Tribune report of October 2762 auc session
Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis omnibus s.d.
The Senate was called into session at 11.00 hour (CET) on 9 Oct. 2762, with discussions continuing until approximately sunset in Rome (17.00 hrs CET) on 13 Oct. 2762.
Voting on the Agenda began in the second hour at 06.45 hrs CET on 14 Oct. 2762 and concluded at 17.00 hrs CET on 18 Oct. 2762.
"VTI ROGAS" indicates a vote in favor of an item, "ANTIQVO" is a vote against, "ABSTINEO" is an open abstention.
The following 27 Senatores voted in the current session:
MCC Marcus Curiatius Complutensis LCSF Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix CCS C. Curius Saturninus TGP Tiberius Galerius Paulinus MIP M. Iulius Perusianus GEC Gaius Equitius Cato PMA Publius Memmius Albucius MAM Marcus Arminius Maior MHM Marca Hortensia Maior GIC Gnaeus Iulius Caesar MIS M. Iulius Severus QSP Quintus Suetonius Paulinus CFBQ Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus GEM Gnaeus Equitius Marinus ATS A. Tullia Scholastica GVA Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa PUSV Publius Ullerus Stephanus Venator TIS T. Iulius Sabinus CFBM Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus EIL Equestria Iunia Laeca MMPH M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus QFM Quintus Fabius Maximus FGA Flavius Galerius Aurelianus CFD Caius Flavius Diocletianus DIPI Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus MLA Marcus Lucretius Agricola ECF Emilia Curia Finnica
The following 3 Senators did not cast a vote, and their absence was not announced or justified in line with the Senatus Consultum defining a quorum and the LEX OCTAVIA DE SENATORIBUS:
- CMM: C. Marius Merullus
- FCA: Fr. Apulius Caesar
- AMA: Arn. Moravia Aurelia
Contents |
Item I - Waiving for M. Minucius Audens the 90 days period after resignation
Proposal
M. Minucius Audens resigned his citizenship and all his offices including his seat in the Nova Roman Senate. Under the terms of the Lex Minucia Moravia de civitate eiuranda former citizens must wait ninety days before they can be reinstated, unless the Senate waives the return period.
Following a request from Censor Ti. Galerius Paulinus, the Consuls request the Senate of Nova Roma to waive the ninety day waiting period and to return M. Minucius Audens to Nova Roman citizenship.
Results
23 UR; 4 ANT; 0 ABS: Item I has passed.
Votes and discussions
- The following senators have cast their vote with no commentaries:
- UR: MIP, MAM, GIC, GVA, CFD, MLA, ECF
- ANT: FGA:
- The following senators have cast their vote with the following commentaries:
- MCC: Antiqvo. I am against the exception to the general rule.
- LCSF: Vti Rogas. This is probably the best item these consuls have presented to the Senate.
- CCS: Antiqvo. I have always been for mercy and against unnecessary rules, but I have now realized that I have been too liberal in this. Allowing Cato to return was a huge mistake. Perhaps if he would have had to wait the normal period he would have acted differently. I don't want to see same again. Let Audens wait the time he should and calm down.
- TGP: Vti Rogas. Senator Audens is the type of person who the exception rule was written for. I respectfully request that all Senators to vote to restore Senator Audens to citizenship. As I said before Senator Audens will be the last person I will ask the Senate to approve an exception for.
- GEC: Vti Rogas. I do not understand why some people keep referring to this issue as if it is contrary to the law; the law has this clause specifically to enable this House to use its authority in precisely this manner. Allowing the waiver of the 90-day period IS PART of the law, not an "exception" to it or even particularly extraordinary.
- PMA: Vti Rogas, in the unmodified frame of my general position and considering that Lex Minucia Moravia de civitate eiuranda itself allows (VIII.B) an exception whowe [sic] application is then decided by the senate. M. Minucius Audens, by his cursus and his realizations for the republic, is among the few ones who deserve such an exception.
- MHM: Vti Rogas. For Senator Audens an exception should be made, he deserves it.
