Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: A Suggestion about the NR ML
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 00:00:17 -0000

Hi Jacthondus!

Good to hear from you again. I'm sure the idea came up before but
I've been away over the last 4 months. I'm glad you thought of it
before. Great minds think alike don't they. Well I hope they will
consider this. I look forward to reading more of your posts and
suggestions.

All the best,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus



-- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "jachthondus" <rompy@x> wrote:
> Hi, Quintus Lanius Paulinus,
>
> How GOOD of You to suggest to unite all these
> magistrates/governmental-issues/discussions/talks on a Separate-
List!
> That would make space for REAL-HISTORY in an other list...
>
> (Not such a bad idea of mine after all; was it)?
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Jachthondus.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
> Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > I was watching this political wrangling over the last few days.
It
> is
> > interesting and necessary and differences between our government
> > representatives must be discussed and resolved. I have jumped in
> and
> > given my two cents worth before so I am no different even though
I
> > hold no office yet.
> >
> > Still, I was thinking that it may be a good idea to open another
NR
> > group ML specifically for political debates and internal
> differences
> > that need to be addressed. What concerns me is that we seem to
get
> > into these long heavy arguments which can sometimes last for
days.
> I
> > know it is just cooincidental but whenever we have several
> potential
> > new Nova Romans wanting to join our ranks, these heavy internal
> > debates seem to be in progress. New potential NR's may be coming
> from
> > other discussion groups which do not have a government like ours.
> Now
> > if we are discussing issues on how the Republican government
worked
> > and how its actions would apply to todays world, great. On the
> other
> > hand if we're into drawn out discussions about what bill no.
> Senator
> > Qlp did 2 years ago that threw Tribuna Flavia who had been
stabbed
> in
> > the back by Consul Caligula in revenge for not helping him to
curb
> > the expenditures of Lex xx1 suggested by Titus whos arrogance
> caused
> > the Eagle to fold...
> > Well I fear that such drawn out discussions on this ML which I
> always
> > considered thr "gateway" to Nova Roma, may wellleave a sour taste
in
> > the mouths of new potential Nova Romans. Any suggestions or
ideas
> on
> > this?
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Edictum Consulare CFQ VII de Comitiorum Populi Tributorum Convocatione
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 01:46:50 -0000

Salve Honorable Consul,

I apologize that I did some major snippage. If I may, I just have a
couple questions to ask concerning the ressurection of the status of
Socius as a special catagory of non-citizen.

The first question concerns the LEX VEDIA DE CIVITATIS PETITIONIBUS
INTER SUFFRAGIA. I think that the answer to my question is yes, but
would the LEX VEDIA DE CIVITATIS PETITIONIBUS INTER SUFFRAGIA apply
to Socii returning to Nova Roma having to wait through election
periods to ahve their petition approved? The second question
concerns those inactive maters and paters that get converted to Socii
status. Reading your Lex proposal and those members of a gens who
remain citizens and appoint a new mater or pater, what happens should
the old mater or pater petition to return as a citizen? The other
question on that same vein concerns gens that have all their members
converted to Socii status. Does the gens go "extinct" or does it
continue to exist but considered closed to new members?

Thank you for your time. I apologzie if I spelled "Socii" wrong, I
think everyone knows and I readily admit, my Latin is horrible on my
best day.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Aerarium Saturni section
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 02:14:00 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Patricia Cassia <pcassia@n...>
wrote:


Salve,

Pardon the snippage. I think it would be good to note that Nova
Roma's net worth basically doubled in one year's time. Excellent
money managment.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: A Suggestion about the NR ML
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?R6VJVkxJVlOlU0NBVlJWUw==?= <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 02:27:44 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus Q. Lanio Paulino salutem dicit.

Salve, Q. Lani.

>Well I fear that such drawn out discussions on this ML which I always
>considered thr "gateway" to Nova Roma, may wellleave a sour taste in
>the mouths of new potential Nova Romans. Any suggestions or ideas on
>this?

While it is always good to try to introduce newcomers to the best of
NR, they will quickly enough learn that there is political infighting
in any non-totalitarian system of government (and in totalitarian
systems, but the dynamics are very different). If newcomers are to
participate in the process of self-government that is NR's great
strength (and which is, in fact, rather milder than its historical
exemplar), they will discover what a separate political list will only
temporaily disguise. I think it is ultimately more honest to let
potential citizens see NR with all its warts and quirks, since the
alternative is to induce them to join
something they don't really understand.

Vale bene.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Greek Epigraphy
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?R6VJVkxJVlOlU0NBVlJWUw==?= <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 03:39:23 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites.

Here's a link to several hundred images of Greek inscriptions:

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/CSAD/Catalogue.html

The site is the database of Greek inscriptions developed by the Oxford
Univ. Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents. While the epigraphs
in the database range from the classical period to late antiquity,
many portray aspects of civic life in the Roman provinces of the east.

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Interesting Links to Isis
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 05:46:30 -0000

Salvete omnes et Drusilla,

Here are some interesting links for learning about the godess Isis.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Interesting Links to Isis
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 05:51:10 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> Salvete omnes et Drusilla,
>
> Here ahttp://www.resurrectisis.org/

http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~brantler/homepage.html

http://www.egiptologia.net/isis/is-reli.html

http://www.iseum.org.uk/

http://www.bubastis.be/religion/dieux/isis.html

http://www.philae.nu/akhet/history8.html

http://web.genie.it/utenti/i/inanna/livello2-i/iside-01-i.htm
re some interesting links for learning about the godess Isis.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Duh,

I missed my click on the posting!

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Edictum Consulare CFQ VII de Comitiorum Populi Tributorum Convocatione
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Decimus=20Iunius=20Silanus?= <danedwardsuk@yahoo.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 12:04:55 +0100 (BST)

Salve Consul,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my query -
it is much appreciated. Further, I agree with much of
what you say and applaud you efforts to make the
conducting of the census a cheaper affair than it
would otherwise have been.

