Session XXVIII 04 April 2754
Senate action for 4 April 2754 as posted in the “old Tabularium” Tiberius Galerius Paulinus, Censor 9 August 2761 A.V.C.
Senatvs Consvlta Senate Voting Results 04 Aprilis MMDCCLIV as published by tribune Titus Labienus Fortunatus
Tribunus Plebis T Labienus Fortunatus Quiritibus SPD
The Senate has finished its latest session, and the votes have been tallied. Once again, I ask each Senator who voted to make sure that I have correctly reported his vote and any comments he may have made.
The following Senatores cast votes. They are referred to below by their initials.
Marcus Cassius Julianus (MCJ) Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (LCSF) Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus (LEC) Quintus Fabius Maximus (QFM) Caius Flavius Diocletianus (CFD) Antonius Gryllus Graecus (AGG) Alexander Iulius Caesar Probus Macedonius (AICPM) Titus Labienus Fortunatus (TLF) Marcus Octavius Germanicus (MOG) Lucius Sergius Australicus (LSA) Gaius Tullius Triumphius Cicero (GTTC) Flavius Vedius Germanicus (FVG)
The following Senatores did not vote. M Minucius was kept from voting by unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances, and has offered apologies. Patricia Cassia Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus Marcus Iunius Iulianus Minervina Iucundia Flavia Gaius Marius Merullus Marcus Minucius Audens
Item I. Filling Vacant Governorships A. America Austroccidentalis Pontius Sejanus Marius Marcus Flavius 3 abstentions, 5 votes for Pontius Sejanus Marius, 4 votes against both candidates. Pontius Sejanus Marius is appointed governor of America Austroccidentalis
MJC: I vote for Pontius Sejanus Marius. His background looks good, and I feel he has the enthusiasm necessary for the job. LCSF: ANTIQUO. For the only fact that neither candidate has meet the requirements necessary for governor. LEC: ANTIQUO, neither candidate meets the requirements set by our own Senatus Consultum ( http: //www.novaroma.org/tabularium/sen00020601.htm ) QFM: ANTIQUO, The candidates do not meet the requirements set by the Senatus Consultum on qualifications for the office. CFD: Pontius Sejanus Marius AGG: ANTIQUO. Neither candidate meets the requirements necessary for governor. AICPM: ABSTINEO It was quite difficult for me to evaluate the every candidate's program if any was presented especially for the distant provinces, which social life I do not follow so close. TLF: Pontius Sejanus Marius MOG: I vote for P. Sejanus. LSA: NEGAT to both because neither meets the requirements set for the office. This is not to say that either might not make a good governor, but I think we must uphold the requirements we voted into place. GTTC:Being unfamiliar with the remainder of the Praetorian candidates I must vote ABSTINEO. In situations were multiple candidates apply and there are those who do not meet the requirements the choice is obvious. In cases where there is only the one under qualified candidate we should adapt a more lenient position. FVG: I vote for Pontius Sejanus Marius. Given recent history in the province as well as his own stated background, I feel circumstances warrant waiving our standards for appointing governors in this instance.
B. Australia Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura Marcus Arcadius Pius 2 abstentions, 10 votes in favor of Marcus Arcadius Pius. Marcus Arcadius Pius is appointed governor of Australia.
MJC: I vote for Marcus Arcadius Pius. LCSF: While I praise G. Sentius for his work as my scribe, I must cast my vote for Pontiff M. Arcadius Pius. He has been a citizen for a long time and I believe he will do an excellent job as Governor. I also believe that in time G. Sentius will make an excellent magistrate in the future! My vote is for M. Arcadius. LEC: Marcus Arcadius Pius QFM: Marcus Arcadius Pius CFD: Marcus Arcadius Pius AGG: I vote Marcus Arcadius Pius. AICPM: ABSTINEO TLF: Marcus Arcadius Pius MOG: I vote for M. Arcadius. LSA: UTI ROGAS to Marcus Arcadius Pius, because he meets the legal requirements to take office. I hope we are not discouraging G. Sentius, because his enthusiasm is laudable and I am certain he will make a fine governor or other senior official some day. GTTC :ABSTINEOFVG:I vote in favor of Marcus Arcadius Pius.
C. Britannia Titus Sertorius Albinus 2 abstentions, 5 votes in favor, 5 votes against. No majority voting in favor, no governor is appointed for Britannia.
