|
|
Senate Voting Results04 Aprilis MMDCCLIVas 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.
Valete
pr Non Apr MMDCCLIV tlf |