I must say, however, that I think that this census
provides us with an opportunity that we may miss. At
the end of the bulk email phase of the process, we
will be provided with a clear picture of exactly how
much it will cost to proceed with the snail mail phase
of the census. There should be provision within the
census to allow us to stop and take stock at this
stage and make a decision as to whether it will be too
cost prohibitive to continue. It seems folly to go in
'full steam ahead' without knowing exactly how much
this census will cost. The truth is, we do not know
exactly how many individuals we may need to contact by
post, and as a consequence we should remain on the
side of prudence and caution.

By way of a worst case scenario, a figure of around
400 active citizens is often mentioned which leaves
1300 potentially inactive citizens to contact by snail
mail (unlikely I know, but possible). This will result
in a snail mail exercise costing in the region of £650
or nearly $1000. Even your own estimation of 35%
results in the necessity to contact a little over 600
people by snail mail (cost £300 or nearly $500). None
of these figure take into account the man hours
involved. This is money that can be better spent in my
opinion. All I'm asking is that we phase the entire
process so that we may stop at any stage should it be
deemed sensible to do so. It will be far easier to
halt the process if there is provision within the
census that specifically permits it.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus.


> The old Census law was much more expense and
> expected the Censors to
> build a staff of Censorial scribae internationally
> and it also
> expected the Censors to do the same expansive
> contacting within the
> Provinciae without the Governors and their
> assistants. I have changed
> this in this law as I think these changes will make
> the system
> cheaper. I also think it is much better to use the
> already built up
> structures in the Provincae.
>
> Still I think it will be hard to avoid that the
> _first_ Census will
> cost more than those that will follow. But laws are
> written for the
> long run and I think that this law will be
> affordable both the first
> time and in the future.
>
> Before we calculate the % of the inactive citizens
> that will not
> answer contacts by e-mail I think that we will have
> to consider a
> "special" group among these citizens - those who
> have friends among
> the officials of the Provinciae. These wouldn't be
> of much use with
> the old law, but when those who execute the Census
> are mainly from
> the Provinciae there will be a certain number that
> is known by the
> officials of the Provinciae. Those citizens will
> probably not cost
> anything to get in touch with, we could even expect
> some of them to
> take this contact themselves, even if they don't
> know about the
> Census itself.
>
> Still I have also introduced a system with tax
> credit to cheapen the
> costs of reimbursment for those officials that work
> with the Census.
> This leaves the costs for the surface mails and the
> phone calls. I
> have calculated that there would be about 35% to
> contact by these
> methods. This is of course just a guess. This would
> cost £11 ($17)
> for 28 persons (35%) (calculated in Swedish costs)
> which would be
> much more reasonable. I also expect a higher rate of
> answers by
> e-mail in countries like USA as the use of e-mail is
> much more
> frequent there than in some of the smaller
> Provinciae.
>
> I admit that I am on unsure ground in guessing, but
> I think You will
> have to admit that You are too. In the end I think
> we will have to go
> through with this Census and hope and work so that
> we can keep the
> costs down. As a Governor I will be free to donate
> some of the costs
> to Nova Roma, which I probably will do and I hope
> that some of my
> Legati also will do that. This is after all a
> voluntary organisation
> and most the Governors and Magistrati already have
> expenses that we
> pay from our own purse. This tradition is already
> active.
>
> >Salvete,
> >
> >A clarification from a governors point of view
> would be welcome.
> >
> >> III. The Census will consist of the following:
> >> Those who meet any of the following criteria
> will still be
> >considered citizens:
> >> 1. Those who voted in the main election (in
> November and/or
> >December)
> >> 2. Those who have paid taxes for the current
> calendar year
> >> 3. Patres Familias who have successfully
> responded to the yearly
> >> registration of the Lex Cornelia de Tabulis
> Gentium Novaromanarum
> >> Agendis
> >> 4. Persons who became citizens during the
> current calendar year
> >> 5. Persons who are successfully contacted as
> described in section
> >IV.
> >>
> >> IV. "Inactive" citizens are those who fail to
> meet at least one of
> >> the conditions in III. The following will lay
> down some of the
> >> procedures to contact inactive citizens.
> Inactive citizens are
> >those
> >> who will need to be contacted by the National
> Census. The following
> >> methods will be used to contact inactive
> citizens:
> >> A. Bulk Email. At least two attempts should be
> done to contact
> >> citizen via this avenue.
> >> B. Surface mail. "Inactive" Citizens who are
> unreachable by email
> >> shall receive a mailing. This shall be done on
> the provincial level
> >> by Governors and legati under the supervision of
> the Censors.
> >
> >How many citizens do you anticipate will need to be
> contacted by this
> >method? I would anticipate 50% to be a not
> unreasonable assumption.
> >This mean that as governor, I personally (with my
> staff) would need
> >to snail mail about 40 individuals. If it is as
> many as this, the
> >time and cost implications would be far too
> prohibitive for me to
> >proceed. To contact 40 cives by snail mail will
> cost in the region of
> >£20 ($30). Multiply this by all the provinces and
> that is a lot of
> >time and money expenditure. Are cives that fail to
> keep in touch with
> >NR and provide her with an up to date email address
> worth that kind
> >of expenditure?
> >
> >> C. Phone calls. If a Citizen is unreachable by
> e-mail or surface
> >> mail, he/she shall be contacted by phone.
> >
> >Is this after the incurred expenditure of a letter.
> Again, if the
> >amount of citizens involved are too large will it
> be actually worth
> >it?
> >
> >I wholly support the need to conduct a census of
> Nova Roman citizens
> >and will do the utmost to assist with the process.
> However, should
> >there not be a provision within the edict by which
> the process is
> >altered or halted should it become immediately
> apparent that the time
> >and cost implications involved are too great to
> make it cost
> >effective? It would be a great shame to lose a
> substantial portion of
> >our treasury on an exercise in contacting inactive
> NR citizens who
> >can't be bothered to keep in touch with us.
> >
> >Valete
> >
> >Decimus Iunius Silanus
> >Propraetor Britanniae.
>
> --
>
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> Senior Consul et Senator
> Propraetor Thules
> Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus
> Provincia Thules
> Civis Romanus sum
> ************************************************
> Cohors Consulis CFQ
> http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