- MIS: Antiqvo. I think that besides the merits of a person, we must stop granting exceptions.
- QSP: Vti Rogas. Senator Audens is the backbones of Nova Roma as I previously mentioned and I do not hesitate to have him re-instated.
- CFBQ: Vti Rogas. I agree that M. Minucius Audens, is among the few who deserve this an exception, especially considering the circumstances during the decision to resign.
- GEM: Vti Rogas. If Marcus Audens isn't deserving of an exception in this case, nobody is, ever was, or ever will be.
- ATS: Vti rogas. I, too, do not favor making exceptions the rule, but occasionally one should indeed make exceptions. This is one such case.
- PUSV: Vti Rogas!!! If we can not welcome Marcus Minucius Audens back, a gesture we should have made much, much sooner, then perhaps the critics are correct and Nova Roma is mortally wounded.
- TIS: Vti Rogas. I think that M. Minucius Audens represent one of the few exceptions I can take in consideration when it comes about to waive the ninety day waiting period. That because his contributions to Nova Roma are unquestionable and greatest than the effects of his decision. My expectation is as M. Minucius to follow the romanitas he usually shows us and to wait ninety days as any ordinary citizen and to take the responsibility of his decision, despite what Censor Ti. Galerius, in his well known style entering nose in other people business, proposed to this August Body. It's up to M. Minucius.
- CFBM: Vti Rogas. I think Audens should wait the 90 days, what is the rush? However, because of his accomplishments to Nova Roma an exception seems appropriate. Let his departure and desire to return a testament to thinking before acting.
- EIL: Vti Rogas. Seven months ago, this body waived the waiting period for a senator who resigned out of anger. At that time, it was obvious that this exception to the law was flawed. It provided senators the ability to decide, solely based on their personal feelings for the resigned person, whether or not the true purpose and intent of the law should be enforced. The senator who resigned this time, did so out of a feeling of hopelessness mainly due to the lack of civility in this body. Marcus Minucius Audens has been one of our longest serving citizens and senators, and has contributed an enormous amount of time, energy and talent to growing and shaping this organization. Furthermore, his consistent good faith efforts have earned him the well deserved reputation of being one of the most honored and trusted of Nova Romans. This law should be modified to ensure that it can be applied fairly to all citizens. However, at this time, if any exception should be made under the current law, it should be made for someone as vital to Nova Roma as this citizen. Therefore, I am in favor of waiving the waiting period for Marcus Minucius Audens.
- MMPH: Adsentior uti rogas. I agree entirely with Senator Palladius on this Item. Provision was made for the Senate to allow exceptions, and if Senator Audens is not worthy of an exception, then no one in this chamber should be considered worthy.
- QFM: Vti Rogas. Conscript Fathers, it is obvious that this law is flawed. While I understand people needing to get away from Nova Roma, because of personal crises, illness or work, to punish them because of this seems spiteful and asinine, not worthy of a Nova Roma which preaches tolerance to all. Senators that leave usually have a damn good reason to do so, and once whatever was forcing them to be inactive in NR is resolved they should have the ability to decide when they are ready to return. I remind the Conscript Fathers that membership to the marble bench is not elected by the people, but an assigned honor solely based on their merit, so the Roman people are not being disappointed by their elected choice. Marcus Minucius Audens explained why he left. The Senate must decide if we wish to re admit him to our ranks at this time. I say yes. I agree with Iulia Laeca that this lex needs to be modified.
- DIPI: Vti rogas. I usually am against exceptions and have voted against them in the past. I voted against Cato's exception, unlike many of the people who are now choosing badly and voting against Audens because they believe they made the wrong choice then. One must be able to show discernment and weigh the choices. We have exceptions for a reason, so that in extraordinary circumstances or for extraordinary people we may break usual practice. If Marcus Audens is not worthy of an exception, is not one of those exceptional Nova Romans, then not a single person in this body, not a single person in Nova Roma, is worthy.
Item II - New internal rules for the Senate: moderation of the contiones and no discussion during the vote period
Proposal
In recent times the Senate list has been becoming a tacky place for discussion, where everybody seems to feel authorized to attack and insult everybody.
