Subject:	[novaroma] Back in Action!!
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 7 Jan 2001 18:19:58 -0600

7 Jan 2001

Salve All Just a note to let everyone know I am back in my home base of Winnipeg! I have 500+ emails to read, so I will need tome. But I will respond as necessary.

Vale

Quintus Sertorius
Praetor
Canadfa Occidentalis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Back in Action!!
From:	razenna@--------
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:53:13 -0000

Welcome back, my friend. Take your time getting back up to speed. We
will be here.

Bene vale.
C. Aelius Ericius.

--- In novaroma@--------, "Quintus Sertorius"
<quintus-sertorius@--------> wrote:
> 7 Jan 2001
>
> Salve All Just a note to let everyone know I am back in my home base
of Winnipeg! I have 500+ emails to read, so I will need tome. But I
will respond as necessary.
>
> Vale
>
> Quintus Sertorius
> Praetor
> Canadfa Occidentalis
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	[novaroma] Proposed changes to the citizenship application(was State of the Province -America Boreoccidentalis...)
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Sun, 7 Jan 2001 18:31:30 -0800

Salvete;
-----Original Message-----

<snippage>

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: BICURRATUS@-------- [mailto:BICURRATUS@--------]
> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 7:31 PM
>
> Wouldn't it be easier to add a simple question, along the lines of 'I
> agree/do not agree to my email address being released to other citizens of
> Nova Roma on request' to the application for citizenship? The Lex wouldn't
be
> broken and those withholding their email address are still protected?

I think this is a splendid idea, and it seems to me that it shouldn't be all
that hard to incorporate into the Citizenship application and Censorial
database (if you look at the citizen profiles, there is already a spot for
email address, but all the ones I've seen say "private").

OFS: I absolutely agree; this would be great! Part of the problem
to me *still* is that these 'cive profiles' are still public to the
outside world and everyone, by nature of our current web
architecture. This gets back into the realm of
the Lex Cornelia de Privatis Rebus. Personally, I prefer a different
interpretation of the word 'public.' Public currently means 'exposed
to the world on the NR website.' If the active definition of 'public'
were changed to mean 'visible only to cives within Nova Roma,' then
it would seem to me at least to be something that would be acceptable
to all but the most paranoid of cives. The current citizenship
application also has some option (it's been a while so don't remember
exactly)
that has the
user select a password or something for secured areas; or something
to that effect. Perhaps we could additionally implement this feature
and put the cive e-mail addresses and forthcoming chat handle databases
behind a protected area of the site. (Addressed in related threads.)

I think that, in addition to asking the question of all new cives, it
shouldn't be too much trouble to send out a mass email to already-existing
cives asking them if they wished to make their email address public.

OFS: Please see above. If we can redefine 'public', that would be
wonderful.

(Perhaps the system could be automated; "if you reply to this message, your
email will be made public, if you do nothing, your email will remain
private".)

OFS: An excellent idea and one that would seem to lessen the burden
created by such a change on the Censores. Since we're on the subject of
potential changes to the citizenship application, it might be beneficial
to expand the areas of definition for cive interest. Currently, there are
four or five check boxes that are extremely generalized in terms of
interest declaration. Since this also touches on issues related to
cive participation in NR, it might be beneficial to get a much more
detailed idea of what a potential citizen physically intends to do
with their citizenship. Going under the heading of something like
"What are your primary reasons for applying for citizenship
within Nova Roma?" Some possible additions might include:

1-Apply for a priesthood or other office within the Religio.
2-Become active in politics.
3-Participate in the study and creation of arts and literature.
4-Participate or lead a Sodalitas (Military, Egresses, Musarum, etc.)
5-Participate in or organize regional or national festivals, meetings
and projects
6-Assist with, or lead recruitment efforts.
7-Work with the web team with the creation or management of content,
or with translation of current documents from English to Latin and
other international languages.
8-Other (Please describe):

Further, we could of course make all such fields required, requiring
the selection of at least one primary area of concentration.

OFS: Vale bene,

-Oppius


Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


eGroups Sponsor

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: On youth and public service
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 03:43:04 +0100

M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.

I must say that I agree with he comments of Sura. When a person
reaches the age of majority, he is in many or perhaps most lands
given along with his vote the right to run for public office. I
rather feel that although being doubtful about a twelve-year old or
even a fifteen-year old is normal prudence, doubt about an
eighteen-year-old man or woman based solely upon age is a form of
ageism.

We have many lower-level elective jobs available which require
little in the way of profoundly mature personal judgement, but only a
certain care and responsibility, and these have tended to go
unfilled. Why not let young adults have these jobs if they will
willingly do this work for us all?

I think we have to keep in mind that as *voters* we are not idiots!
When we vote, do we not automatically consider age and maturity and
past record along with other factors in making our choice? If we as
voters think that someone of any physical age is too immature or too
irresponsible, we can vote against him or her without having to
explain the motives of our judgement to anyone else. And are not we
the voters indeed a larger and more neutral body to make such a
decision that the senate might be? This is a powerful and flexible
check upon the immature and unready, and we should not forget hat it
is always there and functioning.

I do not suggest that we open up the higher magistracies to those
younger than twenty-one if that would cause legal problems in the
U.S. from the standpoint of our corporate status. (Would it in fact?)

I also do not discount the sage words of Consul Germanicus and
Consular Audens to the effect that there are lots of other things of
do of real worth in Nova Roma that *are* open to our younger
citizens. I myself am in the category of those without an elective
central-government position, and have as much to do as I can easily
handle with the various other valuable and interesting things I am
doing in Nova Roma

Still, sometimes a young adult just has a special interest in
elective office, as any one of us might. And our lower offices need
people to fill them. What could be more reasonable than letting
someone considered old enough to run for city council or even the
parliament by his macronation run for our junior elective offices? It
doesn't make any more sense to me not to allow this than it does to
Sura. And it would be a splendid way for some young cives to get a
special introduction to civic life. Couldn't we be a trifle more open
minded abou this? Making restrictive rules just for he sake of having
them is never a good idea. And if we make restrictive laws that stop
people doing what they wish, the burden of proof is on *us* to prove
that such a law is really for the greater public good.

Valete!
____________________
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 13:06:11 +1030
From: Craig Stevenson <dougies@-------->
Subject: Re: On youth and public service

Ave quirites et pater conscripti,

I must say, Germanicus, that your examples are a bit generalised. Out
here in Australia, a person is considered an adult upon turning 18,
where they are at full liberty to drink, vote and drive (not at the
same time, of course ;-) ).

I beleive that once a person enters adulthood (in the region or
country they are living in) that they should be able to run for
magistracies. After all, there are many among the youth of Nova Roma
who not only vote, but pay, taxes, have a job, etc. Is that not
responsibility?

Thanks for listening to my ranting. I mean no disrespect to the
esteemed Flavius Germanicus.

Valete bene all,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius    
ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
Minervium Virtuale: http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/Minervium.htm
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
(Se vi deziras subigi al vi chion, subigu vin al Racio)
________________________________________

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@-------->
Date:	Sun, 7 Jan 2001 22:29:18 -0500

Salvete, Quirites

In the first year of Nova Roma candidates had to apply/register to the Censores to run for office in order to ensure that the candidate was in fact a citizen! At that time there was no law requiring prerequisite age, now there is so there is even a greater need to register candidates. Therefore I would like to point out a small but important point.
Under the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate, "VI. An exemption to this law may be granted to a person by the approval of both censors and a senatus consultum approved by a two thirds majority vote.",
a candidate must apply to the Censores for an exemption (does it make sense to convene the Senate if the Censores would not approve an exemption?). If the Censores approve the request then they would propose to the Consules that the applicant be brought to the Senate. Such an exemption can happen provided things are done in there proper order and at there proper time.
Which brings up a point,I don't know why the procedure for annual elections was ignored/changed this year, or last year for that matter. The election season began, for Nova Roma, on the Idus of October with candidates announcing themselves.Then on the Idus of November the voting began with the vote concluding on the Idus December. I don't think that the election should take that long but the point of the matter is that everyone knew when things were to happen.
I believe that the lack of an established procedure is the root of the problem. I think that the election procedure should be set by law or at least by Consular edict (since they run the elections) until a Lex can be passed. This should be posted in the election page of the website http://www.novaroma.org/cursus_honorum/voting/procedures.html
and highlighted at least a couple of months prior to the 'season'.

At any rate I do think that the election was done very well all thanks to the Herculean efforts of the Rogatores Liva Cornelia et Lucius Aetius et Senator Marcus Octavius. Mille Gatias!

Also, I don't think that we can have a vote by choosing a tribe/century to vote 'first' and then each in succession, unless we can all vote on the same day and time. How can we possibly schedule such a thing?

Valete, L Equitius

> When the announcement to declare candidacy is made, the underage
> applicants should immediately appeal to the Senate to permit them to
> run and if elected, serve. It wouldn't be hard to hold a division,
> so the Senators could vote on it before the week is out.

Fortunatus:
Personally, I'd advise contacting the Senate as early as possible.
While the Senate's procedures only require one week for a division to be
taken, a consul must call the Senate to order and place the candidate's
waiver on the agenda. This can take substantially longer than a week.
Last year was a particularly busy one for the Senate, thanks to consules
Fabius and Minucius, with roughly one Senate call per month. S
Apollonius requested an exemption from the Senate at the very beginning
of Decemnber, and we were unable to vote upon that request until after
the elections were over.