__________________________________________________
It's Samaritans' Week. Help Samaritans help others.
Call 08709 000032 to give or donate online now at http://www.samaritans.org/support/donations.shtm

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] a few replies
From:	PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 10:09:56 -0400

F. Galerius Aurelianus Secundus to Diana Moravia Aventina. Salve.

I am glad that you are having a good time on this side of the Atlantic and am equally thrilled to know that you have a ready fund of gold and gems if you ever have to flee the Republic. It is true that diamonds are indeed, a girl's best friend. I wish you the very best luck with continuing to speak for yourself as no one does it better (speaking, that is). I will not be attending Roman Days as originally planned due to a continuing series of minor disasters and events connected to getting the mortgage on my new house taken care of. Interestingly, after I crucified one of the mortgage agents, things began to move much more quickly.
I look forward to the day when you and I get to meet; preferably in a smoke-filled back room. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more, say no more! Vale.

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] A Suggestion about the NR ML
From:	PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 10:15:03 -0400

I disagree. I believe that we do not need another side list. I personally enjoy the diatribes, witty repartee, and even the annoying, long-winded demagoguery on the ML. Let's keep politics, opinion, and humor out there for everyone along with the intelligent comments and academic information.

F. Galerius Aurelianus Secundus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] silliness at Red Robin Restaurant
From:	asseri@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 10:18:17 EDT

Salvette,

I went out last night with a friend to a fancy Hamburger chain call "Red
Robin" they have these little coasters for your drinks each one has a joke
on them . It appears that this month joke is as follows:

Do Roman paramedics refer to IV"S as "4"s"

Prima Fabia Drusila
Legatus Regionis Occidentalis
(Indiana ,Illinois, Kentucky)


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: silliness at Red Robin Restaurant
From:	"gaiuspopilliuslaenas" <ksterne@bellsouth.net>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 14:47:07 -0000

>>fancy Hamburger chain<<


Add another one to the list of oxymorons! Sort of like "polite Nova
Roma politics" ;-O

Vale,
Gaius Popillius Laenas

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] On the Census
From:	"J. Mallory" <scribe73dc@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 12:27:54 -0700 (PDT)

Avete omnes--

I apologize for replying to one message "through"
another, but that is due to my mailing-list-management
strategy--namely reading the ML on digest.

> > III. The Census will consist of the following:
> > Those who meet any of the following criteria will
> still be
> considered citizens:
> > 1. Those who voted in the main election (in
> November and/or
> December)
> > 2. Those who have paid taxes for the current
> calendar year
> > 3. Patres Familias who have successfully responded
> to the yearly
> > registration of the Lex Cornelia de Tabulis
> Gentium Novaromanarum
> > Agendis
> > 4. Persons who became citizens during the current
> calendar year
> > 5. Persons who are successfully contacted as
> described in section
> IV.
> >
> > IV. "Inactive" citizens are those who fail to meet
> at least one of
> > the conditions in III.

The difficulty I am having is with reconciling the
wording of III and IV: they are not logically
determinative. III stipulates that anybody who meets
*any* of the requirements is *active*; IV says that
anyone who *fails* one requirement is *inactive*. So
what about cives who meet one requirement but fail
another? (For example, one who voted, but did not pay
taxes.)

I may have missed a discussion of this clarification,
but it seems to be a problem that could be easily
sorted out. Must one meet *all* of the requirements,
or only *one*?

Salvete omnes,
Lucius Modius Rufus

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] On the Census
From:	jan gram <janabc10@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 12:56:28 -0700 (PDT)

I'd like to add another confusing point, or maybe not so confusing: Would that also mean that those who do not have access to computers and would not vote but pay their taxes become defranchised?

"J. Mallory" <scribe73dc@yahoo.com> wrote:Avete omnes--

I apologize for replying to one message "through"
another, but that is due to my mailing-list-management
strategy--namely reading the ML on digest.

> > III. The Census will consist of the following:
> > Those who meet any of the following criteria will
> still be
> considered citizens:
> > 1. Those who voted in the main election (in
> November and/or
> December)
> > 2. Those who have paid taxes for the current
> calendar year
> > 3. Patres Familias who have successfully responded
> to the yearly
> > registration of the Lex Cornelia de Tabulis
> Gentium Novaromanarum
> > Agendis
> > 4. Persons who became citizens during the current
> calendar year
> > 5. Persons who are successfully contacted as
> described in section
> IV.
> >
> > IV. "Inactive" citizens are those who fail to meet
> at least one of
> > the conditions in III.

The difficulty I am having is with reconciling the
wording of III and IV: they are not logically
determinative. III stipulates that anybody who meets
*any* of the requirements is *active*; IV says that
anyone who *fails* one requirement is *inactive*. So
what about cives who meet one requirement but fail
another? (For example, one who voted, but did not pay
taxes.)

I may have missed a discussion of this clarification,
but it seems to be a problem that could be easily
sorted out. Must one meet *all* of the requirements,
or only *one*?

Salvete omnes,
Lucius Modius Rufus

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] On the Census
From:	Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 22:26:08 +0200

"J. Mallory" wrote:
> > III. The Census will consist of the following:
> > Those who meet any of the following criteria
> > will still be considered citizens:
> >
> > IV. "Inactive" citizens are those who fail to meet
> > at least one of the conditions in III.
>
> The difficulty I am having is with reconciling the
> wording of III and IV: they are not logically
> determinative. III stipulates that anybody who meets
> *any* of the requirements is *active*; IV says that
> anyone who *fails* one requirement is *inactive*. So
> what about cives who meet one requirement but fail
> another? (For example, one who voted, but did not pay
> taxes.)