MJC: I vote Uti Rogas (yes) for Titus Sertorius Albinus. We cannot leave this position vacant. I did not vote for our current Provincial Praetor standards because I forsaw situations just like we have here. No reason to turn down an enthusiastic local representative because they don't meet all aspects of a set criteria... most especially if they are the only volunteer for the job. LCSF: ANTIQUO. Again, for the fact that the candidate has not meet the requirements necessary for governor. LEC: ANTIQUO, the candidate does not meets the requirements set by our own Senatus Consultum. QFM: ANTIQUO, Even though our Consul has urged us to do elect this person we must stick to the rules. If we elect one unqulified person for office, we should elect them all. Sertorius may stand again in two months and I'm sure he will be successful. CFD: UTI ROGAS AGG: ANTIQUO. While we need a governor for Britannia, this cannot be the first that appears to us. AICPM: Titus Sertorius Albinus - UTI ROGAS/YES I guess such an important province as Britannia need to have as soon as possible capable governor. Britannia has a very special possition as a bridge between American and European provinces. I like Albinus' posts especially his efforts to consolidate the province after previous governor resignate. I hope very much Albinus will participate activly in Limes Cooperation project as well. TLF: Titus Sertorius Albinus MOG: ABSTINEO LSA : NEGAT. This is a difficult call since T. Sertorius is within 2 months of qualifying, but my dear Mater always told me that "close" counts with horseshoes and hand grenades - not with the law. GTTC:ABSTINEOFVG: I vote in favor of Titus Sertorius Albinus. The governorship of Britannia is simply too important to go vacant; I feel circumstances warrant waiving our standards for appointing governors in this instance.
D. Hispania Claudius Salix Davianus 3 abstentions, 4 votes in favor, 6 votes against. No governor is appointed for Hispania.
MJC: I vote Uti Rogas (yes) for Claudius Salix Davianus. He is the only one to have stepped forward for the position... no reason not to let him prove himself. LCSF: ANTIQUO. Again, for the fact that the candidate has not meet the requirements necessary for governor. LEC: ANTIQUO, the candidate does not meets the requirements set by our own Senatus Consultum. QFM: ANTIQUO, does not meet the requirements set by the Senatus Consultum on qualifications for the office. CFD: ABSTINEO AGG: ANTIQUO. The candidate does not meet the requirements necessary for governor. AICPM: UTI ROGAS/YES TLF: Claudius Salix Davianus MOG: ABSTINEO LSA : NEGAT only because his one month of citizenship does not qualify him.GTTC: ABSTINEOFVG:I vote against Claudius Salix Davianus. I do not believe circumstances warrant waiving our standards for appointing governors in this instance; I certainly have nothing against him otherwise.
E. Thule Titus Curius Dannicus Caeso Fabius Quintilianus 2 abstentions, 6 votes in favor of Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, 4 votes in favor of Titus Curius Dannicus. Caeso Fabius Quintilianus is appointed governor of Thule.
MJC: I vote in favor of Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, and feel he will do an excellent job if elected. LCSF: My vote is for Titus Curius. LEC: Titus Curius Dannicus QFM: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus And I take this opportunity to say how proud I am of Caeso Fabius and his involvement with Nova Roma. CFD: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus AGG: ABSTO. AICPM: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus - UTI ROGAS I consider Quintilianus to be a little bit more active and that is the reason I vote for him. TLF: Titus Curius Dannicus MOG: I vote for C. Fabius. LSA:UTI ROGAS to T. Curius Dannicus. It is difficult to choose between these two good men, but a review of my archive indicates that Dannicus has been actively campaigning for the post since some time last year. GTTC: ABSTINEO FVG: I vote in favor of Caeso Fabius Quintilianus.
F. Mexico Marcus Salix Aurelius Hispanicus 3 abstentions, 4 votes in favor, 5 votes against. No governor is appointed for Mexico.
MJC: I vote Uti Rogas (yes) for Marcus Salix Aurelius Hispanicus. Again he is the only one to have stepped forward for the position... no reason not to let him prove himself. LCSF: ANTIQUO. Again, for the fact that the candidate has not meet the requirements necessary for governor. LEC: ANTIQUO, the candidate does not meets the requirements set by our own Senatus Consultum. QFM: ANTIQUO, does not meet the requirements set by the Senatus Consultum on qualifications for the office. CFD: ABSTINEO AGG: ANTIQUO. The candidate does not meet the requirements necessary for governor. AICPM: UTI ROGAS That coutry has got the status of a province before many European ones, but I have not mentioned any traces of NR social life in Mexico. That may to be changed. TLF: Marcus Salix Aurelius Hispanicus MOG: ABSTINEO LSA: UTI ROGAS GTTC: ABSTINEO FVG: I vote against Marcus Salix Aurelius Hispanicus. I do not believe circumstances warrant waiving our standards for appointing governors in this instance; I certainly have nothing against him otherwise.
Item II. Bohemia 11 votes in favor, 0 votes against. The measure is approved.
