Publius Memmius Albucius: New page: '''Fl. Galerius Aurelianus''' Tribunus Plebis omnibus s.d. The Senate was called into session at 11.00 hour (CET) on 9 Oct. 2762, with discussions continuing until approximately sunset in...

2010-01-12T13:16:10Z

New page: '''Fl. Galerius Aurelianus''' Tribunus Plebis omnibus s.d. The Senate was called into session at 11.00 hour (CET) on 9 Oct. 2762, with discussions continuing until approximately sunset in...

New page

'''Fl. Galerius Aurelianus''' Tribunus Plebis omnibus s.d.

The Senate was called into session at 11.00 hour (CET) on 9 Oct. 2762, with
discussions continuing until approximately sunset in Rome (17.00 hrs CET) on 13
Oct. 2762.

Voting on the Agenda began in the second hour at 06.45 hrs CET on 14 Oct. 2762
and concluded at 17.00 hrs CET on 18 Oct. 2762.

"VTI ROGAS" indicates a vote in favor of an item,
"ANTIQVO" is a vote against,
"ABSTINEO" is an open abstention.

The following 27 Senatores voted in the current session:

MCC Marcus Curiatius Complutensis
LCSF Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
CCS C. Curius Saturninus
TGP Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
MIP M. Iulius Perusianus
GEC Gaius Equitius Cato
PMA Publius Memmius Albucius
MAM Marcus Arminius Maior
MHM Marca Hortensia Maior
GIC Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
MIS M. Iulius Severus
QSP Quintus Suetonius Paulinus
CFBQ Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
GEM Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
ATS A. Tullia Scholastica
GVA Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
PUSV Publius Ullerus Stephanus Venator
TIS T. Iulius Sabinus
CFBM Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
EIL Equestria Iunia Laeca
MMPH M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
QFM Quintus Fabius Maximus
FGA Flavius Galerius Aurelianus
CFD Caius Flavius Diocletianus
DIPI Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus
MLA Marcus Lucretius Agricola
ECF Emilia Curia Finnica

The following 3 Senators did not cast a vote, and their absence was not
announced or justified in line with the Senatus Consultum defining a quorum and
the LEX OCTAVIA DE SENATORIBUS:
*CMM: C. Marius Merullus
*FCA: Fr. Apulius Caesar
*AMA: Arn. Moravia Aurelia

<br>
=='''Item I - Waiving for M. Minucius Audens the 90 days period after resignation'''==
<br>

===Proposal===

M. Minucius Audens resigned his citizenship and all his offices including his
seat in the Nova Roman Senate. Under the terms of the Lex Minucia Moravia de
civitate eiuranda former citizens must wait ninety days before they can be
reinstated, unless the Senate waives the return period.

Following a request from Censor Ti. Galerius Paulinus, the Consuls request the
Senate of Nova Roma to waive the ninety day waiting period and to return M.
Minucius Audens to Nova Roman citizenship.

===Results===

23 UR; 4 ANT; 0 ABS: Item I has '''passed'''.

=='''Item II - New internal rules for the Senate: moderation of the contiones and no discussion during the vote period==
<br>

===Proposal===

In recent times the Senate list has been becoming a tacky place for
discussion, where everybody seems to feel authorized to attack and insult
everybody.

To avoid this situation, the Consuls propose the establishment of some minimum
standards.
- The Senate list must be under the moderation control of the Consuls.
- The Contio will be moderated. Each Senator shall have her or his respective
turns for speech and replies according to the traditions followed in ancient
Rome. So nobody can monopolize the Senate rostrum and become the center of all
debates.
- The Senate list will be closed between sessions. If the Senatores would like
to discuss Nova Roma matters, they can do this in private or in other forums.
- Discussions will be not allowed during the voting time.
- Off topic messages during contio or voting time will be rejected.

===Results===

13 UR, 13 ANT, 1 ABS: Item II has '''failed'''.

===Votes and discussions on '''both items'''===

MCC
Item I: Antiqvo. I am against the exception to the general rule.

Item II: Vti Rogas. We need order in our Senate meetings.

LCSF
Item I: Vti Rogas. This is probably the best item these consuls have
presented to the Senate.