Valete, T Labienus Fortunatus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Uncontested elections
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Sun, 7 Jan 2001 20:36:30 -0800 (PST)

--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus
<germanicus@--------> wrote:

> There are three laws that govern the conduct of
> elections and voting in the
> comitia, and they all say pretty much the same thing
> (with minor variations
> according to which comitia is being discussed). To
> take the Lex Vedia de
> Ratione Comitiorum Populi Tributorum (which deals
> with voting in the Comitia
> Populi) as an example, the voting opens when "The
> presiding magistrate ...
> shall... convene the comitia and publish one or more
> of the following, along
> with the deadline by which voting must be completed
> ... In the case of a
> magisterial election, the names of the candidates
> and the offices for which
> they stand."
>
> Thus, the names of the candidates have to be known
> in toto at the beginning
> of the election. Anyone whose name isn't published
> at the beginning of the
> election isn't a part of that particular election.

Thanks! I'd read that law, but not connected the
first paragraph with the later subparagraph you refer
to. Does this mean then, that there can be no
write-in votes?

Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Sun, 07 Jan 2001 22:01:10 -0700

Lucius Equitius wrote:

> Also, I don't think that we can have a vote by choosing a tribe/century to vote 'first' and then each in succession, unless we can all vote on the same day and time. How can we possibly schedule such a thing?

Practically speaking from the Rogatorial point of view, I second Cincinnatus here. I think it would be nightmarish to manage an election as we currently do and implement counting by successive centuries. Don't see what it would accomplish, anyway.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	"Michael S. Bobroff" <airwisp@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 00:20:56 -0500

Salve,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"
<germanicus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 6:42 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE:
Uncontested elections)


> Salve;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marcos Boehme
[mailto:m_arminius@--------]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 1:16 PM
> >
> > But i confess that this proposal add more
confuse situations. By
> > the way, what if three candidates for Consul
receives the same
> > number of centuries in a election (yes, it can
happen).
>
> An excellent point, and as Lucius Aetius
Dalmaticus pointed out this
> happened with the rogatores in our last election
(one won a clear
> first-place, and two others tied for second).
>
> I think the answer to this problem (and this is
also the historical way that
> the "senior" and "junior" magsitrates were
decided, if I am not mistaken)
> could be to re-establish the institution of the
principium and the centuria
> praerogativa.
>
> This solution is not only historical, but it is
also fair, as the random
> nature of which century/tribe votes first could
work to the benefit of
> either candidate in a tie equally. Any thoughts?
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul

I like the idea, and it is could easily to be
done. When the person goes to vote they click on
a box (or fill in their tribal designation by
typing it in) this is then part of the information
the Election Committee (my apologies, I do not
know the proper title for the Election Committee)
receives on that person's voting.

There is another option ... considering the
internet ... tie-breaker elections could be held
within a certain time after the original official
elections to decide between the two (or more)
candidates and everyone gets to vote again. The
passwords for the election page could be reset to
accept's everyone's password again, the content of
the page changed to reflect the tie-breaker
situation. And then everyone votes again.

Everything depends on one thing, how the committee
decides to go.

Valete,
Caius Tiberius Scipio
email: airwisp@--------
AIM: airwisp
www: www.iammsbobroff.com

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: On youth and public service
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Sun, 7 Jan 2001 21:10:04 -0800 (PST)

Salve!

--- "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> wrote:

> I must say that I agree with he comments of Sura.
> When a person
> reaches the age of majority, he is in many or
> perhaps most lands
> given along with his vote the right to run for
> public office.

Perhaps this is true in SOME lands, but it is (for
example) not true in the US, where there are are
Constitutionally imposed age requirements for many
jobs (e.g., the President must be 35 years old, there
are also age requirements to be a Senator or
Representative).

> I rather feel that although being doubtful about a
> twelve-year old or
> even a fifteen-year old is normal prudence, doubt
> about an
> eighteen-year-old man or woman based solely upon age
> is a form of
> ageism.

Our Constititution does not probihit "ageism"
(whatever that is), to my knowledge. I don't let my
8-year old son drive a car or drink beer...there are
age limits for those things and many others, should
there not be age limits for administering a nation,
even a micronation?

> We have many lower-level elective jobs available
> which require
> little in the way of profoundly mature personal
> judgement, but only a
> certain care and responsibility, and these have
> tended to go
> unfilled. Why not let young adults have these jobs
> if they will
> willingly do this work for us all?

There are, to my knowledge, no office of the lesser
magistrates (which I think are the offices you're
talking about) that are vacant. If you're referring
to scribes, etc., (which are not elected) then you'll
get no argument from me. Sura, for example, was
scribe to the rogatores during the most recent
election.

<snipped>

> I do not suggest that we open up the higher
> magistracies to those
> younger than twenty-one if that would cause legal
> problems in the
> U.S. from the standpoint of our corporate status.
> (Would it in fact?)

My understanding is this is a matter of state law in
the states in which we do business. Normally, similar
organizations use 21 as the limit to avoid legal
difficulties (inability to sign contracts, cannot be
held responsible in court, etc.).

<snipped>

> Still, sometimes a young adult just has a special
> interest in
> elective office, as any one of us might. And our
> lower offices need
> people to fill them.

Not true...we are not short lesser magistrates, see
above.

> What could be more reasonable
> than letting
> someone considered old enough to run for city
> council or even the
> parliament by his macronation run for our junior
> elective offices? It
> doesn't make any more sense to me not to allow this
> than it does to
> Sura. And it would be a splendid way for some young
> cives to get a
> special introduction to civic life. Couldn't we be a
> trifle more open
> minded abou this? Making restrictive rules just for
> he sake of having
> them is never a good idea. And if we make
> restrictive laws that stop
> people doing what they wish, the burden of proof is
> on *us* to prove
> that such a law is really for the greater public
> good.

I agree that restrictive laws for their own sake is
not a good idea; however, that is not the situation
here.

I hope that the younger set (by which I mean those of
apparent maturity but not of age for a particular
office they have in mind) will understand that there
is lots to do in NR, as you have pointed out. We have
been reading lately on the list about a calamitous
situation in one of our provinces, which is largely
composed of young people. Here is an opportunity for
some of them to serve as assistants to the governor in
restoring government.

There has also been discussion lately of local groups
getting organized. I have no problem with a young
person assisting in the organization of a local group
(the legal responsibilities and obligations of the
LEADER of such a group still needs to be resolved, so
I'll withhold my vote on whether young folk can lead
there groups).

re The last part of the last paragraph: I guess I'm
just a closed-minded, restrictive kind of guy ;) ...
but I think there are many ways young folks can
contribute (they have been pointed out by others
better than I could, already).

Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Sun, 7 Jan 2001 21:42:20 -0800 (PST)

--- gmvick32@-------- wrote:
>
> Lucius Equitius wrote:
>
> > Also, I don't think that we can have a vote by
> choosing a tribe/century to vote 'first' and then
> each in succession, unless we can all vote on the
> same day and time. How can we possibly schedule such
> a thing?
>
> Practically speaking from the Rogatorial point of
> view, I second Cincinnatus here. I think it would
> be nightmarish to manage an election as we currently
> do and implement counting by successive centuries.
> Don't see what it would accomplish, anyway.
>
> Livia Cornelia Aurelia

Salvete!

I disagree that it is a nightmare or impossible
(altho' I'm not sure I agree with the original
proposal without thinking more about it). The answer
is not in the voting, but in the counting of the vote.
The difference would be invisible to the voter, but
at the end of the election, when the rogators count,
they would start at the first tribe or century and go
on from there.

I think it is important, should the proposal be
adopted, that the tribe and century be named with the
announcement of the election, to avoid the potential
for accusations of corruption.

Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Draco's Candidacy
From:	bcatfd@--------
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 05:44:48 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@d...> wrote:
> Nicolaus Moravius Marco Minucio et Sexto Apollonio salutem

D.Iunius Palladius N. Moravio spd

>
> Proconsul Audens reverendissime:
>
> I do not wish to make a battle of this any more than you do,

Then don't...

>
> You replied to Formosanus:
>
> > You wanted to know the results of the Senate Vote, and insisted
on the
> > reasoning behind the vote, and you now have them. So the first
action
> > that you take with this new information is to attack the Senators
with
> > whom you disagree on this list with a very individual and singular
> > attitude.
>
> For myself, I would not call Germanicus', Palladius', Maximus' or
Sulla's
> comments on their refusal to ratify the electoral vote for Draco,
> 'reasoning' : their
> comments look to me much more like one single justification, rather
than
> actual reasons.


Well, that was an ill-thought out shot, one I would not have expected
of you. I would never have called into question a vote of yours,
however seemingly inconsidered, and especially not on the main list.

>I confess I'm surprised that they found Draco's spirited
> defence of his pater something akin to maiestas.

In case you hadn't noticed, I did not mention his supposed defence of
his paterfamilias. To be frank I had not been following the little
battle in the sandbox where this was taking place. The only posts of
his I read during the period were those where he commented on Nova
Roman laws.

>I would have been >far less
> surprised
> if they had said instead that:
>
> i) Draco is far too damn clever than anyone has a right to be at
that age;

I would not have said that since this was not evident. His arguments
were reasonably well argued but not outstanding. I was not swayed
either way here.

> ii) Draco is a foreigner;

I did not know and do not know (nor do I care) what nationality he
is. As far as I knew he was an American. I take it that is not the
case but it is of no consequence. I judge people as Nova Romans and
frankly am insulted that you insinuate I might do otherwise (even if
you are attempting to be humorous).

> iii) Draco is a member of gens Apollonia;

Well, I hadn't that of that point, perhaps I should have added it to
my justification. ;)

> iv) Draco is Formosanus' son;
> v) Draco talks Greek. You can't trust anybody who talks Greek.
>
> Palladius' statement that Draco did not previously apply to the
Senate for
> an age exemption is, as you know, patently untrue. It is of course
perfectly
> possible that Palladius suffered a memory failure and was so
(erroneously)
> sure of his facts that he didn't bother to check them.