MJC: UTI ROGAS LCSF: UTI ROGAS LEC: UTI ROGAS QFM: UTI ROGAS CFD: UTI ROGAS AGG: UTI ROGAS AICPM: UTI ROGAS/YES The reasons and the pre-history have been explained in my previous posts. I am sure that it will be a positive signal for countries. TLF: UTI ROGAS MOG: UTI ROGAS LSA: UTI ROGAS GTTC: FVG: UTI ROGAS
Item III. Budget Amendment 12 votes in favor, 0 votes against. The measure is approved.
MJC: UTI ROGAS LCSF: UTI ROGAS LEC: UTI ROGAS QFM: UTI ROGAS CFD: UTI ROGAS AGG: UTI ROGAS AICPM: UTI ROGAS TLF: UTI ROGAS MOG: UTI ROGAS LSA: UTI ROGAS GTTC: UTI ROGAS FVG: UTI ROGAS
Item IV. Name-change of Provincia Mexico 1 abstention, 4 votes in favor, 7 votes against. The measure is defeated.
MJC: I vote Uti Rogas (yes) to the change. It's historically correct, shorter and easier to use. LCSF: ANTIQUO LEC: ANTIQUO QFM: ANTIQUO. My reasoning is simple. Most Mexicans do not wish to reminded they were held in bondage to Hispania. Perhaps we can find a more suitable Latin name for province other then Nova Hispania. CFD: NEGAT. The honoured Collega M. Octavius Germanicus pointed out the reasons very well. I have nothing to add. AGG: ABSTINEO AICPM: I like the idea, nevertheless I do not know how the cives living there accept it. Nevertheless, I vote - UTI ROGAS/YES TLF: NEGAT MOG: NEGAT. I have not seen justification for why this should be done, and have read of several objections due to modern Mexicans wanting to assert their independence from Spain. Until a sufficient number of citizens of this province formally request this, we should leave the name alone. LSA: NEGAT. I don't think this change is wise when we don't know the wishes of a significant number of the inhabitants of the province. I, for one, would not want Australia called Nova Britannia even if that name were not already taken. GTTC: UTI ROGAS - With the support of the Preator of the respective province and only speculation in opposition I see no problem to comply. (FVG: ABSTINEO
Item V. Sponsorship of Legio XI in San Diego, CA 2 abstentions, 6 votes in favor, 4 votes against. The measure is approved.
MJC: I vote Negat... but only because these folks seem to be in too early a stage to work with properly. A group without equipment and other such necessities must work on basics before branching out with a sponsorship. I do hope that these folks can be encouraged to reply at a later time once they've had more chance to form a stable foundation. LCSF: I ABSTINEO. This is a very difficult issue for me because I do not have sufficient knowledge of reenactments to truly make an informed decision. This is because reenactments have never been a passion for me.....In the future, as a suggestion, I would like to have a recommendation from the Sodalitas Militarum...since they would be the logical body to help those of us who are not reenactment orientated to make an informed decision. I did review the emails submitted by Consul Germanicus, but they were not enough for me to make an informed decision to recommend or deny. LEC: ANTIQUO QFM: UTI ROGAS While it appears this will go down to defeat, I gave my word of support to my Californian citizen and her project, another Nova Roma recruiting tool. While I understand and respect my colleagues' decision, I cannot help to feel that they missed the bigger picture here. Nevertheless, Claudia may reapply at a later date and still gain recognition. This does not close doors. CFD: UTI ROGAS AGG: UTI ROGAS AICPM: UTI ROGAS Why not, moreover we have granted sponsorship to other Legios too. TLF: ABSTINEO MOG: UTI ROGAS. It's been said that an all-female legion is not historically authentic, and may cause some of our other legions to object. However, we already have female Senators and Propraetors. We made the decision a long time ago that equality and nondiscrimination are more important than complete historical accuracy. These people want to participate, want to ally themselves with Nova Roma; let us not turn them away. LSA: UTI ROGAS. I understand, and to some extent share, the misgivings that have been stated. However, I do not think that because women did not (to our knowledge) fight in the legions of Roma Antiqva, we should try to discourage the interest of modern women in participating in reconstructionist activities according to their choice. The gender biases of Roma Antiqva are among those traditions that we have specifically rejected in Nova Roma. GTTC: NEGAT - I am all for the Sponsership of Legions but with new information in the middle of the voting session I think we should look a little more carefully at this proposal before making any committments. FVG: NEGAT (no). While I do not believe the chosen level of authenticity for the unit is a disqualifying factor per se, the group in question seems to be still in the early stages of formation (for example, in their application they state they don't as of yet have any arms or armor, a pretty basic requirement for a reenactment legio). I suggest that the legio be given time to become established and get a firm foundation for itself, at which time it should be encouraged to re-apply for sponsorship.
pr Non Apr MMDCCLIV