Item II: Antiqvo. And this is probably the worst item presented by the
consuls. The same consul who has utterly diminished the office of the consulship
no less. Given the sockpuppet issue. Yeah, lets give the consuls more authority.
Let them determine free speech for them, but not for anyone else who disagrees
with them. So, dictatorial. If this item passes, I will look forward to the law
of unintended consequences.

CCS
Item I: Antiqvo. I have always been for mercy and against unnecessary rules, but
I have now realized that I have been too liberal in this. Allowing Cato to
return was a huge mistake. Perhaps if he would have had to wait the normal
period he would have acted differently. I don't want to see same again. Let
Audens wait the time he should and calm down.

Item II: Vti Rogas. Much need change. Senate session list is not a chatroom.

TGP
Item I: Vti Rogas. Senator Audens is the type of person who the exception rule
was written for. I respectfully request that all Senators to vote to restore
Senator Audens to citizenship. As I said before Senator Audens will be the last
person I will ask the Senate to approve an exception for.

Item II: Antiqvo. For over ten years this Senate list has been open between
sessions for any Senator to bring before this body any subject that a Senator
may choose to address. The items discussed still must make their way on to the
Consuls agenda before a formal vote can be taken. If it is a good idea it usual
does, if not, not. I believe that an open Senate list has served us well in all
of this time and I am firmly against this proposal in its entirety.
If an individual Senator or a group of Senators do not want to receive
messages between sessions they can simply change their own Yahoo setting for
this list to digest only. Those Senators who wish to discuss an item would be
free to do so.
Nova Roma needs more free and open discussions not less.
During a formal session of the Senate the Consuls get to invite anybody they
like to address this house and they set the agenda. Those Senators who wish to
remain after a session to discuss whatever should be allowed to do so. By
keeping this list open we have a permanent record of these informal discussions
and can use these to determine if a given idea has merit or not.
The Consuls are already moderators of this list per an agreement made during
Censor Modianus Consulship on list ownership and moderation. The Senate list
should remain under the ownership and lead moderation of the Censors as the
Consuls have enough to do and enough power over this house as it is. The
moderation of this house by the Censors,with the occasional assistance of the
Consuls is one more check and balance within our system.
I see no need to change what has worked for over ten years. For the record, both
public and private, I have to add that I believe this recommendation of the
Consuls is one more grab for power and another effort to silence anybody who has
an opinion different than theirs.
It should also be noted that this is the first pair of Consuls in Nova Roman
history to have ask for the ability to silence the Senate in their own house.
Consuls like Modianus and myself never asked for it. Consuls dealing with a
civil war back in 1998 did not request it. For ten years no other Consuls have
asked for this.
I respectfully ask that ALL Senators vote against this measure for the freedom
of speech you save today will be your own.

MIP : Item I and II: UR.

GEC
Item I: Vti Rogas. I do not understand why some people keep referring to this
issue as if it is contrary to the law; the law has this clause specifically to
enable this House to use its authority in precisely this manner. Allowing the
waiver of the 90-day period IS PART of the law, not an "exception" to it or even
particularly extraordinary.

Item II: Antiqvo. The senators Iunius Paladius, Galerius Paulinus, and Iulius
Caesar have expressed the matter to perfection.
ADDENDUM to my comments on Item II, which I would like to put on record:
There is constant reference to the Senate House in Roma Antiqua being
"closed"; when I asked for specific primary sources to support this claim, none
were given. In Roma Antiqua, the Senate could meet in any number of buildings or
places, and did so. This is *not* an ancient practice, and to claim that it was
for political purposes - is a gross misrepresentation of history.

PMA
Item I: Vti Rogas, in the unmodified frame of my general position and
considering that Lex Minucia Moravia de civitate eiuranda itself allows (VIII.B)
an exception whowe [sic] application is then decided by the senate. M. Minucius
Audens, by his cursus and his realizations for the republic, is among the few
ones who deserve such an exception.

Item II: Vti Rogas. Our Senate must work as a true senatus romanus, under the
watching of its presiding magistrates, with sessions where people may speak in,
and off-sessions times, as in Ancient Rome, where the Curia is closed and
several other places are available to senators for political discussions.