Since you read the senate board you already know that I admitted I
was wrong on this point but I guess nothing feels as good as kicking
a dead horse? However, my primary point was still valid, that Draco
is too young to even be a citizen without written parental permission
and thus in my opinion was way too young for an exemption. I assume
he has that written permission and it is on file with the censors
but it still indicates just how far below the age limit for a
magistracy he is.

>Since this is a
> possibility, it was wrong of Draco to call Palladius a liar, and he
does owe
> Palladius an apology for that.

Frankly I do not think he would be so imprudent and stupid as to say
that publicly, if what you say about his character is right. I have
checked the records back a little ways and saw no such comment. No
doubt he said as much to you privately but that is another matter. I
am sure he appreciates you mentioning it on the list. :)

>But Palladius, by making that untrue
> statement, may have influenced many of his colleagues in the Senate
to vote
> 'NEGAT' on Draco's election as well, on the basis of incorrect
information.

Again, you are wrong, as you well know since you read the senate list
(perhaps while you are telling me to check my facts you should check
yours). My vote was dead last, it came just under the wire and
influenced no one. Also, my vote did not change the outcome, he still
would not have gotten enough votes and he did not have the vote of
both censors.

> That, I believe, is worth an apology by Palladius to Draco, and to
the
> Senate, and, by extension, to the electorate.

Draco, I am sorry that you are not better served by your so-called
defenders such as Vado. They are intentionally misrepresenting your
case and are not helping you build up the goodwill you that you will
need to be a productive magistrate in the future, as no doubt you
will be.

If it makes you feel any better, Draco, the primary reason I voted
against you was your age. While I did believe that you had not
applied ahead of time, if I had known otherwise it would have made
little difference. If you had passed your 18th birthday I would
probably have voted the other way.

> However it was meant, the damage is done, and we all have to live
>with it,of
> course.

No damage was done since my comments came in the last moments of
voting, as you well know.

>The Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate is unclear as to whether an
> underage candidate should seek exemption before (or after)
declaring his or
> her candidacy, or before (or after) being elected:
>
> "VI. An exemption to this law may be granted to a person by the
approval of
> both censors and a senatus consultum approved by a two thirds
majority
> vote."
>
> Now in my view, anyone responsible for designing such an unworkably-
worded
> lex as that, is hardly the most credible authority about what it
ought, in
> retrospect, to mean.

I'm sorry I wasn't perfect and couldn't anticipate all situations. No
doubt you are and would have if the situation were reversed but it
wasn't. This is a learning process for all of us (pardon, except for
you) and if a law is deficient, then it can be amended.

I am quite surprised by the seemingly personal (even insulting) tone
of this message--I would have thought it unlike you. Our occasional
communications in the past have always been cordial, even friendly--
our previous discussion about Symmachus for example. I am sorry to
have to respond in even somewhat like fashion.

> that Draco will accept the situation, and retire quietly to his
provincia to
> do NR credit there as he has not been allowed to in the central
government,
> whilst giving up all idea of challenging the status quo and thereby
making
> things
> more rancourous than they are already). It was decent of you, and
you made
> more palatable the bitter pill Draco had to swallow, a deed no-one
else who
> voted 'NEGAT' cared enough to do - at least, not publicly here. I
surmise
> that this is the difference between being convinced of a principle
on your
> part, and
> something perhaps more personally inimical on theirs.

I have now responded here and had previously commented in the senate.
I have received no communication from him about my vote and do not
post on nor read the main list enough to follow every comment he
might have made, though I looked today for the insult you say he
leveled, to no success.

Vale,

Decius Iunius Palladius

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Sun, 7 Jan 2001 21:59:29 -0800 (PST)

Salve!

--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus
<germanicus@--------> wrote:

> How does this solve the problem of ties in the
> number of centuries or tribes
> voting for a candidate? Simple. The one who gains
> his tribes first, wins.

A similar system could also solve the problem of ties
within a century or tribe, at least so long as the
voting population is relatively small. If a tribe or
century is tied between several candidates, then the
rogators would have to count to see which one got
there first to announce a victor. This would
eliminate tied within centuries and tribes and does
not take long (I know from unfortunate experience,
having had to verify several of each in the recent
election by writing the numbers of the ballots down on
a piece of paper, since the ballots are numbered
sequentially, it would be simple to see who was
first).

Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Membership
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Sun, 7 Jan 2001 22:11:05 -0800 (PST)

--- zero_--_@-------- wrote:
> so how does one become a citzen one Novaroma

Click here: http://www.novaroma.org/bin/apply

Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Sun, 7 Jan 2001 23:09:46 -0800 (PST)

Salve!

--- "Michael S. Bobroff"
<airwisp@--------> wrote:

> I like the idea, and it is could easily to be
> done. When the person goes to vote they click on
> a box (or fill in their tribal designation by
> typing it in) this is then part of the information
> the Election Committee (my apologies, I do not
> know the proper title for the Election Committee)
> receives on that person's voting.

This is done electronically now. When there is an
election, each person receives a voter code which,
went sent to the rogatores (the "election committee"),
indicates a tribe and century.

> There is another option ... considering the
> internet ... tie-breaker elections could be held
> within a certain time after the original official
> elections to decide between the two (or more)
> candidates and everyone gets to vote again. The
> passwords for the election page could be reset to
> accept's everyone's password again, the content of
> the page changed to reflect the tie-breaker
> situation. And then everyone votes again.

It's not that simple. In order to run an election, we
need to have an announcement in sufficient time to
allow people to respond and vote, the election needs
to run over a certain period of time, the ballots need
to be prepared and the system tested, the rogators
need to prepare worksheets. There is another
discussion on the list wherein our Consul Germanicus
has proposed that (I hope I do not portray his
argument unfairly, as I do not agree with him) we
declare victors of candidates who did not carry a
century or tribe to avoid a run-off election, part of
his argument being that the machinery of elections is
so difficult (my argument is that it is worth it, in
that case).

Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] Interesting website
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 01:04:14 -0800

http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/cicero/clst%201013%20religion.html

Hope you enjoy.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	[novaroma] "Whelp" / Age Question
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 06:32:19 -0500 (EST)

Salvete, Draco

In English, while the subject term is a technical one in the process of
canine or a beast of prey description, it is also a derisive term, often
directed to individuals who are seen as being very youthful, a child or
a "cub", uninformed and having little idea about the world.

I accept your assurance that there is a different connotation in English
than in Dutch, and there is no problem here with that explanation.

As I said, I see youthful ideas, and energy in a positive light, but the
problem of age legality always is a factor, as has been mentioned by
another gentlemen. This can probably be best described by a reiteration
of the basics of the Boy Scout Program the world over. Senior Scouts to
the ages 14 to 18, are encouraging to have elections within ther unit,
undergo training for the elective offices, plan thier own activities,
arrange thier own programs and training, and generally run thier own
organization, which is the basis of learning the responsibilities of
adulthood. Over the last 35 years of being involved with both young men
and young women involved in such a program, I have found a very
approximate 1 to 5% of these young people who were, "going in", mature,
responsible, and having the ability and desire to manage a larger group
of individuals effectively.

Still in the United States, there are laws which do not allow even these
select young people to do certain things:

--Sign Contracts;

--Document Activities for Insurance purposes;

--Sign for a bank account;

--Rent a motor vehicle for transportation;

--Legally purcase a piece of real proerty or a boat, plane or other
vehicle used in the program in which they are involved;

--Take charge of other adults in situations such a parking management,
ticket taking, management of funds, etc.

For the above activities an "Adult " Advisor which must be at least 21
years of age is required, togeher with three additional adults aged 21
or older to act as a "committee" to approve the activities of the unit.
The Unit is then chartered to a recognized organization who will hold
the asssets of that unit in trust legally.

For the above reason, here in the U.S. it would not be prudent to place
a person of an age that will not allow these activities into a position
where he or she would have to apply to a senior magistrate to deal with
these legal points. I suppose at this point in our micronation's
history it would not make too much difference, because of the present
limited range of activities, except to set a precedent that would be
confusing and inappropriate in the years to come.

Remember that we are still talking about a very small minority of the
young people who have this ability, desire, and / or intellect.

Coming back to Nova Roma, in my view, acting as a Scriba, Legate,
Assensus, or Assistant To any of the positions to which you refer would
certainly provide you with the experience and data that you feel that
you need to learn the task of government. Acting as a Trouble-Shooter
in areas where there are definite problems is a task I would highly
recommend to you, as one who has good ideas and the energy to carry them
out. It is a task that needs to be done, and one which will greatly
benefit the micronation. It will certainly give you the experience that
you need, it will earn you the respect and appreciation of those whom
you seek to assist, and the success of your work can give rise to
formalized programs to be applied to simlar probles in other areas.

I do not say that every young person, below the age of 18 is
incapable--but, with my experience and the restriction of laws in this
counrty, and with the other opportunities offered in NR, together with
the eternal question of just who is fit to step beyond the laws cast to
control the "age deliniation" for the majority of the young people age
16-21, I cannot see my way clear to amend the Lex under discussion to
make it easier to get around, or to utilize people of that age group in
anything but assistant positions for the reasons mentioned. Further,
again in my view, this topic has taken up sufficient attention and time
in this micronation, when there are other items of more pressing
importance to be dealt with. I urge you to pursue a course which is
open to you age-wise to assist the micronation reach it's full
potential, and to alow those who need to move on to other concerns.

Vale, Respectfully;
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:52:34 US/Central

T Labienus Lucio Equitio omnibusque SPD

I generally agree with those things from L Equitius' message that I haven't
commented upon. He has raised some good points, and his call for an explicit
and easily accessible statement of a proper election timeline and procedures is
right on the mark. The various Leges Vediae on the subject are a good start,
but are somewhat contradictory and incomplete.