To avoid this situation, the Consuls propose the establishment of some minimum standards. - The Senate list must be under the moderation control of the Consuls. - The Contio will be moderated. Each Senator shall have her or his respective turns for speech and replies according to the traditions followed in ancient Rome. So nobody can monopolize the Senate rostrum and become the center of all debates. - The Senate list will be closed between sessions. If the Senatores would like to discuss Nova Roma matters, they can do this in private or in other forums. - Discussions will be not allowed during the voting time. - Off topic messages during contio or voting time will be rejected.
Results
13 UR, 13 ANT, 1 ABS: Item II has failed.
Votes and discussions
- The following senators have cast their vote with no commentaries:
- UR: MIP, MLA, ECF, FGA
- ABS: MAM
- ANT: GVA, CFD
- The following senators have cast their vote with the following commentaries:
- MCC: Vti Rogas. We need order in our Senate meetings.
- CCS: Vti Rogas. Much need change. Senate session list is not a chatroom.
- PMA: Vti Rogas. Our Senate must work as a true senatus romanus, under the
watching of its presiding magistrates, with sessions where people may speak in, and off-sessions times, as in Ancient Rome, where the Curia is closed and several other places are available to senators for political discussions.
- MHM: Vti Rogas. The Curia must be closed between sessions as was done in
Roma Antiqua. It is appalling when senators ignore the calendar, the PM who reminds them and chat in the Curia on days when they should be celebrating the feria. Our ancestors put the gods first; so must we.
- MIS: Vti Rogas. The Senate has a purpose and a dignitas. The kind of
conversations that we have witnessed lately is not for this House. We have several fora and we could create more, if needed.
- CFBQ: Vti Rogas. I have been active in democratic assemblies since my teens
and the bullies always thrive when there are no rules and the one who screams the loudest will always be the one who dominate the debate climate if discussions are not structured. As a chairman of many assemblies I would never tolerate the chaos that is the Nova Roman Senate. Those who teach how to lead democratic assemblies would just shake their heads to our Senate. With this proposal we may see more serious debate.
- GEM: Vti Rogas. If the members of this Senate conducted themselves as
senators ought, this measure would not be necessary. However, they do not, and thus it is.
- MMPH: Assentior uti rogas. There have been attempts made to have the Senate
accept some code of conduct that would make our discussions here more civil. Rather ironically, those efforts have been led for the most part by Senator Audens whom we now consider to rejoin us. He has been opposed by the worst offenders, claiming that it is their right to say whatever they wish, to whomever, about whoever, in any manner that is suited to the gutters of society. This Senate is not the Back Alley. We should never have allowed the list for this august body to have fallen to such a state as breeds divisive factionalism. Those opposed to this measure as they see it aimed directly at their own abuses, are now joined by others with a reasoned concern that this Senate rule would be used to squelch dissenting opinions in the Senate. I think not. The aim is to make our discussions more orderly, under a model similar to that used by the Senate of Roma antiqua. It will allow all sides to voice their opinion so that all members may weigh the arguments given for or against an Item, and without all the fruitless exchanges of vile insults and counter insults, threats, lies, fabrications, and hyperbole aimed to disrupt discussions. I do not deny the concern expressed by some for the possible abuse of this Senate rule. Yet I believe we are all aware of this potential and thus shall guard against it, because no matter what side our individual members may consider themselves on, we share in the value of reasoned arguments freely presented. I believe that this Senate rule can be used to much improve communication within the Senate, and thus overcome the recent factionalism and build bridges between sides based on mutual respect.
- CFBM: Vti Rogas. I'm not absolutely sure we need this proposal, but our
dysfunctional culture needs to change and this might work. If it doesn't I'll gladly vote to have it removed.
- LCSF: Antiqvo. And this is probably the worst item presented by the
consuls. The same consul who has utterly diminished the office of the consulship no less. Given the sockpuppet issue. Yeah, lets give the consuls more authority. Let them determine free speech for them, but not for anyone else who disagrees with them. So, dictatorial. If this item passes, I will look forward to the law of unintended consequences.