MAM
Item I: Vti Rogas.

Item II:Abstineo.

MHM
Item I: Vti Rogas. For Senator Audens an exception should be made, he deserves
it.

Item II: Vti Rogas. The Curia must be closed between sessions as was done in
Roma Antiqua. It is appalling when senators ignore the calendar, the PM who
reminds them and chat in the Curia on days when they should be celebrating the
feria. Our ancestors put the gods first; so must we.

GIC
Item I: Vti Rogas.

Item II: Antiqvo. I said to some that "the first item needs no comment, and the
second item deserves no comment". By that I mean that the first item is
self-evident and the second , this item, not really a practical solution and
therefore barely worth the effort of reply. Yet having read some of the comments
here, I see why my good friend Palladius did comment.
I too wouldn't have a problem with this, if this Senate was a functional body
with a capacity and willingness to debate issues. A certain amount of insults,
rock throwing and banter in posts is to be expected and if one has the proper
perspective this shouldn't cause any more discomfort than a raindrop on the end
of your nose, as long as the quantity is in moderation though. This isn't the
case. Emotions run rampant all the time. Rarely can this house focus on an issue
and dissect it and debate it, without succumbing to irrational fears, ludicrous
allegations, and a general breakdown of common sense. Also, this Senate does not
meet in a physical sense and therefore using the argument that the ancient Roman
Senate met in locations sanctioned by religious ceremony to imply that somehow
this non-physical list in cyber space can somehow be designated in the same way,
and the same prohibitions apply, is ludicrous.
I know that it is common-place to claim that the doom of Nova Roma is imminent -
largely as a result of the discord here, and that "something must be done".
Nonsense. Nova Roma will survive as it always has done. So what if some people
quit the arena in a huff? That happens all the time, and frequently they come
back, sometimes within days and they come from all sides of the political
spectrum (well it would be days assuming we get the chance to vote on it
promptly of course). Those that don't come back will be replaced. These are
personal choices to stay or quit and most times they are fueled by emotional
reactions. You can't legislate the causes of these incidents of quitting out of
existence, for they are infinite and you can't legislate against personalities
prone to this. Clearly many of you think the same way, even if you don't know
it, for one person who provided an essential service - Octavius - departed
without much hair pulling from some in office this year. As we have seen, this
was someone who helped glue Nova Roma together (and we are currently obviously
working out how to fill his very big pair of shoes - without any imminent signs
of success I might add), as the majority of its business and future still rests
in cyberspace, however much some of you may want to downplay that. If he can
depart with barely a squeak of protest then the claims that people may leave and
the house of cards will come tumbling down seems somewhat selective. I suppose
people who say that doom is imminent really mean they or their friends will
quit, if they really mean it at all and aren't simply using it as a convenient
device to stir up public sentiment (rarely happens as the silent majority on the
Main List remain silent) and create an atmosphere of fear, in order to nullify
their political opponents. I see this proposal as either a reaction by one side
to the opposition of the other, borne out of frustration and a complete loss of
direction and control (which is really what this is about I suspect), or a
deliberate effort to
nullify their opponents. The supporting arguments are unconvincing. You want
peace in this house? Start to debate issues. Start to dialogue with your
opponents to secure your legislation. Do something really original and
negotiate, in advance of putting changes to the people. Ensure you can pass
constitutional changes before you bother us all with them, through the simple
device of calculating support and taking steps to secure support if you don't
initially have enough. Peace won't come by shutting down the one place where
dialogue needs to happen, before, during and after formal sessions.
Until many of you stop proclaiming the doom of Nova Roma is imminent unless
measures like this are passed, until you cease the rather uninspiring and dull
insults (at least be witty or cuttingly sarcastic instead of the witless
gibbering about "rats" and the rest of the usual drivel that passes for an
intelligent insult) and until you decide to give value to your proposals by
negotiating for them, rather than turning up your noses at talking to your
opponents, until all that happens this proposal can only be seen as either a
forlorn hope to regain control of the situation by suppressing the very dialogue
that is needed, or, an attempt to squash dissent. Neither option is worth
supporting. One last thought, as with all repressive acts this could one day
come back to bite all of you who support it, for it is predicated on having
consuls you as individual Senators trust at the helm. One day you may find
yourself facing two consuls who abuse the powers proposed. A shocking concept I
know, entirely unknown in Nova Roma of course, but it may happen. Some may say
it will happen, as sure as the sun rising and setting, and then what? By then it
will be too late, having gifted so much power over this house, a house barely
able to function. Stop looking to others to solve the problem and solve it
individually.
We need a collective resolve to solve our own issues, not a consular nanny
service, putting us all to bed with no tea for being bad children.