Salve, Luci Modi Rufe.

Just a language issue. IV says "fail to meet at least one", as in "don't
even meet one" of the conditions, not as in "failed one or more". Hard
to tell when looking at the text out of context, but rather
understandable when remembering what's said in III...or at least I think
so. ;)

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] On the Census
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 23:05:15 +0200

Salve Honorable Lucius Modius Rufus!

My friend and Accensus Illustrus Titus Octavius Pius beat me to it,
so I can only refer to his explanation. I hope that is enough.

>Avete omnes--
>
>I apologize for replying to one message "through"
>another, but that is due to my mailing-list-management
>strategy--namely reading the ML on digest.
>
>> > III. The Census will consist of the following:
>> > Those who meet any of the following criteria will
>> still be
>> considered citizens:
>> > 1. Those who voted in the main election (in
>> November and/or
>> December)
>> > 2. Those who have paid taxes for the current
>> calendar year
>> > 3. Patres Familias who have successfully responded
>> to the yearly
>> > registration of the Lex Cornelia de Tabulis
>> Gentium Novaromanarum
>> > Agendis
>> > 4. Persons who became citizens during the current
>> calendar year
>> > 5. Persons who are successfully contacted as
>> described in section
>> IV.
>> >
>> > IV. "Inactive" citizens are those who fail to meet
>> at least one of
>> > the conditions in III.
>
>The difficulty I am having is with reconciling the
>wording of III and IV: they are not logically
>determinative. III stipulates that anybody who meets
>*any* of the requirements is *active*; IV says that
>anyone who *fails* one requirement is *inactive*. So
>what about cives who meet one requirement but fail
>another? (For example, one who voted, but did not pay
>taxes.)
>
>I may have missed a discussion of this clarification,
>but it seems to be a problem that could be easily
>sorted out. Must one meet *all* of the requirements,
>or only *one*?
>
>Salvete omnes,
>Lucius Modius Rufus
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
>http://search.yahoo.com
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Consul et Senator
Propraetor Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Edictum Consulare CFQ VII de Comitiorum Populi
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 23:11:23 +0200

Salve Honorable Lucius Modius Rufus!


>Salve Honorable Consul,
>
>I apologize that I did some major snippage. If I may, I just have a
>couple questions to ask concerning the ressurection of the status of
>Socius as a special catagory of non-citizen.
>
>The first question concerns the LEX VEDIA DE CIVITATIS PETITIONIBUS
>INTER SUFFRAGIA. I think that the answer to my question is yes, but
>would the LEX VEDIA DE CIVITATIS PETITIONIBUS INTER SUFFRAGIA apply
>to Socii returning to Nova Roma having to wait through election
>periods to ahve their petition approved?

You are correct, it would.

>The second question
>concerns those inactive maters and paters that get converted to Socii
>status. Reading your Lex proposal and those members of a gens who
>remain citizens and appoint a new mater or pater, what happens should
>the old mater or pater petition to return as a citizen?

The same will have as happens now. The old pater or mater will be
just a ordinary member of the Gens.

>The other
>question on that same vein concerns gens that have all their members
>converted to Socii status. Does the gens go "extinct" or does it
>continue to exist but considered closed to new members?

The last alternative is the correct one.

>Thank you for your time. I apologzie if I spelled "Socii" wrong, I
>think everyone knows and I readily admit, my Latin is horrible on my
>best day.

No problem and I appreciate to talk with You about my law proposals,
I hope that we can make this a habit to discuss the laws that I will
propose the following months. ;-)

>Vale,
>
>Q. Cassius Calvus
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Consul et Senator
Propraetor Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Laenas appointment as 5th tribune of Nova Roma
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 23:21:56 +0200

Salve Quirites!

First of all the decision to take the election of the fifth Tribunus
to the Senate is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Tribunes.
Still I am among those who would prefer that the Senate would _not_
be part of the election of Tribunes, because this is _not_, as I see
it, within the spirit of the law. But as the Tribunes have decided
that there is a emergency situation and that a fifth Tribunmust be
elected. OK, so bet it!

Still I must state that the Senate can only vote as a whole. The
Senator are the Patres of the Res Publica and they are this as a
collective. I am convinced that any vote by just one Ordo would be
illegal.