> Under the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate, "VI. An exemption to this law may
> be granted to a person by the approval of both censors and a senatus
> consultum approved by a two thirds majority vote.",
> a candidate must apply to the Censores for an exemption (does it make sense
> to convene the Senate if the Censores would not approve an exemption?).

By applying to the Senate, the candidate in question also applies to both
censores, as they are members of that body. Still, if it were me, I would
apply to the censores and the Senate at the same time for form's sake. The
law, you will note, does not specifiy who should be contacted when. Note that
the candidate doesn't convene the Senate, and all it takes is one censor
stating either to the consules directly or to the Senate as a whole that he or
she denies the application to forestall convening the Senate.

> If the Censores approve the request then they would propose to the Consules
> that the applicant be brought to the Senate. Such an exemption can happen
> provided things are done in there proper order and at there proper time.

Assuming that such a proper order has been established; the lack of such an
explicit order is the very problem that is currently under discussion.

> I think that the election procedure should be set by law or at least by
> Consular edict (since they run the elections) until a Lex can be passed.

Actually, the consules don't run all of the elections. The tribuni plebis run
elections in the Comitia Plebis Tributa.

Also, the constitution implies that procedures for the various comitia can not
be set by edictum. Each of the descriptions of the trina comitia contains the
statement, "While it shall be called to order by a [proper magistrate(s)], only
the comitia [name of comitia] shall pass laws governing the rules by which it
shall operate internally. " Admittedly, this doesn't completely rule out
edicta (the word 'laws' implying leges, and not necessarily exclusive of lesser
acts of government), but the implication is there. This particular ambiguity
is something that probably ought to be fixed while we're overhauling election
procedures.

Valete

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:43:47 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmvick32@-------- [mailto:gmvick32@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 00:01
>
> Lucius Equitius wrote:
>
> > Also, I don't think that we can have a vote by choosing a
> tribe/century to vote 'first' and then each in succession, unless
> we can all vote on the same day and time. How can we possibly
> schedule such a thing?
>
> Practically speaking from the Rogatorial point of view, I second
> Cincinnatus here. I think it would be nightmarish to manage an
> election as we currently do and implement counting by successive
> centuries. Don't see what it would accomplish, anyway.

I'm afraid I must have been unclear in my explanation of the idea. The
centuries and tribes would not physically vote one after another; rather,
the votes would be counted (after the votes were cast) successively, one
tribe/century after another, by the rogatores, without impacting the actual
voting procedure itself. Perhaps I should have worded it "successive vote
counting" rather than "successive voting". My apologies for being unclear on
this point.

As to what it would accomplish; it would provide a mechanism by which no tie
votes for magisterial elections would occur. I think that's a worthy goal.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Interesting website
From:	Chad <ckieffe@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:47:28 -0600

Salvete!
I'm taking Ovid's "Fasti" as a Latin graduate elective (for my Comp Lit
M.A.) under the professor who put up this webpage when the U of A semester
starts back next Tuesday. He is also teaching a course on "Religion in the
Roman Empire" next semester, and he is the advisor for our campus Student
Pagan Association.

Valete,
C Cordius Symmachus

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lucius Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
To: "NovaRoma" <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 3:04 AM
Subject: [novaroma] Interesting website


> http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/cicero/clst%201013%20religion.html
>
> Hope you enjoy.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
>
>
>
>

Subject:	[novaroma] Sprachprobleme in der Nova Roma
From:	"Herr Schäfer" <schaefer.paxromana@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:04:43 +0100 (CET)

Salve S. Ambrosia Fulvia,

vielen Dank für Dein Verständnis für meine "unverschuldete" Lage. Es ist sehr nett von Dir, daß Du den Bürgern der Nova Roma, mein Anliegen in englischer Sprache näher gebracht hast. Wir werden eine Lösung finden. Auf jeden Fall werde ich, sofern es mir mein Beruf noch ermöglicht, versuchen, besser Englisch zu lernen. In Germanien hat zur Zeit des Imperium Romanum auch nicht gleich jedermann oder jederfrau Latein sprechen können, obwohl ich da, im Vergleich zum Englischen, einige Unterschiede sehe. Nochmals vielen Dank

Vale,

Caius Valerius Opilio
--

Spitzenhandy ein Jahr ohne Grundgebühr! Zahlen Sie zwölf Monate
keine und danach 9,95 DM für das Ericsson T10s inkl. Ledertasche
und portabler Freisprecheinrichtung.
Alles zum Weihnachtspreis von DM 0.- http://handy.freenet.de

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:08:09 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Smith [mailto:JSmithCSA@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 00:59
>
> A similar system could also solve the problem of ties
> within a century or tribe, at least so long as the
> voting population is relatively small. If a tribe or
> century is tied between several candidates, then the
> rogators would have to count to see which one got
> there first to announce a victor. This would
> eliminate tied within centuries and tribes and does
> not take long (I know from unfortunate experience,
> having had to verify several of each in the recent
> election by writing the numbers of the ballots down on
> a piece of paper, since the ballots are numbered
> sequentially, it would be simple to see who was
> first).

This is a very good idea! I do like the notion of eliminating the tied
centuries/tribes, and this does seem a natural way to do it (and I think
historical; it certainly seems to be in line with the description of voting
in Roma Antiqua as I understand it); assuming it doesn't place an entirely
unreasonable burden on the rogatores.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:12:41 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Smith [mailto:JSmithCSA@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 00:42
>
> I think it is important, should the proposal be
> adopted, that the tribe and century be named with the
> announcement of the election, to avoid the potential
> for accusations of corruption.

Agreed. Another excellent idea, if for no other reason than to avoid even
the appearance of impropriety.

(As an aside, I would say that I can't express how much I appreciate the
well-thought-out comments from various citizens on this and other potential
pieces of legislation, without rancor and bitterness. I do love the idea of
creating consensus first, then acting. As far as I'm concerned, this is
exactly how the system should be working.)

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Uncontested elections
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:16:21 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Smith [mailto:JSmithCSA@--------]
> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 23:36
>
> Thanks! I'd read that law, but not connected the
> first paragraph with the later subparagraph you refer
> to. Does this mean then, that there can be no
> write-in votes?

An interesting question! I suppose, as the law currently reads, write-ins
would not be acceptable.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change<Long>
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:21:54 -0800

Salve Quirites!

Since 'weighing in early' on this topic in conjunction with
provincial issues, I haven't had the time yet to respond. I
apologize before hand that this is somewhat of a 'digest-form'
post. This is only to amend and clarify my previous position
and hopefully add something meaningful to the discussion
in the process.

Initially, when investigating the situation in my province,
it seemed based on the cursory demographic information provided by others,
that other than perhaps two or three cives that were over
21, the vast majority were in fact well under 21. This of
course did not bode well for forming a solid political structure
in the province without the possibility of making some
dispensations.

Since that time however, I've read the eloquent posts made
to this list and have given a lot deeper thought as to the real
issues since then. What I came up with were three major
issues (in my mind anyways,) the first of which unfortunately
supersedes the other two. By my reasoning, the following
macro concepts apply to the discussion of the age issue:

1-MACRONATIONAL LAW: I capitalize this as very unfortunately,
it is really the only thing that has any significant meaning
as applied to this issue. MACRONATIONAL LAW is an aspect that
I really hadn't fully considered at the beginning. Marcus Audens,
Venator, Consul Germanicus and others have eloquently stated the age
requirements
under MACRONATIONAL LAW and as we are all unfortunately subjugates
of this, there seems little point in trying to debate alternate
models. The fact remains that Nova Roma is under articles of
incorporation in a state, in the macro nation of the United
States of America. As such, all caveats and restrictions
apply. I would anticipate that this would become even more
restrictive when and if our NFP status is granted, but I'm
in no way an expert on that issue, so tactfully I leave it
to those who are.

This being said, it does not imply that one has to in any way agree with
the restrictions advanced by MACRONATIONAL LAW, but unfortunately
we are all inextricably bound to it. Thus, our sovereignty will always
be constrained and limited. Sad but true. I'd *love* to be wrong
about this though. If someone with a better understanding of
micronational attributes can refute this interpretation, it would
be *wonderful!*

2-NATURAL LAW: I capitalize this as to me it is really the more important
in the grander scheme of life. Speaking strictly for my own macro nation,
we have gotten SO far away from any pretext of NATURAL LAW that there
is no chance of reconciliation between the two. Under NATURAL LAW, we
see that age, maturity and ability need have no direct correlation.
If we're all honest, we can realize that real-world individuals need
have no resemblance to macronational age constraints, which are based
on generalities. Though it may be elitist thinking on my part,
I prefer to think that we Nova Romani represent an extreme subset of our
respective macronations and that we are in fact exceptions to many
many macronational laws and precepts.

NATURAL LAW allows us to do what's right for the circumstances, though
such actions may or may not fit neatly within the mold of MACRONATIONAL
LAW. NATURAL LAW was a force to be reckoned with in ancient times and more
often than not actually defined and dictated MACRONATIONAL LAW and not
the other way around. My personal hope as time goes on is that it is the
NATURAL variant that can be followed as closely as circumstance dictate.
(As long is
it is not too far in conflict with the big #1 above :-)

3-Nova Roma Demographics: This is the other major factor with which we must
contend. There is a hard and cold reality that our Censorial numbers do
not
seem to reflect our *actual* number of cives in terms of availability for
service to our great Respublica. (No disrespect meant to the Censores
here;
am strictly referring to active vs. inactive cives.) I think that any
further serious discussion of age laws need take all three of these macro-
concepts (in addition to any others I probably haven't thought of) into
account. Since my personal demographic data based solely on third person
information and not on censorial data; I admittedly don't have the full
picture here. If demographic data dictates that our population of active
cives is incapable of supporting the current constitutional age
requirements for office, then perhaps we can somehow reconcile these needs
with
MACRONATIONAL LAW.