MIS
Item I: Antiqvo. I think that besides the merits of a person, we must stop
granting exceptions.

Item II: Vti Rogas. The Senate has a purpose and a dignitas. The kind of
conversations that we have witnessed lately is not for this House. We have
several fora and we could create more, if needed.

QSP
Item I: Vti Rogas. Senator Audens is the backbones of Nova Roma as I
previously mentioned and I do not hesitate to have him re-instated.

Item II: Antiqvo. I respectfully ask that ALL Senators vote against this measure
for the freedom of speech you save today will be your own. I agree with Censor
Tiberi and could not have said this better myself.

CFBQ
Item I: Vti Rogas. I agree that M. Minucius Audens, is among the few who deserve
this an exception, especially considering the circumstances during the decision
to resign.

Item II: Vti Rogas. I have been active in democratic assemblies since my teens
and the bullies always thrive when there are no rules and the one who screams
the loudest will always be the one who dominate the debate climate if
discussions are not structured. As a chairman of many assemblies I would never
tolerate the chaos that is the Nova Roman Senate. Those who teach how to lead
democratic assemblies would just shake their heads to our Senate. With this
proposal we may see more serious debate.

GEM
Item I: Vti Rogas. If Marcus Audens isn't deserving of an exception in this
case, nobody is, ever was, or ever will be.

Item II: Vti Rogas. If the members of this Senate conducted themselves as
senators ought, this measure would not be necessary. However, they do not, and
thus it is.

ATS
Item I (restoration of M. Minucius Audens' citizenship): Vti rogas. I, too, do
not favor making exceptions the rule, but occasionally one should indeed make
exceptions. This is one such case.

Item II (new rules for the Senate): Antiqvo. While there are certainly members
of this body who, like a student who just expelled himself before we did,
require considerable external control as they are unable to restrain themselves,
it seems excessive to impose this on all members of this body. Moreover, closing
the curia (better known as its mailing list) while the Senate is out of session
is counterproductive, and if anything, gives the consules more power as no one
could speak up in between sessions. Perhaps certain members who are prone to
emotional outbursts and the like should be moderated, but to me it is offensive
for all of us to be dealt with as if we were naughty children or feeling the
effects of excessive indulgence in assorted psychotropic drugs. The same could
also be said about unjust moderation elsewhere.

GVA
Item I: Uti rogas.

Item II: Antiquo.

PUSV
Item I: Vti Rogas!!! If we can not welcome Marcus Minucius Audens back, a
gesture we should have made much, much sooner, then perhaps the critics are
correct and Nova Roma is mortally wounded.

Item II: Antiqvo. I have been reading both historical and well-researched
historical, fictional accounts recently; the Senate Antiqua was, to my eyes, a
rather rough house. I also agree that no
documentation has been promulgated that supports closing this email list and
allowing any "gagging" between or during sessions.

TIS
Item I: Vti Rogas. I think that M. Minucius Audens represent one of the few
exceptions I can take in consideration when it comes about to waive the ninety
day waiting period. That because his contributions to Nova Roma are
unquestionable and greatest than the effects of his decision. My expectation is
as M. Minucius to follow the romanitas he usually shows us and to wait ninety
days as any ordinary citizen and to take the responsibility of his decision,
despite what Censor Ti.
Galerius, in his well known style entering nose in other people business,
proposed to this August Body. It's up to M. Minucius.

Item II: Antiqvo. I paid attention to all what my colleagues said about this
item. Indeed, for some Senators, is necessary more discipline and focus to the
specific subject of the items presented during the debates time of the sessions.
It's normal as this to be accomplished through their own efforts as a continue
process of understanding of the Roman moral values.
With all of these, in the current political climate of Nova Roma, this item
sounds to me not as a regulation of the Senate debates but as a restriction of
the freedom of speech. The health of a Republic consists in the powerful voice
of the political opposition. Without that opposition there is not any correct
development and democratic progress.