>Salve Tiberi Galeri Pauline
>We already have had 5 runoff elections. And that is enough reason to
>call the Senate to order to appoint the candidate with relative
>majority as the fifth tribune. I already sent a message to both
>Consuls announcing them my plan to call the Senate to order by the
>end of this month. If the Patrician senators abstain to vote there
>is the risk that the candidate will not receive enough votes at the
>Senate to be appointed as the fifth tribune. I do not recall right
>now how many Senators are Patricians and how many plebeians. The
>fact that the candidate has relative majority, it means that he was
>the candidate with most votes at the last runoff election. So his
>appointment by this august chamber will be respecting the plebeians'
>will.
>Bene vale
>Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
>Tribunus Plebis
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stephen Gallagher
> To: Nova-Roma ; Senate Senate
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 5:12 PM
> Subject: Laenas appointment as 5th tribune of Nova Roma
>
>
> Salve
>
> I do not want to start a fight but have any of the Patrician
>Senators given any thought to abstaining on the vote to have Laenas
>appointed 5th tribune of Nova Roma ?
>
> This would at least keep us the sprit of Tribunes only being
>elected by plebeians.
>
> Regardless the appointment should me made ASAP.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Citizen
> Fortuna Favet Fortibus
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Diana Moravia Aventina
> To: ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [ComitiaPlebisTributa] Digest Number 116
>
>
> Salve Lucius Modius,
>
> The Tribunes are in the process of having Laenas
> appointed 5th tribune of Nova Roma. This will
> take a bit of time, but the wheels are turning
> and my colleague Octavianus has already contacted
> the Senate asking them to appoint Laenas. So
> normally we will have 5th Tribune shortly.For
> the future, I have been busy writing a Plebiscite
> so that we won't have this problem of endless
> run-offs again. It is based a ot n the ideas that
> I was throwing around on this list a few months
> ago. When I get back to Belgium I will show it to
> my Tribune colleagues and to all of you. So
> things are going forward although I admt
> slowly.... I haven't helped matters because since
> mid February, I have been busy dealing with
> deaths and ilnesses in my immediate circle of
> friends/family. So I admit that I haven't been as
> attentive to this list as I should have: the
> proof being that I *totally* missed A Apollonius'
> emails re election reform. I'll be back in
> Belgium on Sunday and probably have to return to
> NYC within a few weeks but I'll bring my
> laptop!!!
>
> And to G. Modius: It has certainly been an
> endurance test for the candidates. I'm glad to
> see that you'll be in the election again next
> year.
> Vale, Diana Moravia
> .__________________________________
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 07:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: "J. Mallory" <scribe73dc@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Election Reform, the Tribunes, and the
> > Consul
> >
> > Avete omnes--
> >
> > I am addressing the election reform controversy
> > on this mailing list because the dialogue on
> > the main list has gotten out of control and is,
> > in my opinion, somewhat embarrassing and
> > unproductive. Once it gets to the point of "but
> > you said X"/"no, I said X+1," the point of
> > diminishing marginal returns has been reached,
> > with a vengeance. (I am, admittedly, reading
> > the digest version, so it may have cooled
> > off--but I won't know until tomorrow.)
> >
> > With the need for a further runoff
> > obviated--either Popillius Laenas can be
> > appointed by the Senate, or a pro-forma runoff
> > with a fairly well-known result can be
> > held--perhaps we can turn to solving the
> > problem so it does not recur?
> >
> > I have gone back to review the Senior Consul's
> > proposal for a mixed-style (Roman, for lack of
> > a better term, and AVS) election process. At
> > the time it was posted, I believe most of the
> > comments were positive. It still has merit, and
> > would be a serviceable and worthwhile solution,
> > preserving both Romanitas and the voters'
> > collective sanity.
> >
> > My thin understanding of the working of NR lead
> > me to believe that any of the Tribunes can
> > propose a motion for consideration in the
> > convened Comitia Plebis Tributa. It is apparent
> > that Tribuna Diana Moravia Aventina may have
> > some difficulty in doing so--her thoughtful
> > discourse is pushing WebTV to the limits of its
> > capacities--but there should be three other
> > Tribunes available, yes? Perhaps the Comita can
> > be convened so we can begin *deliberating*, as
> > opposed to arguing about deliberating.
> >
> > I understand the need to figure out where
> > things went wrong--and it is apparent now that
> > there are multiple points of failure, not just
> > one--but that should not distract us from
> > preventing things from continuing to get worse.
> > When in quicksand, looking for the map is a
> > secondary concern.
> >
> > With great respect, I would once again urge the
> > Tribunes--regardless of the Senior Consul's
> > intention, or lack thereof--to convene the
> > Comitia and formally open the discussion of
> > election reform. Once that is completed, *then*
> > we can do a post-mortem.
> >
> > Salvete omnes,
> > Lucius Modius Rufus
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> >
> > [This message contained attachments]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ________________________________________________________________________
> > ______________________________
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ComitiaPlebisTributa-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Consul et Senator
Propraetor Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Edictum Consulare CFQ VII de Comitiorum Populi Tributorum Convocatione
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 17:42:59 -0400

Salve Romans

What about this as a suggestion ?

Within each province we form a "mail tree" or, if phone numbers are
available, a "phone tree"

Each Nova Roma Governor (27 provinces) is given a list of the inactive
citizens ( anywhere between 1 and 1773) in their province and a list of NR
officials( a NR official is anybody with a title behind their name and a
willingness to donate the cost of 10-20 phone calls or postage stamps) in
the province (most governors already know who lives in their province).

The governors divide the lists between the officials in the province and
mail the lists to the officials, who in turn call or write to those on their
list. All information is then sent back to the Censors or to the governors
(or both) and the Censors take it from there.

BTW what are we asking in the census? This is our first and best chance to
really get a good profile of our Citizens and I would hate for us to miss
out because we forgot to ask something important.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen





----- Original Message -----
From: "Decimus Iunius Silanus" <danedwardsuk@yahoo.co.uk>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Edictum Consulare CFQ VII de Comitiorum Populi
Tributorum Convocatione