Thanks for listening!

Vale bene,
-Oppius Flaccus Severus







-----Original Message-----
From: labienus@-------- [mailto:labienus@--------]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 1:53 AM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change


T Labienus Lucio Equitio omnibusque SPD

I generally agree with those things from L Equitius' message that I haven't
commented upon. He has raised some good points, and his call for an
explicit
and easily accessible statement of a proper election timeline and procedures
is
right on the mark. The various Leges Vediae on the subject are a good
start,
but are somewhat contradictory and incomplete.

> Under the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate, "VI. An exemption to this law
may
> be granted to a person by the approval of both censors and a senatus
> consultum approved by a two thirds majority vote.",
> a candidate must apply to the Censores for an exemption (does it make
sense
> to convene the Senate if the Censores would not approve an exemption?).

By applying to the Senate, the candidate in question also applies to both
censores, as they are members of that body. Still, if it were me, I would
apply to the censores and the Senate at the same time for form's sake. The
law, you will note, does not specifiy who should be contacted when. Note
that
the candidate doesn't convene the Senate, and all it takes is one censor
stating either to the consules directly or to the Senate as a whole that he
or
she denies the application to forestall convening the Senate.

> If the Censores approve the request then they would propose to the
Consules
> that the applicant be brought to the Senate. Such an exemption can happen
> provided things are done in there proper order and at there proper time.

Assuming that such a proper order has been established; the lack of such an
explicit order is the very problem that is currently under discussion.

> I think that the election procedure should be set by law or at least by
> Consular edict (since they run the elections) until a Lex can be passed.

Actually, the consules don't run all of the elections. The tribuni plebis
run
elections in the Comitia Plebis Tributa.

Also, the constitution implies that procedures for the various comitia can
not
be set by edictum. Each of the descriptions of the trina comitia contains
the
statement, "While it shall be called to order by a [proper magistrate(s)],
only
the comitia [name of comitia] shall pass laws governing the rules by which
it
shall operate internally. " Admittedly, this doesn't completely rule out
edicta (the word 'laws' implying leges, and not necessarily exclusive of
lesser
acts of government), but the implication is there. This particular
ambiguity
is something that probably ought to be fixed while we're overhauling
election
procedures.

Valete



eGroups Sponsor

Click here to subscribe.

Subject:	[novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:37:18 -0800

Denuntio Tribunica Ex Domo Tribuni Plebis

Tribunus Plebis Cn Moravius Piscinus SPD Senatoribus et Quiritibus Novae
Romae:

I have on this day, a.d. VI Id Ian 2753, sent to the Senate the
following Denuntio Tribunicia:

Tribuni Plebis Cn Moravius Piscinus Senatoribus clarissimi viri SPD:

I have been reading the posts regarding the provisions of the Lex Iunia
de Magistratum Aetate. More specifically I have been considering the
situation created by the Senate in the particular matter of Sextus
Apollonius Draco. Let it be known by the Senate that had I been fully
installed in office at the time of the Senate's decision I would have
employed an intercessio for the reasons I shall give below. The incident
has brought out a legislative gap in our present Constitution which I am
sure the Consuls will address, as will the Tribuni Plebis. However there
is a more immediate problem to consider and that is that by your action
the Senate has left vacant a Plebeian office. To avoid further
entanglements on this issue I request that the Senate reconsider an
exemption for Sextus Apollonius Draco so that he may rightfully assume
the office for which he was duly and legally elected to hold.

The reasons why I would have issued an intercessio are as follows:

The Senate under the Constitution V.A has no other authority than to
offer the "advise of the Senate." Sections V. B and C do not apply. The
Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate extended the Senate's authority, in such
matters as covered by that lex, contrary to Section I. A. It would be
wrong to further consider that that lex granted an additional
unconstitutional authority to the Senate to overrule the will of the
people, in contravention of Section I. B. If the Senate is to exercise
its authority under the provision of the Lex Iunia, then it must be done
prior to the election, advising the rogatores on whether or not a
candidate's name may be placed on the ballot. No Senatus consulta, or
censorial edicta, can overrule an issue once decided upon by a vote of
the people in comitia.

Sextus Apollonius Draco was legally placed on the ballot, and was
legally elected by the vox populi. He is by every legal right the
elected Aedile Plebis.

Under the provisions of the Lex Iunia, by how I understand the Senate to
regard the matter, although Sextus Apollonius may be the elected Aedile
Plebis, he may not "assume" the office for which he was elected. I
question that provision, but will not challenge what has happened thus
far. Further, it cannot be said that the Lex Cyrlla de securandis
magistratus plebis applies, as the provisions it makes are for a
situation other than what has occurred here. Candidates were declared
and placed on the ballot in December, and two candidates were legally
elected. The Senate, by its action, has deprived us of a capable Aedile
Plebis, and has placed us into a constitutional vacuum.

There are now three issues before us. Required are a new lex to replace
the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate, and a new plebiscitum to broaden and
clarify the scope of the Lex Cyrlla regarding Plebian offices. I shall
take under advisement formulating a plebiscitum to be presented to the
Comitia Plebis Tributa later this year concerning the appointment of
Plebeian officers. Discussion on the Lex Iunia is already progressing
towards adopting some proposal to deal with the issue of age limits and
how to implement such a lex. I trust the Consuls shall duly treat this
matter.

Meanwhile, there is the third issue. As Sextus Apollonius was legally
elected you cannot offer to hold a second election, for by doing so you
would be overruling a decision already made by the Comitia, and thus
would be acting in violation of Section I. B. Nor can you appoint anyone
to his office, as there is no provision made to cover the vacancy left
under the current situation. Therefore the choice is between leaving
Sextus Apollonius in as elected Aedile Plebis, but not allowed to assume
office, while carrying out his duties as a scriba to his colleague. Or
for the Senate to reconsider the exemption for this one individual and
allow him to hold office as the people have so ruled.

I urge the Senate to take the latter course of action, accept the
election of Sextus Apollonius as a fait accompli and move on to deal with
the problems that caused this problem to arise. To deny the assumption
of office because of indecision on the part of the Senate regarding the
exemption prior to the election is patently wrong. To now deny
assumption of office after the election was made could set a dangerous
precedent. Whereas to continue to deny the assumption of office by this
one particular individual amounts, in practical terms, to merely a denial
of his participatory points for a job he will be performing anyway. Such
a denial is simply too petty for the Senate to consider proper.

Pro Di consentes, quod bonum, felix, faustumque sit.

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Age Question
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:16:01 -0800

Salvete Quirites


From: <jmath669642reng@-------->
Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 3:32am
Subject: "Whelp" / Age Question

Audens Scripsit:

"As I said, I see youthful ideas, and energy in a positive light, but the
problem of age legality always is a factor...

Still in the United States, there are laws which do not allow even these
select young people to do certain things:

--Sign Contracts;

--Document Activities for Insurance purposes;

--Sign for a bank account;

--Rent a motor vehicle for transportation;

--Legally purcase a piece of real proerty or a boat, plane or other
vehicle used in the program in which they are involved;

--Take charge of other adults in situations such a parking management,
ticket taking, management of funds, etc.

For the above activities an "Adult " Advisor which must be at least 21
years of age is required, togeher with three additional adults aged 21
or older to act as a "committee" to approve the activities of the unit.
The Unit is then chartered to a recognized organization who will hold
the asssets of that unit in trust legally."

Respondeo:

First let us make it clear that Audens' reference here is to another
organization, and that nothing that he mentions here is true of the US.
The legal age in the US is 18, not 21, and every contractual agreement
necessary for conducting the legal business of Nova Roma is fully
allowable in the US. The prosciptions imposed by the BSA has absolutely
nothing to do with our own organization.

No one is able to become a full citizen of Nova Roma before reaching
legal age (sui juris) in their respective macronation. Therefore every
citizen is legally eligible to conduct the kind of contractual relations
required of an office holder.

The real requirement should not be of legal age, but rather whether an
individual is mature enough to handle the responsibilites. We all know
examples where age does not equate with any degree of maturity. And if
we look at ourselves, who among us older folk can say they have never
acted in a childish fashion at some point after reaching the ripe age of
18, 21, 30, 40, 50, 65, or even 80?

Who is to decide whether a specific individual is mature enough to
handle an office they seek? The voters alone. No one here has an
authority higher than that of the populi Novae Romae. No one else may
decide who shall be fit to be elected or who shall be judged fit to hold
any office.

Di consentes vos incolumes custodiant. Valete

Cn Moravius Piscinus
Tribunus Plebis
Flamen Cereailis

Subject:	[novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:40:34 -0800

NUNTIATIO EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS CN MORAVII PISCINI

Salvete Quirites

In keeping with the traditio tribunicius, I as the new junior Tribunus
Plebis wish to announce some arrangements to make myself accessible to
all Plebeian citizens.

First, I encourage all Plebians to subscribe to the Plebian email list
at

http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ComitiaPlebisTributa

On this list we shall be posting proposed plebiscita to be discussed
prior to voting. This will also become a list for Plebeians to raise
issues, and initiate proposals for plebiscita in their own right. In an
effort to make this list a primary means for Plebeians to communicate
with the Tribuni Plebis and for them to discuss Plebeian issues, I will
be making an effort to contact all Plebeian matres et patres familias,
to encourage all Plebeian gentes to be represented in the Comitia Plebis
Tributa. For this effort I am appointing as my scriba tribunicius,
Sentius Bruttius Sura.

