROGAS
YES 18; NO 0; AB 0;
ITEM 12b PASSES

Senator A. Probus cast the following votes too late to count:
Alexander Probus:
Item I - No
Item II -Yes
Item III - Yes
Item IIII - Yes
Item V - Yes
Item VI - Yes
Item VII - Yes
Item VIII - A - No
- B - Yes
Item VIIII - A - Yes
- B - No
Item X - Yes
Item XI - Yes
Item XII - Yes (with an additional note)
According to the last item I would like to post a question. What if few
years after we will have other citizens in Chile, Uruguai, Paraguai and
Bolivia? Will we create separate provinces for every national country or
will try to simpliify the things uniting some of them into one NR
province.
My opinion is to createa province with a different name than one national
state in the regio. That name may to be acceptable for the potential
citizens from all the national states in the regio. On the other hand
Argentina is a very big country so she could be a separate province. I
would
like to hear opinions on that issue of colleagues more experienced with
the
situation of America Australis.

End of voting record

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Valete,

Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Tribunus Plebis

12/05/2000

</div>

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:27, 26 June 2024
Line 857:		Line 857:

	</div>		</div>
		+	[[Category:Senate sessions (Nova Roma)]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:19, 7 January 2010
Line 358:		Line 358:


−	==~~Item the Seventh The Praetor~~ of ~~Germania has requested that Senate might approve the~~	+	=='''7. Approval of a "Limes Cooperation" between the Provinces'''==
−	~~opening of the~~ Limes Cooperation between the Provinces==	+
−		+

	===Proposal===		===Proposal===

Session XXV 05 December 2753 - Revision history

Decimus Aurelius Ingeniarius: Added SS cat

Publius Memmius Albucius: /* Results */

Publius Memmius Albucius at 23:15, 7 January 2010

Publius Memmius Albucius at 22:37, 7 January 2010

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus at 23:52, 9 August 2008

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus: New page:
{{Senate Session|Dec|5|2000}} Senate action for 5 December 2753 as posted in the “old Tabularium” This appears to be the FIRST Tribune report. Tiberius Gal...

Session XXV 05 December 2753 - Revision history

Decimus Aurelius Ingeniarius: Added SS cat

Publius Memmius Albucius: /* Results */

Publius Memmius Albucius at 23:15, 7 January 2010

Publius Memmius Albucius at 22:37, 7 January 2010

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus at 23:52, 9 August 2008

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus: New page: {{Senate Session|Dec|5|2000}} Senate action for 5 December 2753 as posted in the “old Tabularium” This appears to be the FIRST Tribune report. Tiberius Gal...

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus: New page:
{{Senate Session|Dec|5|2000}} Senate action for 5 December 2753 as posted in the “old Tabularium” This appears to be the FIRST Tribune report. Tiberius Gal...