> Salve Consul,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to reply to my query -
> it is much appreciated. Further, I agree with much of
> what you say and applaud you efforts to make the
> conducting of the census a cheaper affair than it
> would otherwise have been.
>
> I must say, however, that I think that this census
> provides us with an opportunity that we may miss. At
> the end of the bulk email phase of the process, we
> will be provided with a clear picture of exactly how
> much it will cost to proceed with the snail mail phase
> of the census. There should be provision within the
> census to allow us to stop and take stock at this
> stage and make a decision as to whether it will be too
> cost prohibitive to continue. It seems folly to go in
> 'full steam ahead' without knowing exactly how much
> this census will cost. The truth is, we do not know
> exactly how many individuals we may need to contact by
> post, and as a consequence we should remain on the
> side of prudence and caution.
>
> By way of a worst case scenario, a figure of around
> 400 active citizens is often mentioned which leaves
> 1300 potentially inactive citizens to contact by snail
> mail (unlikely I know, but possible). This will result
> in a snail mail exercise costing in the region of £650
> or nearly $1000. Even your own estimation of 35%
> results in the necessity to contact a little over 600
> people by snail mail (cost £300 or nearly $500). None
> of these figure take into account the man hours
> involved. This is money that can be better spent in my
> opinion. All I'm asking is that we phase the entire
> process so that we may stop at any stage should it be
> deemed sensible to do so. It will be far easier to
> halt the process if there is provision within the
> census that specifically permits it.
>
> Vale
>
> Decimus Iunius Silanus.
>
>
> > The old Census law was much more expense and
> > expected the Censors to
> > build a staff of Censorial scribae internationally
> > and it also
> > expected the Censors to do the same expansive
> > contacting within the
> > Provinciae without the Governors and their
> > assistants. I have changed
> > this in this law as I think these changes will make
> > the system
> > cheaper. I also think it is much better to use the
> > already built up
> > structures in the Provincae.
> >
> > Still I think it will be hard to avoid that the
> > _first_ Census will
> > cost more than those that will follow. But laws are
> > written for the
> > long run and I think that this law will be
> > affordable both the first
> > time and in the future.
> >
> > Before we calculate the % of the inactive citizens
> > that will not
> > answer contacts by e-mail I think that we will have
> > to consider a
> > "special" group among these citizens - those who
> > have friends among
> > the officials of the Provinciae. These wouldn't be
> > of much use with
> > the old law, but when those who execute the Census
> > are mainly from
> > the Provinciae there will be a certain number that
> > is known by the
> > officials of the Provinciae. Those citizens will
> > probably not cost
> > anything to get in touch with, we could even expect
> > some of them to
> > take this contact themselves, even if they don't
> > know about the
> > Census itself.
> >
> > Still I have also introduced a system with tax
> > credit to cheapen the
> > costs of reimbursment for those officials that work
> > with the Census.
> > This leaves the costs for the surface mails and the
> > phone calls. I
> > have calculated that there would be about 35% to
> > contact by these
> > methods. This is of course just a guess. This would
> > cost £11 ($17)
> > for 28 persons (35%) (calculated in Swedish costs)
> > which would be
> > much more reasonable. I also expect a higher rate of
> > answers by
> > e-mail in countries like USA as the use of e-mail is
> > much more
> > frequent there than in some of the smaller
> > Provinciae.
> >
> > I admit that I am on unsure ground in guessing, but
> > I think You will
> > have to admit that You are too. In the end I think
> > we will have to go
> > through with this Census and hope and work so that
> > we can keep the
> > costs down. As a Governor I will be free to donate
> > some of the costs
> > to Nova Roma, which I probably will do and I hope
> > that some of my
> > Legati also will do that. This is after all a
> > voluntary organisation
> > and most the Governors and Magistrati already have
> > expenses that we
> > pay from our own purse. This tradition is already
> > active.
> >
> > >Salvete,
> > >
> > >A clarification from a governors point of view
> > would be welcome.
> > >
> > >> III. The Census will consist of the following:
> > >> Those who meet any of the following criteria
> > will still be
> > >considered citizens:
> > >> 1. Those who voted in the main election (in
> > November and/or
> > >December)
> > >> 2. Those who have paid taxes for the current
> > calendar year
> > >> 3. Patres Familias who have successfully
> > responded to the yearly
> > >> registration of the Lex Cornelia de Tabulis
> > Gentium Novaromanarum
> > >> Agendis
> > >> 4. Persons who became citizens during the
> > current calendar year
> > >> 5. Persons who are successfully contacted as
> > described in section
> > >IV.
> > >>
> > >> IV. "Inactive" citizens are those who fail to
> > meet at least one of
> > >> the conditions in III. The following will lay
> > down some of the
> > >> procedures to contact inactive citizens.
> > Inactive citizens are
> > >those
> > >> who will need to be contacted by the National
> > Census. The following
> > >> methods will be used to contact inactive
> > citizens:
> > >> A. Bulk Email. At least two attempts should be
> > done to contact
> > >> citizen via this avenue.
> > >> B. Surface mail. "Inactive" Citizens who are
> > unreachable by email
> > >> shall receive a mailing. This shall be done on
> > the provincial level
> > >> by Governors and legati under the supervision of
> > the Censors.
> > >
> > >How many citizens do you anticipate will need to be
> > contacted by this
> > >method? I would anticipate 50% to be a not
> > unreasonable assumption.
> > >This mean that as governor, I personally (with my
> > staff) would need
> > >to snail mail about 40 individuals. If it is as
> > many as this, the
> > >time and cost implications would be far too
> > prohibitive for me to
> > >proceed. To contact 40 cives by snail mail will
> > cost in the region of
> > >£20 ($30). Multiply this by all the provinces and
> > that is a lot of
> > >time and money expenditure. Are cives that fail to
> > keep in touch with
> > >NR and provide her with an up to date email address
> > worth that kind
> > >of expenditure?
> > >
> > >> C. Phone calls. If a Citizen is unreachable by
> > e-mail or surface
> > >> mail, he/she shall be contacted by phone.
> > >
> > >Is this after the incurred expenditure of a letter.
> > Again, if the
> > >amount of citizens involved are too large will it
> > be actually worth
> > >it?
> > >
> > >I wholly support the need to conduct a census of
> > Nova Roman citizens
> > >and will do the utmost to assist with the process.
> > However, should
> > >there not be a provision within the edict by which
> > the process is
> > >altered or halted should it become immediately
> > apparent that the time
> > >and cost implications involved are too great to
> > make it cost
> > >effective? It would be a great shame to lose a
> > substantial portion of
> > >our treasury on an exercise in contacting inactive
> > NR citizens who
> > >can't be bothered to keep in touch with us.
> > >
> > >Valete
> > >
> > >Decimus Iunius Silanus
> > >Propraetor Britanniae.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> > Senior Consul et Senator
> > Propraetor Thules
> > Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus
> > Provincia Thules
> > Civis Romanus sum
> > ************************************************
> > Cohors Consulis CFQ
> > http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
> > ************************************************
> > Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> > "I'll either find a way or make one"
> > ************************************************
> > Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> > Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> It's Samaritans' Week. Help Samaritans help others.
> Call 08709 000032 to give or donate online now at
http://www.samaritans.org/support/donations.shtm
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] A Suggestion about the NR ML
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 17:48:52 -0400

Salve

As always my dear cousin speaks with wisdom!!!!