Secondly, I am in the habit of visiting the taverna in the Forum Romanum
(the Nova Roma chat room) Monday through Friday between 2:00 PM to 5:00
PM Rome time (GMT 13.00-14.00 hrs). I am not always there, but quite
frequently. This is one of the best ways to reach me directly. Other
times that I may occasionally be found in the taverna are after 3:00 AM
Rome (GMT 02.00 hrs). http://pluto.beseen.com/chat/rooms/w/10275

Third, I shall begin making myself available in the Comitia Plebis chat
room on Wednesdays from 10:00 PM to Midnight Rome (GMT 21.00 to 23.00
hrs). The day(s) and time can be adjusted for the convenience of the
Quirites. http://mercury.beseen.com/chat/rooms/y/17189

Fourth, I shall be forming a consilium tribunicius, as by custom,
consisting of all other plebeian officers and the Moravii et amici. I
should like to expand on this tradition. I make an open invitation to
all cives, Plebeian and Patrician, to contact me at my email address:
piscinus@-------- If you would like to be considered for this panel of
advisors to the Tribune, just write to me. Of course at any time, all
Plebeians are welcomed to contact me at my email address.

Di deaeque vos incolumes custodiant. Valete

Cn. Moravius Piscinus
Tribunus Plebis

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 14:11:27 -0500

Salvete;

I must say that I find these rather divisive actions most distressing. Are
there really issues which impact the Plebeians so differently from the
Patricians that separate, exclusive email lists and chat rooms are
necessary? Are we not all Citizens of the same Republic? Should we not be
striving to come together in unity, the better to work together?

I say we should, and I urge all Citizens, Plebeian and Patrician, magistrate
and non-magistrate alike, to scorn these attempts to divide the populace for
no good purpose, and make use of those public channels of communication
which are provided for all Citizens, no matter what their class.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 16:41
> To: ComitiaPlebisTributa@--------
> Cc: Novaroma@--------
> Subject: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
>
>
> NUNTIATIO EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS CN MORAVII PISCINI
>
> Salvete Quirites
>
> In keeping with the traditio tribunicius, I as the new
> junior Tribunus
> Plebis wish to announce some arrangements to make myself accessible to
> all Plebeian citizens.
>
> First, I encourage all Plebians to subscribe to the Plebian
> email list
> at
>
> http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ComitiaPlebisTributa
>
> On this list we shall be posting proposed plebiscita to be discussed
> prior to voting. This will also become a list for Plebeians to raise
> issues, and initiate proposals for plebiscita in their own right. In an
> effort to make this list a primary means for Plebeians to communicate
> with the Tribuni Plebis and for them to discuss Plebeian issues, I will
> be making an effort to contact all Plebeian matres et patres familias,
> to encourage all Plebeian gentes to be represented in the Comitia Plebis
> Tributa. For this effort I am appointing as my scriba tribunicius,
> Sentius Bruttius Sura.
>
> Secondly, I am in the habit of visiting the taverna in the
> Forum Romanum
> (the Nova Roma chat room) Monday through Friday between 2:00 PM to 5:00
> PM Rome time (GMT 13.00-14.00 hrs). I am not always there, but quite
> frequently. This is one of the best ways to reach me directly. Other
> times that I may occasionally be found in the taverna are after 3:00 AM
> Rome (GMT 02.00 hrs). http://pluto.beseen.com/chat/rooms/w/10275
>
> Third, I shall begin making myself available in the Comitia
> Plebis chat
> room on Wednesdays from 10:00 PM to Midnight Rome (GMT 21.00 to 23.00
> hrs). The day(s) and time can be adjusted for the convenience of the
> Quirites. http://mercury.beseen.com/chat/rooms/y/17189
>
> Fourth, I shall be forming a consilium tribunicius, as by custom,
> consisting of all other plebeian officers and the Moravii et amici. I
> should like to expand on this tradition. I make an open invitation to
> all cives, Plebeian and Patrician, to contact me at my email address:
> piscinus@-------- If you would like to be considered for this panel of
> advisors to the Tribune, just write to me. Of course at any time, all
> Plebeians are welcomed to contact me at my email address.
>
> Di deaeque vos incolumes custodiant. Valete
>
> Cn. Moravius Piscinus
> Tribunus Plebis
>
>
>

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:27:27 -0800

Salve,

I have to 'me too' on this, at least at this juncture
in Nova Roma's growth. Speaking as both a plebian and
an outspoken advocate of community and communication ,
I'd personally rather see any cives contemplating
spending time in another chat venue to spend it in
the Forum or somewhere more public. As it is now,
the Forum only ever seems to have a handful of cives
in it at best. I did however subscribe to the mailing
list as to not miss anything.

(I just visited to see what Piscinus' mail was about,
the room was a very deep hue of Navy Blue! It needs
a non-melancholy background :-)..but I digress

That being said, does anyone know of a good multi-zone
digital clock for Windows that will help me keep track
of the time in Rome and generic GMT derivatives? As
everything is based on time in Rome, I don't want to run
the risk of missing something important.

Vale bene,
-Oppius
-----Original Message-----
From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus [mailto:germanicus@--------]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 11:11 AM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: RE: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius


Salvete;

I must say that I find these rather divisive actions most distressing. Are
there really issues which impact the Plebeians so differently from the
Patricians that separate, exclusive email lists and chat rooms are
necessary? Are we not all Citizens of the same Republic? Should we not be
striving to come together in unity, the better to work together?

I say we should, and I urge all Citizens, Plebeian and Patrician, magistrate
and non-magistrate alike, to scorn these attempts to divide the populace for
no good purpose, and make use of those public channels of communication
which are provided for all Citizens, no matter what their class.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 16:41
> To: ComitiaPlebisTributa@--------
> Cc: Novaroma@--------
> Subject: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
>
>
> NUNTIATIO EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS CN MORAVII PISCINI
>
> Salvete Quirites
>
> In keeping with the traditio tribunicius, I as the new
> junior Tribunus
> Plebis wish to announce some arrangements to make myself accessible to
> all Plebeian citizens.
>
> First, I encourage all Plebians to subscribe to the Plebian
> email list
> at
>
> http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ComitiaPlebisTributa
>
> On this list we shall be posting proposed plebiscita to be discussed
> prior to voting. This will also become a list for Plebeians to raise
> issues, and initiate proposals for plebiscita in their own right. In an
> effort to make this list a primary means for Plebeians to communicate
> with the Tribuni Plebis and for them to discuss Plebeian issues, I will
> be making an effort to contact all Plebeian matres et patres familias,
> to encourage all Plebeian gentes to be represented in the Comitia Plebis
> Tributa. For this effort I am appointing as my scriba tribunicius,
> Sentius Bruttius Sura.
>
> Secondly, I am in the habit of visiting the taverna in the
> Forum Romanum
> (the Nova Roma chat room) Monday through Friday between 2:00 PM to 5:00
> PM Rome time (GMT 13.00-14.00 hrs). I am not always there, but quite
> frequently. This is one of the best ways to reach me directly. Other
> times that I may occasionally be found in the taverna are after 3:00 AM
> Rome (GMT 02.00 hrs). http://pluto.beseen.com/chat/rooms/w/10275
>
> Third, I shall begin making myself available in the Comitia
> Plebis chat
> room on Wednesdays from 10:00 PM to Midnight Rome (GMT 21.00 to 23.00
> hrs). The day(s) and time can be adjusted for the convenience of the
> Quirites. http://mercury.beseen.com/chat/rooms/y/17189
>
> Fourth, I shall be forming a consilium tribunicius, as by custom,
> consisting of all other plebeian officers and the Moravii et amici. I
> should like to expand on this tradition. I make an open invitation to
> all cives, Plebeian and Patrician, to contact me at my email address:
> piscinus@-------- If you would like to be considered for this panel of
> advisors to the Tribune, just write to me. Of course at any time, all
> Plebeians are welcomed to contact me at my email address.
>
> Di deaeque vos incolumes custodiant. Valete
>
> Cn. Moravius Piscinus
> Tribunus Plebis
>
>
>


eGroups Sponsor

Click here to subscribe.

Subject:	[novaroma] RE: Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 14:51:10 -0500

Salvete Omnes;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 16:37
>
> I have been reading the posts regarding the provisions of the Lex Iunia
> de Magistratum Aetate. More specifically I have been considering the
> situation created by the Senate in the particular matter of Sextus
> Apollonius Draco. Let it be known by the Senate that had I been fully
> installed in office at the time of the Senate's decision I would have
> employed an intercessio for the reasons I shall give below. The incident
> has brought out a legislative gap in our present Constitution which I am
> sure the Consuls will address, as will the Tribuni Plebis.

At the outset, I would like to thank our Tribune of the Plebs for his
thorough and well-intended missive. I do however disagree with many of the
points he raises, and will address them below.

> However there
> is a more immediate problem to consider and that is that by your action
> the Senate has left vacant a Plebeian office. To avoid further
> entanglements on this issue I request that the Senate reconsider an
> exemption for Sextus Apollonius Draco so that he may rightfully assume
> the office for which he was duly and legally elected to hold.
>
> The reasons why I would have issued an intercessio are as follows:
>
> The Senate under the Constitution V.A has no other authority than to
> offer the "advise of the Senate." Sections V. B and C do not apply. The
> Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate extended the Senate's authority, in such
> matters as covered by that lex, contrary to Section I. A. It would be
> wrong to further consider that that lex granted an additional
> unconstitutional authority to the Senate to overrule the will of the
> people, in contravention of Section I. B.

I disagree. To do so would be, in effect, to ignore the will of the people
in which they expressly abbrogated their right in this matter, and placed
the power in the hands of the Senate and Censors. I fail to see how it is
right and proper to uphold the will of the people in one case by ignoring it
in another. The People have spoken, and have deferred their will in this
matter to another body; namely, the Senate and the Censors. That body then
exercised that authority, legally and properly given to them by the People
voting in the Comitia. Surely you would not deny the right of the people to
act as they see fit, even to the point of delegating some of their authority
if they so choose?