CFBM
Item I: Vti Rogas. I think Audens should wait the 90 days, what is the rush?
However, because of his accomplishments to Nova Roma an exception seems
appropriate. Let his departure and desire to return a testament to thinking
before acting.

Item II: Vti Rogas. I'm not absolutely sure we need this proposal, but our
dysfunctional culture needs to change and this might work. If it doesn't I'll
gladly vote to have it removed.

EIL
Item I: Vti Rogas. Seven months ago, this body waived the waiting period for a
senator who resigned out of anger. At that time, it was obvious that this
exception to the law was flawed. It provided
senators the ability to decide, solely based on their personal feelings for the
resigned person, whether or not the true purpose and intent of the law should be
enforced.
The senator who resigned this time, did so out of a feeling of hopelessness
mainly due to the lack of civility in this body. Marcus Minucius Audens has been
one of our longest serving citizens and
senators, and has contributed an enormous amount of time, energy and talent to
growing and shaping this organization. Furthermore, his consistent good faith
efforts have earned him the well deserved reputation of being one of the most
honored and trusted of Nova Romans.
This law should be modified to ensure that it can be applied fairly to all
citizens. However, at this time, if any exception should be made under the
current law, it should be made for someone as vital to Nova Roma as this
citizen. Therefore, I am in favor of waiving the waiting period for Marcus
Minucius Audens.

Item II: Antiqvo. As the Senate is the governing body of this organization,
there needs to be a line of communication open to its' members at all times in
order to monitor the routine policies, actions
and affairs of the state. However, I am in favor of placing those members unable
to conduct themselves with decorum, especially with regard to controlling their
emotions, be placed on moderation for a time to ensure that discussions do not
devolve into unproductive or damaging rhetoric.

MMPH
ITEM I: Adsentior uti rogas. I agree entirely with Senator Palladius on this
Item. Provision was made for the Senate to allow exceptions, and if Senator
Audens is not worthy of an exception, then no one in this chamber should be
considered worthy.

ITEM II: Assentior uti rogas. There have been attempts made to have the Senate
accept some code of conduct that would make our discussions here more civil.
Rather ironically, those efforts have been led for the most part by Senator
Audens whom we now consider
to rejoin us. He has been opposed by the worst offenders, claiming that it is
their right to say whatever they wish, to whomever, about whoever, in any manner
that is suited to the gutters of society. This Senate is not the Back Alley. We
should never have allowed the list for this august body to have fallen to such a
state as breeds divisive factionalism. Those opposed to this measure as they
see it aimed directly at their own abuses, are now joined by others with a
reasoned concern that this Senate rule would be used to squelch dissenting
opinions in the Senate. I think not. The aim is to make our discussions more
orderly, under a model similar to that used by the Senate of Roma antiqua. It
will allow all sides to voice their opinion so that all members may weigh the
arguments given for or against an Item, and without all the fruitless exchanges
of vile insults and counter insults, threats, lies, fabrications, and hyperbole
aimed to disrupt discussions. I do not deny the concern expressed by some for
the possible abuse of this Senate rule. Yet I believe we are all aware of this
potential and thus shall guard against it, because no matter what side our
individual members may consider themselves on, we share in the value of reasoned
arguments freely presented. I believe that this Senate rule can be used to much
improve communication within the Senate, and thus overcome the recent
factionalism and build bridges between sides based on mutual respect.

QFM
Item I: Vti Rogas. Conscript Fathers, it is obvious that this law is flawed.
While I understand people needing to get away from Nova Roma, because of
personal crises, illness or work, to punish them because of this seems spiteful
and asinine, not worthy of a Nova Roma which preaches tolerance to all.
Senators that leave usually have a damn good reason to do so, and once whatever
was forcing them to be inactive in NR is resolved they should have the ability
to decide when they are ready to return. I remind the Conscript Fathers that
membership to the marble bench is not elected by the people, but an assigned
honor solely based on their merit, so the Roman people are not being
disappointed by their elected choice. Marcus Minucius Audens explained why he
left. The Senate must decide if we wish to re admit him to our ranks at this
time. I say yes. I agree with Iulia Laeca that this lex needs to be modified.