Vale

Tiberius GALERIUS Paulinus


----- Original Message -----
From: <PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Suggestion about the NR ML


> I disagree. I believe that we do not need another side list. I
personally enjoy the diatribes, witty repartee, and even the annoying,
long-winded demagoguery on the ML. Let's keep politics, opinion, and humor
out there for everyone along with the intelligent comments and academic
information.
>
> F. Galerius Aurelianus Secundus
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Laenas appointment as 5th tribune of Nova Roma
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 19:05:06 -0400

Salve Consuls and my fellow Romans

Absit invidia


As I stated when I first brought up the question, I do not want to start a
fight, I am, I hope engaging in a learned debate with those who join this thread.

I have a couple of questions.

1. We have a Senate of Twenty, What is the quorum requirement to conduct business?

2. Is the quorum call before or after a vote?

3. If a candidate or other item being voted on

received 7 vote for passage
0 votes were cast against passage
and 13 abstentions, would the candidate or item pass or fail?

Our Honored Consul said

"Still I must state that the Senate can only vote as a whole. The
Senator are the Patres of the Res Publica and they are this as a
collective. I am convinced that any vote by just one Ordo would be
illegal."

Do you mean to say that ONLY UNANIMOUS votes of the Senate are LEGAL?


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen




----- Original Message -----
From: "Caeso Fabius Quintilianus" <christer.edling@telia.com>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <SenatusRomanus@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 5:21 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Laenas appointment as 5th tribune of Nova Roma


> Salve Quirites!
>
> First of all the decision to take the election of the fifth Tribunus
> to the Senate is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Tribunes.
> Still I am among those who would prefer that the Senate would _not_
> be part of the election of Tribunes, because this is _not_, as I see
> it, within the spirit of the law. But as the Tribunes have decided
> that there is a emergency situation and that a fifth Tribunmust be
> elected. OK, so bet it!
>
> Still I must state that the Senate can only vote as a whole. The
> Senator are the Patres of the Res Publica and they are this as a
> collective. I am convinced that any vote by just one Ordo would be
> illegal.
>
> >Salve Tiberi Galeri Pauline
> >We already have had 5 runoff elections. And that is enough reason to
> >call the Senate to order to appoint the candidate with relative
> >majority as the fifth tribune. I already sent a message to both
> >Consuls announcing them my plan to call the Senate to order by the
> >end of this month. If the Patrician senators abstain to vote there
> >is the risk that the candidate will not receive enough votes at the
> >Senate to be appointed as the fifth tribune. I do not recall right
> >now how many Senators are Patricians and how many plebeians. The
> >fact that the candidate has relative majority, it means that he was
> >the candidate with most votes at the last runoff election. So his
> >appointment by this august chamber will be respecting the plebeians'
> >will.
> >Bene vale
> >Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> >Tribunus Plebis
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Stephen Gallagher
> > To: Nova-Roma ; Senate Senate
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 5:12 PM
> > Subject: Laenas appointment as 5th tribune of Nova Roma
> >
> >
> > Salve
> >
> > I do not want to start a fight but have any of the Patrician
> >Senators given any thought to abstaining on the vote to have Laenas
> >appointed 5th tribune of Nova Roma ?
> >
> > This would at least keep us the sprit of Tribunes only being
> >elected by plebeians.
> >
> > Regardless the appointment should me made ASAP.
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Citizen
> > Fortuna Favet Fortibus
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Diana Moravia Aventina
> > To: ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ComitiaPlebisTributa] Digest Number 116
> >
> >
> > Salve Lucius Modius,
> >
> > The Tribunes are in the process of having Laenas
> > appointed 5th tribune of Nova Roma. This will
> > take a bit of time, but the wheels are turning
> > and my colleague Octavianus has already contacted
> > the Senate asking them to appoint Laenas. So
> > normally we will have 5th Tribune shortly.For
> > the future, I have been busy writing a Plebiscite
> > so that we won't have this problem of endless
> > run-offs again. It is based a ot n the ideas that
> > I was throwing around on this list a few months
> > ago. When I get back to Belgium I will show it to
> > my Tribune colleagues and to all of you. So
> > things are going forward although I admt
> > slowly.... I haven't helped matters because since
> > mid February, I have been busy dealing with
> > deaths and ilnesses in my immediate circle of
> > friends/family. So I admit that I haven't been as
> > attentive to this list as I should have: the
> > proof being that I *totally* missed A Apollonius'
> > emails re election reform. I'll be back in
> > Belgium on Sunday and probably have to return to
> > NYC within a few weeks but I'll bring my
> > laptop!!!
> >
> > And to G. Modius: It has certainly been an
> > endurance test for the candidates. I'm glad to
> > see that you'll be in the election again next
> > year.
> > Vale, Diana Moravia
> > .__________________________________
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 07:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
> > > From: "J. Mallory" <scribe73dc@yahoo.com>
> > > Subject: Election Reform, the Tribunes, and the
> > > Consul
> > >
> > > Avete omnes--
> > >
> > > I am addressing the election reform controversy
> > > on this mailing list because the dialogue on
> > > the main list has gotten out of control and is,
> > > in my opinion, somewhat embarrassing and
> > > unproductive. Once it gets to the point of "but
> > > you said X"/"no, I said X+1," the point of
> > > diminishing marginal returns has been reached,
> > > with a vengeance. (I am, admittedly, reading
> > > the digest version, so it may have cooled
> > > off--but I won't know until tomorrow.)
> > >
> > > With the need for a further runoff
> > > obviated--either Popillius Laenas can be
> > > appointed by the Senate, or a pro-forma runoff
> > > with a fairly well-known result can be
> > > held--perhaps we can turn to solving the
> > > problem so it does not recur?
> > >
> > > I have gone back to review the Senior Consul's
> > > proposal for a mixed-style (Roman, for lack of
> > > a better term, and AVS) election process. At
> > > the time it was posted, I believe most of the
> > > comments were positive. It still has merit, and
> > > would be a serviceable and worthwhile solution,
> > > preserving both Romanitas and the voters'
> > > collective sanity.
> > >
> > > My thin understanding of the working of NR lead
> > > me to believe that any of the Tribunes can
> > > propose a motion for consideration in the
> > > convened Comitia Plebis Tributa. It is apparent
> > > that Tribuna Diana Moravia Aventina may have
> > > some difficulty in doing so--her thoughtful
> > > discourse is pushing WebTV to the limits of its
> > > capacities--but there should be three other
> > > Tribunes available, yes? Perhaps the Comita can
> > > be convened so we can begin *deliberating*, as
> > > opposed to arguing about deliberating.
> > >
> > > I understand the need to figure out where
> > > things went wrong--and it is apparent now that
> > > there are multiple points of failure, not just
> > > one--but that should not distract us from
> > > preventing things from continuing to get worse.
> > > When in quicksand, looking for the map is a
> > > secondary concern.
> > >
> > > With great respect, I would once again urge the
> > > Tribunes--regardless of the Senior Consul's
> > > intention, or lack thereof--to convene the
> > > Comitia and formally open the discussion of
> > > election reform. Once that is completed, *then*
> > > we can do a post-mortem.
> > >
> > > Salvete omnes,
> > > Lucius Modius Rufus
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> > >
> > > [This message contained attachments]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
________________________________________________________________________
> > > ______________________________
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> > http://search.yahoo.com
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > ComitiaPlebisTributa-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> --
>
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> Senior Consul et Senator
> Propraetor Thules
> Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
> Civis Romanus sum
> ************************************************
> Cohors Consulis CFQ
> http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] On the Census
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 18:09:43 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Modi,