> If the Senate is to exercise
> its authority under the provision of the Lex Iunia, then it must be done
> prior to the election, advising the rogatores on whether or not a
> candidate's name may be placed on the ballot. No Senatus consulta, or
> censorial edicta, can overrule an issue once decided upon by a vote of
> the people in comitia.

Except when the comitia itself has delegated that authority to the Senate
and the Censors. In this very specific case, they did so, and thus the
events that unfolded were legal and proper. While you and I agree on what
the timing of this particular mechanism _should_ be, the lex in question
does not stipulate such (yet) and thus the Senate acted properly in its role
as final guarantor of the appropriateness of underage Citizens to serve as
magistrates, as the People not only allowed for, but required.

> Sextus Apollonius Draco was legally placed on the ballot, and was
> legally elected by the vox populi. He is by every legal right the
> elected Aedile Plebis.

I disagree. It is proper to say he _was_ elected Aedile Plebis. By every
legal right (that is, the right of the People to delegate whatever authority
they wish, to whatever body they wish), he was rejected for the position and
has since been appointed a scribus.

> Under the provisions of the Lex Iunia, by how I understand the Senate to
> regard the matter, although Sextus Apollonius may be the elected Aedile
> Plebis, he may not "assume" the office for which he was elected. I
> question that provision, but will not challenge what has happened thus
> far. Further, it cannot be said that the Lex Cyrlla de securandis
> magistratus plebis applies, as the provisions it makes are for a
> situation other than what has occurred here. Candidates were declared
> and placed on the ballot in December, and two candidates were legally
> elected. The Senate, by its action, has deprived us of a capable Aedile
> Plebis, and has placed us into a constitutional vacuum.

I must take objection to the Tribune's tone, implying that the very walls of
Nova Roma will come crashing down around our ears because there is a vacancy
in one Aedileship (plebeian or curule). Naturally, it is a vacancy we all
wish to see filled through the legal mechanisms available to us, but I fail
to see the threat to the Republic that he seems to.

I would also add that the People, in legally passing the Lex Iunia de
Magistratum Aetate, left the determination of just who is "capable" in the
hands of the Senate and Censors (as long as they fall beneath the minimum
age requirements listed therein). The People, through their duly delegated
representatives, the Senate and Censors, have spoken.

> There are now three issues before us. Required are a new lex to replace
> the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate, and a new plebiscitum to broaden and
> clarify the scope of the Lex Cyrlla regarding Plebian offices. I shall
> take under advisement formulating a plebiscitum to be presented to the
> Comitia Plebis Tributa later this year concerning the appointment of
> Plebeian officers. Discussion on the Lex Iunia is already progressing
> towards adopting some proposal to deal with the issue of age limits and
> how to implement such a lex. I trust the Consuls shall duly treat this
> matter.

Absolutely, and we agree regarding the need for an alteration of the Lex
Iunia de Magistratum Aetate. The discussion on this matter is proceeding
apace on the main email list, and I foresee a simple amendment to the Lex
Iunia de Magistratum Aetate to resolve the problem (by specifying that such
exemptions must be made prior to the vote itself) being presented to the
Comitia Populi quite soon.

I naturally leave it up to our good Tribune of the Plebs to offer amendment
to the Lex Cyrlla de securandis magistratus plebis as he sees fit, although
I do wonder why such safeguards are especially needed for the exclusively
Plebeian magistracies, when the normal Constitutional and legal mechanisms
are sufficient safeguard for the rest.

> Meanwhile, there is the third issue. As Sextus Apollonius was legally
> elected you cannot offer to hold a second election, for by doing so you
> would be overruling a decision already made by the Comitia, and thus
> would be acting in violation of Section I. B.

I disagree, for the reasons stated above. Indeed, the responsibility for
calling such a new election rests squarely on the shoulders of you and your
Tribunal colleague; according to paragraph IV.A. of the Constitution, you
have thirty days from the time of the vacancy to call for an election to
fill it. This is not a case of "offering" anything. You are required to do
so. As you have only twenty-two days to go, I would suggest you turn your
energies to that endeavor-- calling for new candidates, etc.--, rather than
on trying to overturn a provision of a legally-enacted law just to benefit a
single Citizen.

> Nor can you appoint anyone
> to his office, as there is no provision made to cover the vacancy left
> under the current situation.

Here I am in complete agreement with you. The Constitution only allows the
Senate to fill such vacancies if there are less than three months left in
the term, and the Lex Cyrlla de securandis magistratus plebis only mentions
situations where no one ran for the position in December. Perhaps as part of
your deliberations, you will consider broadening this language.

> Therefore the choice is between leaving
> Sextus Apollonius in as elected Aedile Plebis, but not allowed to assume
> office, while carrying out his duties as a scriba to his colleague. Or
> for the Senate to reconsider the exemption for this one individual and
> allow him to hold office as the people have so ruled.

As I discussed above, the choices are not quite so limited as you would make
them out to be. The Senate could indeed vote to reverse itself and grant the
exemption. However, as none of the circumstances regarding the candidate in
question have changed, I question whether the outcome would be any
different.

> I urge the Senate to take the latter course of action, accept the
> election of Sextus Apollonius as a fait accompli and move on to deal with
> the problems that caused this problem to arise. To deny the assumption
> of office because of indecision on the part of the Senate regarding the
> exemption prior to the election is patently wrong. To now deny
> assumption of office after the election was made could set a dangerous
> precedent. Whereas to continue to deny the assumption of office by this
> one particular individual amounts, in practical terms, to merely a denial
> of his participatory points for a job he will be performing anyway. Such
> a denial is simply too petty for the Senate to consider proper.

I believe that the course is clear; another election must be held, and
within the 30 (now 22) day time limit stipulated by our Constitution. You
would have us uphold the will of the people expressed in the comitia by
denying the will of the people expressed in the comitia! The people wanted
to give this final discretion to the Senate and Censors, and that decision
should be respected, no matter if you agree with it or not.

There were a plethora of candidates for the position of Tribunis Plebis
during the last time around; I am certain that any of them would make a fine
servant of the people in the role of Aedilis Plebis.

The unclear language of the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate which brought us
to this unfortunate situation is about to be clarified by the Comitia, so
this situation is not likely to be repeated. I suggest that what is in Nova
Roma's best interests is not to exaccerbate the problem by clinging to
dubious legal arguments and demanding the Senate reverse its previous
decision, but rather to accept the reality of the situation and move on to
more profitable, and constructive pursuits. Call for candidates, hold a new
election in the Comitia Plebis as our Constitution calls for, and let's get
on with helping Nova Roma grow.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Draco's Candidacy
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:51:34 +0100

Salve Senator Palladi,

<just one small comment>

> Since you read the senate board you already know that I admitted I
> was wrong on this point but I guess nothing feels as good as kicking
> a dead horse? However, my primary point was still valid, that Draco
> is too young to even be a citizen without written parental permission
> and thus in my opinion was way too young for an exemption. I assume
> he has that written permission and it is on file with the censors
> but it still indicates just how far below the age limit for a
> magistracy he is.

Indeed, this permission rests with the Censorial office. Just thought I'd
mention that. This parental permission you talk about, by the may, makes it
seem as though I am a child. US laws are much more severe in this than most
European laws. The age of being considered an adult over here is 18, and we
can drink at 16 (even though we can only drive at 18). Yet, our countries
function pretty well ;-).

But above all, I _am_ grateful for Vado's defence of me, albeit parts of it
may not be true. I owe thanks to anyone who stood up in public or in private
for my cause, or made any constructive remark regarding the cause of the
youths in general. With this, I hope to rest this topic.

Vale bene!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
Scriba Aedilis Plebis
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
Novaroman? Interested in philosophy? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
Novaroman? Interested in politics? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_DignitasForum

Subject:	[novaroma] Global Time website
From:	razenna@--------
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:34:21 -0000

Try this site

http://www.globaltime.net/cgi-bin/gtmain.pl

or [broken up to bypass filters]

http :/ /www. globaltime .net/c gi-bin/gtm ain.pl

you can also probably work your way in from globaltime.net

One selects the location one wants; up to five cities; and one can
lock them in place.

C. Aelius Ericius.



--- In novaroma@--------, "Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@y...>
wrote:

>
> That being said, does anyone know of a good multi-zone
> digital clock for Windows that will help me keep track
> of the time in Rome and generic GMT derivatives? As
> everything is based on time in Rome, I don't want to run
> the risk of missing something important.
>
>

Subject:	[novaroma] Local Groups and Administrative Structures (was Local Groups)
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:32:52 -0800

Salve Quirites,

I promised a response to Consul Germanicus regarding the
discussion of local group creation. As an issue very near
and dear to my heart given my abysmal provincial situation,
it bears some thoughtful comment. This is actually a
'digest form' response to a number of posts relating to the
Germanicus' initial thread. At this time, I only feel qualified to
comment on a few points covered in these threads; so
will do my best with those. Other points I feel need
some additional consideration and thought before I can
add anything meaningful.

+First of all: to Caius Aelius Ericius; though I have
deep empathy with your situation in the attempts to
organize a local event, I must say also that I'm quite
jealous that you were even able to have the dinner!
I think the situation you encountered is unfortunately
all too typical of many of the provinces. It is also
indicative of the transitory nature of belonging to
a cyberspace-intensive organization. Additionally,
it also highlights a sad-but-true commentary on today's
society in terms of how casually and disposable
commitment and community are viewed by many.

I for one applaud your efforts! As I travel to the Bay Area
several times a year (also lived in San Jose for 2 years and
just came back to the Northwest last March,) I would be
honored to be included in any gatherings that could
be attended there; even just a dinner. Will next be traveling that
way in February at some point, so will post a schedule
when the plans have been solidified.

