SS Jan. 21-27 2763 Item VII

From NovaRoma
Jump to: navigation, search

Senate session 21-27 Jan. 2010 cc - item VII, detail

Item VII – SC de ratione senatus – modification – members of the senate who may have a personal interest in a question submitted to discussion and vote shall not take part to them

(Normal item: discussion and vote)

The Senate internal procedures are defined by the senatus consultum de ratione senatus, whose text may be found at:

This text is thus also the text that organize our meetings when we meet as Board of NR Inc..

Considering both pure Roman view and the relation with the local national law, our text does not deal with one situation that, currently, a growing number of associations provide in their bylaws: the conflict of interests.

There is conflict of interest when an individual or an organization is involved in several interests at the same time, and that one of which may possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.

Inside the Senate, every member may live such a situation, for example when (s)he may be appointed to an official position by the Curia, granted special rights, etc..

All Roman values, as well as the need to reduce the risks that Nova Roma and/or NR Inc. officers be sued towards the national courts, recommend that we take all measures to avoid such conflicts of interests inside the Senate. In this preoccupation that you will probably share with me, Patres, the following SC, on “the conflict of interests”, is proposed to your approval and support:

  • Article 1 – The following provisions are inserted, in the current text of Senatus consultum de ratione senatus a.d. VIII Id. Sex. 2759 auc, at the end of current paragraph V, and before paragraph VI (“voting”). These provisions are placed under a V.2., the current text of the § V becoming a “V.1”.
    • ““V.1. - On the conflict of interests inside the Senate

1.1 – When a conflict of interests may occur during a session of the Senate, the concerned member of the Senate, either spontaneously or on the request of the presiding magistrate or of two other members, decides not to take part to the discussion and to the vote relatives to the item of the agenda for which the conflict may be revealed. In case of dispute on whether there is conflict of interests or not, the agreement of all present or duly represented Censors and Tribunes of the Plebs will be required to consider that there is no conflict. If such agreement were not issued or reached before the opening of the relative discussion, the concerned member of the senate would be required by the presiding magistrate not to take part to it, nor to the following vote. If necessary, the presiding magistrate would be allowed using, in order to implement such a measure, her/his moderation powers.
If ever, in case of a uncontested conflict of interests, the considered member refused to retire from such discussion and vote, the presiding magistrate would, similarly, be allowed using, her/his moderation powers to implement this one-shot retirement.
1.2 – In the frame of the present text, the expression “member of the senate” includes all senators, magistrates, officers or other members who are allowed, by the current laws, to take part, in the Senate, either to a discussion or to a vote, or to both.
1.3 – Shall be concerned by a conflict of interests every member of the Senate of Nova Roma who, besides this function (i.e. member of NR Inc. Board), will at the same time lead or be involved into any private, family or professional activity whose goals, status, means, development or existence, may take advantage of any opinion issued or vote cast by the concerned member in the frame of the Senate. Such a conflict concerns either directly the member itself or, indirectly, the organization, inside Nova Roma or outside, that (s)he may represent or defend the interests of.
The plurality of offices held inside Nova Roma and in due conformity of its laws is not considered as a conflict of interests.
1.4 – Any senatus consultum or decision taken by the senate without respecting the above mentioned rules shall be considered as void. If this violation were to be proved as intentional, the responsibility of the member and of the presiding magistrate may be engaged.””

  • Article 2 – The consuls are charged to see to the good execution of the present senatus consultum.

Thanks, senators, giving us your advice through your decision.

P. Memmius Albucius

Personal tools