Item II: Antiqvo. We got along fine for X years without such. Why now? There is
a need for lines of communication open to the Senate members so all can discuss
if necessary the affairs of Nova Roma. Rhetoric was a part of the speaker's
weapons, and we are not all stupid Yes men to the Consules, we all have our
opinions and we retain our right to express those. If I did not know better I'd
say that this was a veiled attempt to censor outspoken Senators. But
I know better. So, we don't need this. Peer pressure is more then enough to keep
the occasional boisterous Senator in line.

FGA
Item I: Antiqvo.

Item II: Vti Rogas.

CFD
Item I: Vti Rogas.

Item II: Antiqvo.

DIPI
Item I: Vti rogas. I usually am against exceptions and have voted against them
in the past. I voted against Cato's exception, unlike many of the people who are
now choosing badly and voting against Audens because they believe they made the
wrong choice then. One must be able to show discernment and weigh the choices.
We have exceptions for a reason, so that in extraordinary circumstances or for
extraordinary people we may break usual practice. If Marcus Audens is not worthy
of an exception, is not one of those exceptional Nova Romans, then not a single
person in this body, not a single person in Nova Roma, is worthy.

Item II: Antiqvo. If I thought this was being proposed out of concern for the
Senate I would vote for it. I am not blind to the puerile behavior of people of
every faction in these "chambers," especially of late, but let's be honest with
ourselves. This is not a chamber of any kind but an email list and thus prone to
the abuse of those who run it.
My fear, which is quite probably justified, is that this item is not proposed
out of any concern for the well being of the Senate or Nova Roma but rather it
is meant to stifle dissenting voices and discussion of any kind, ESPECIALLY
since part of the proposal states that senators will be moderated even during
the contio. That is going too far. A vote for this item would be a vote to
damage the Senate and Nova Roma.
No legislative or deliberative body in the world, especially the ancient Roman
senate, would put up with such a restriction. The ancient Senate was a pretty
rough and raucous place, our Senate is quite tame by comparison in tone and
language.
These rules would in essence mean that every post would have to be approved by
the presiding magistrate before they could be posted. Just think. If this were
done in person each senator would have to quietly go up to the consuls, give
them a copy of his remarks, and have them approved before he could speak. No
senator should agree to put up with this! No other deliberative or legislative
body would put up with it either unless in a dictatorship. This proposal is
anathema to free speech.
As far as the so-called religious arguments brought up for forbidding casual
conversations between sessions, they are straw men and not very substantial ones
at that. Any religious restrictions--none of which are listed as a reason for
this proposal--only apply to meetings of the Senate. They do not apply to casual
conversations on this email list between sessions. There has to be an open line
of communications among members of the BOD.

MLA
Item I and II: UR.

Please record my votes on all items exactly the same as those of Princeps
Senatus Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus. With apologies to all members, I am now
attending a conference and cannot devote more time.

ECF
Item I and II: UR.

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:07, 7 July 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	{{HistoricalDocument}}
	'''Fl. Galerius Aurelianus''' Tribunus Plebis omnibus s.d.		'''Fl. Galerius Aurelianus''' Tribunus Plebis omnibus s.d.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:50, 18 June 2010
Line 375:		Line 375:
	conversations on this email list between sessions. There has to be an open line		conversations on this email list between sessions. There has to be an open line
	of communications among members of the BOD.		of communications among members of the BOD.
		+
		+	[[Category: MMDCCLXII]]

Tribune report of October 2762 auc session - Revision history

Decimus Aurelius Ingeniarius: Added hd tag

M. Lucretius Agricola at 11:50, 18 June 2010

Publius Memmius Albucius at 13:46, 12 January 2010

Publius Memmius Albucius: New page: '''Fl. Galerius Aurelianus''' Tribunus Plebis omnibus s.d. The Senate was called into session at 11.00 hour (CET) on 9 Oct. 2762, with discussions continuing until approximately sunset in...