>
> > > III. The Census will consist of the following:
> > > Those who meet any of the following criteria will
> > still be considered citizens:

> > > IV. "Inactive" citizens are those who fail to meet
> > at least one of the conditions in III.
>
> The difficulty I am having is with reconciling the
> wording of III and IV: they are not logically
> determinative. III stipulates that anybody who meets
> *any* of the requirements is *active*; IV says that
> anyone who *fails* one requirement is *inactive*. So
> what about cives who meet one requirement but fail
> another? (For example, one who voted, but did not pay
> taxes.)

They must meet only one requirement. The introductory statement
of Section III is very clear; and while the introductory statement
of Section IV could be interpreted either way, only by parsing it
as indicating a failure to meet any of the conditions of III is
there consistency.

While the language is a bit vague, it is not contradictory.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://konoko.net/~haase/

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Roman Books
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 19:21:59 -0400

Salve I would like to include this in the June Eagle. Please send your answers directly to me at spqr753@msn.com


What are the top ten books one must have in your Roman Library?


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Curator Differum



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Laenas appointment as 5th tribune of Nova Roma
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 16:31:46 -0700 (PDT)

--- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@msn.com> wrote:
> Salve Consuls and my fellow Romans
>
> Absit invidia
>
>
> As I stated when I first brought up the question, I
> do not want to start a
> fight, I am, I hope engaging in a learned debate
> with those who join this thread.
>
> I have a couple of questions.
>
> 1. We have a Senate of Twenty, What is the quorum
> requirement to conduct business?

LSD: 14 Senators as per the Consulta passed on 18 July
2754.
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/senate/2001-07-18-vii.html

>
> 2. Is the quorum call before or after a vote?

LSD: Before
>
> 3. If a candidate or other item being voted on
>
> received 7 vote for passage
> 0 votes were cast against passage
> and 13 abstentions, would the candidate or item
> pass or fail?

LSD: The Item would fail. A Majority of Senators
present has to vote for an item for it to pass.

At Least 14 Senators have to be present for a quorum.
If this minium number is present then the required
majority would be 8 Senators. Since there are only 7
Plebian Senators it is numericly impossible to pass a
measure with only Plebian Senators voting at the
present time.

L. Sicinius Drusus
Senator

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Laenas appointment as 5th tribune of Nova Roma
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2003 19:53:07 -0400

Salve Senator L. Sicinius Drusus

Thanks for the reply. End of my questions.

As an aside The web site lists 20 Senators?

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus


----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Laenas appointment as 5th tribune of Nova Roma


>
> --- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@msn.com> wrote:
> > Salve Consuls and my fellow Romans
> >
> > Absit invidia
> >
> >
> > As I stated when I first brought up the question, I
> > do not want to start a
> > fight, I am, I hope engaging in a learned debate
> > with those who join this thread.
> >
> > I have a couple of questions.
> >
> > 1. We have a Senate of Twenty, What is the quorum
> > requirement to conduct business?
>
> LSD: 14 Senators as per the Consulta passed on 18 July
> 2754.
> http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/senate/2001-07-18-vii.html
>
> >
> > 2. Is the quorum call before or after a vote?
>
> LSD: Before
> >
> > 3. If a candidate or other item being voted on
> >
> > received 7 vote for passage
> > 0 votes were cast against passage
> > and 13 abstentions, would the candidate or item
> > pass or fail?
>
> LSD: The Item would fail. A Majority of Senators
> present has to vote for an item for it to pass.
>
> At Least 14 Senators have to be present for a quorum.
> If this minium number is present then the required
> majority would be 8 Senators. Since there are only 7
> Plebian Senators it is numericly impossible to pass a
> measure with only Plebian Senators voting at the
> present time.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
> Senator
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>