+As to the organizational emulation as practiced by other
NFP and related groups; so much the better in my opinion.
While I agree with Patricia Cassia that the organizational
models as employed in Roma Mater would be the obvious ones
to emulate, we are many millions of cives away from a full
implementation of working model in that regard.

I don't have any opinion of the SCA or related groups one
way or the other, but *any* organization that is well structured
may have something to offer us, even if we never use it.
Looking to any 'model' community is a productive endeavor.
With all the work that has yet to be done within Nova Roma,
reinventing the wheel should not have to be one of the projects.
If something works somewhere, let's try to leverage it. As
our citizenry grows, and the full idea of community starts
to blossom in the minds of our cives, THEN I'd personally
like to see us move towards a traditional Roman organizational
model; at least as closely as is feasible.

To interject my common mantra here: build the feel of
community first, build granular administrative units second.
In most of the other areas here, I believe that Livia Cornelia
Aurelia spoke brilliantly here and as I'm in pretty much full
agreement with her positions as stated, I can only humbly
point back to her original post.

+Dalmaticus eloquently pointed out that hand wringing accomplishes
nothing. With this I am also in full agreement. Getting back
to my initial point above in response to C. Aelius Ericius,
ANY gathering of any size (if only two cives) is a good thing.
These gatherings need to happen as consistently as possible.

+The last point I can comment on relates specifically to
recruitment. For this endeavor, I think that we *do* need
to advertise and recruit at the city (urbes) level. It's difficult
to foresee a more granular division becoming necessary for
quite some time. As a pretense for sparking community interest
in joining Nova Roma, the idea of 'forming a chapter' at the
'local level' is great, as long as it's applied at the city level.
This will be especially important in areas that are widely
distributed. For some mega-large and diffuse cities such as
Los Angeles, then further subdivisions may be viable and beneficial
at some future point.

+Lastly, on the subject of traveling distance, this is and will
continue to remain an issue. *However,* this partially goes back
to my earlier rants on active vs. inactive cives. While weekly,
monthly or possibly even quarterly meetings may be too frequent
for many cives to be asked to travel vast distances; annual or
semi-annual gatherings should not. Yes, there are some cives that
will always not have the means or schedule availability to travel
to everything, all the time. -But hey, we're a community, a nation
and we have obligations to one another.

Vale bene,
-Oppius Flaccus Severus

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Global Time website
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:48:16 -0800

Salve, C. Aelius Ericius:

An excellent site, thanks for sending it! Just the thing I needed. Also
joined their mailing list to get a copy of their PC-local software when
available.

If anyone else out there is "GMT-impaired", I'd highly recommend checking
this out.

Vale bene,
-Oppius
-----Original Message-----
From: razenna@-------- [mailto:razenna@--------]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 12:34 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Global Time website


Try this site

http://www.globaltime.net/cgi-bin/gtmain.pl

or [broken up to bypass filters]

http :/ /www. globaltime .net/c gi-bin/gtm ain.pl

you can also probably work your way in from globaltime.net

One selects the location one wants; up to five cities; and one can
lock them in place.

C. Aelius Ericius.



--- In novaroma@--------, "Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@y...>
wrote:

>
> That being said, does anyone know of a good multi-zone
> digital clock for Windows that will help me keep track
> of the time in Rome and generic GMT derivatives? As
> everything is based on time in Rome, I don't want to run
> the risk of missing something important.
>
>


eGroups Sponsor




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Interesting website
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:54:00 -0800

Salve C. Cordius Symmachus,

Am intrigued by your mention of the Student Pagan Association. Out of
curiosity,
how large an organization is it? Are there NR recruitment possibilities
there?
Is it a very active association?

Gratiae multi,
-Oppius

PS: It is a very cool site, especially for those looking for a great
overview of various
aspects of the Religio. Thanks for posting it Sulla Felix!

-----Original Message-----
From: Chad [mailto:ckieffe@--------]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 9:47 AM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Interesting website


Salvete!
I'm taking Ovid's "Fasti" as a Latin graduate elective (for my Comp
Lit
M.A.) under the professor who put up this webpage when the U of A semester
starts back next Tuesday. He is also teaching a course on "Religion in
the
Roman Empire" next semester, and he is the advisor for our campus Student
Pagan Association.

Valete,
C Cordius Symmachus

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lucius Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
To: "NovaRoma" <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 3:04 AM
Subject: [novaroma] Interesting website


> http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/cicero/clst%201013%20religion.html
>
> Hope you enjoy.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
>
>
>
>


eGroups Sponsor

Click here to subscribe.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 16:26:28 -0700

Salve:

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> I'm afraid I must have been unclear in my explanation of the idea. The
> centuries and tribes would not physically vote one after another; rather,
> the votes would be counted (after the votes were cast) successively, one
> tribe/century after another, by the rogatores, without impacting the actual
> voting procedure itself. Perhaps I should have worded it "successive vote
> counting" rather than "successive voting". My apologies for being unclear on
> this point.
>
> As to what it would accomplish; it would provide a mechanism by which no tie
> votes for magisterial elections would occur. I think that's a worthy goal.

Well, essentially, we already do that. We start at tribe or century one, and
work our way down the list as a matter of procedure. I still don't see how
you're eliminating the possibility of ties.

I have to say this really baffles me. I spoke up prior to the elections for
voting per open office (i.e., vote for consul one from list one, vote for consul
two for list two), and that was determined to be too complex to consider. Fine.

Ostensibly, too, that could result in the same candidate winning both seats. It
was deemed that the risk of a tied candidate or a seat not being filled was
small enough under the current method employed to justify it's use. Now we want
to impose an unnatural order on the order in which we count the centuries
(unnatural being anything other than starting from century/tribe no 1) because
we think we need to find a fix to a terrible problem with having tied candidates
or an office slot left open. Maybe I'm really missing something, but WHAT does
this solve?

In my opinion, this last election re the quaestors worked EXACTLY the way it
should have. My apologies to Venator and Africanus, this view in no way implies
you didn't deserve to win a quaestorship. BUT.....we had 8 open positions, and
8 running candidates. Isn't this a first in Nova Roman history to have actually
had 8 running candidates that might have won?? Isn't this the first time there
was even the likelihood of having 8 quaestorships filled?

At the same time, we have no compunction about rejecting a cive from his elected
office of Aedile Plebis because of the age laws, which would in effect also
leave an office unfilled. Here's my two cents there: this is where the system
is broken. Change it so that approval from the senate is not of the election
results, but of the ability of the candidate to run in the election.

The system isn't broken in regard to the 8 quaestorships. It is working fine,
and simply needs to mature again. Leave it alone.

Here are something things that are broken:
- As my Rogatorial colleague Dalmaticus mentioned, there was never a clear point
of cutoff prior to the beginning of voting when nominations of candidacy
stopped. In addition, the process of throwing in one's nomination seemed a bit
spotty at best. I'd add to that a standardization of time announcements for
the elections.

- I KNOW the handoff of information between the consules, curator aranae
(actually assistant to the curator at that point) and Rogators was lacking.
Also, as the ill-fated second election showed, the process of simply notifying
the rogators needs to be considered. I do not think it's acceptable to serve
the rogators with notice of election at the same time the general populace is
notified on the list. There should be notification to the Rogators prior to the
people, including giving them all the information they need to set up their
spreadsheets, etc., PRIOR to the beginning of voting.

Look at the front end of the election process, I think it needs some
refinement.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia
past Rogator

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 16:28:11 -0700

I object to this.

Livia

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> Salvete;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Smith [mailto:JSmithCSA@--------]
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 00:59
> >
> > A similar system could also solve the problem of ties
> > within a century or tribe, at least so long as the
> > voting population is relatively small. If a tribe or
> > century is tied between several candidates, then the
> > rogators would have to count to see which one got
> > there first to announce a victor. This would
> > eliminate tied within centuries and tribes and does
> > not take long (I know from unfortunate experience,
> > having had to verify several of each in the recent
> > election by writing the numbers of the ballots down on
> > a piece of paper, since the ballots are numbered
> > sequentially, it would be simple to see who was
> > first).
>
> This is a very good idea! I do like the notion of eliminating the tied
> centuries/tribes, and this does seem a natural way to do it (and I think
> historical; it certainly seems to be in line with the description of voting
> in Roma Antiqua as I understand it); assuming it doesn't place an entirely
> unreasonable burden on the rogatores.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	LucillaCornelia@--------
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 18:49:41 -0500

I, likewise, object to this.

Lucilla Prima

novaroma@-------- wrote:
>
> I object to this.
>
> Livia
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
>
> > Salvete;
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jeff Smith [mailto:JSmithCSA@--------]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 00:59
> > >
> > > A similar system could also solve the problem of ties
> > > within a century or tribe, at least so long as the
> > > voting population is relatively small.  If a tribe or
> > > century is tied between several candidates, then the
> > > rogators would have to count to see which one got
> > > there first to announce a victor.  This would
> > > eliminate tied within centuries and tribes and does
> > > not take long (I know from unfortunate experience,
> > > having had to verify several of each in the recent
> > > election by writing the numbers of the ballots down on
> > > a piece of paper, since the ballots are numbered
> > > sequentially, it would be simple to see who was
> > > first).
> >
> > This is a very good idea! I do like the notion of eliminating the tied
> > centuries/tribes, and this does seem a natural way to do it (and I think
> > historical; it certainly seems to be in line with the description of
voting
> > in Roma Antiqua as I understand it); assuming it doesn't place an entirely
> > unreasonable burden on the rogatores.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> > Consul
> >
> > email: germanicus@--------
> > AIM: Flavius Vedius
> > www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/