- TGP: Antiqvo. For over ten years this Senate list has been open between
sessions for any Senator to bring before this body any subject that a Senator may choose to address. The items discussed still must make their way on to the Consuls agenda before a formal vote can be taken. If it is a good idea it usual does, if not, not. I believe that an open Senate list has served us well in all of this time and I am firmly against this proposal in its entirety. If an individual Senator or a group of Senators do not want to receive messages between sessions they can simply change their own Yahoo setting for this list to digest only. Those Senators who wish to discuss an item would be free to do so. Nova Roma needs more free and open discussions not less. During a formal session of the Senate the Consuls get to invite anybody they like to address this house and they set the agenda. Those Senators who wish to remain after a session to discuss whatever should be allowed to do so. By keeping this list open we have a permanent record of these informal discussions and can use these to determine if a given idea has merit or not. The Consuls are already moderators of this list per an agreement made during Censor Modianus Consulship on list ownership and moderation. The Senate list should remain under the ownership and lead moderation of the Censors as the Consuls have enough to do and enough power over this house as it is. The moderation of this house by the Censors,with the occasional assistance of the Consuls is one more check and balance within our system. I see no need to change what has worked for over ten years. For the record, both public and private, I have to add that I believe this recommendation of the Consuls is one more grab for power and another effort to silence anybody who has an opinion different than theirs. It should also be noted that this is the first pair of Consuls in Nova Roman history to have ask for the ability to silence the Senate in their own house. Consuls like Modianus and myself never asked for it. Consuls dealing with a civil war back in 1998 did not request it. For ten years no other Consuls have asked for this. I respectfully ask that ALL Senators vote against this measure for the freedom of speech you save today will be your own.
- GEC: Antiqvo. The senators Iunius Paladius, Galerius Paulinus, and Iulius
Caesar have expressed the matter to perfection. ADDENDUM to my comments on Item II, which I would like to put on record: There is constant reference to the Senate House in Roma Antiqua being "closed"; when I asked for specific primary sources to support this claim, none were given. In Roma Antiqua, the Senate could meet in any number of buildings or places, and did so. This is *not* an ancient practice, and to claim that it was for political purposes - is a gross misrepresentation of history.
- GIC: Antiqvo. I said to some that "the first item needs no comment, and the
second item deserves no comment". By that I mean that the first item is self-evident and the second , this item, not really a practical solution and therefore barely worth the effort of reply. Yet having read some of the comments here, I see why my good friend Palladius did comment. I too wouldn't have a problem with this, if this Senate was a functional body with a capacity and willingness to debate issues. A certain amount of insults, rock throwing and banter in posts is to be expected and if one has the proper perspective this shouldn't cause any more discomfort than a raindrop on the end of your nose, as long as the quantity is in moderation though. This isn't the case. Emotions run rampant all the time. Rarely can this house focus on an issue and dissect it and debate it, without succumbing to irrational fears, ludicrous allegations, and a general breakdown of common sense. Also, this Senate does not meet in a physical sense and therefore using the argument that the ancient Roman Senate met in locations sanctioned by religious ceremony to imply that somehow this non-physical list in cyber space can somehow be designated in the same way, and the same prohibitions apply, is ludicrous. I know that it is common-place to claim that the doom of Nova Roma is imminent - largely as a result of the discord here, and that "something must be done". Nonsense. Nova Roma will survive as it always has done. So what if some people quit the arena in a huff? That happens all the time, and frequently they come back, sometimes within days and they come from all sides of the political spectrum (well it would be days assuming we get the chance to vote on it promptly of course). Those that don't come back will be replaced. These are personal choices to stay or quit and most times they are fueled by emotional reactions. You can't legislate the causes of these incidents of quitting out of existence, for they are infinite and you can't legislate against personalities prone to this. Clearly many of you think the same way, even if you don't know it, for one person who provided an essential service - Octavius - departed without much hair pulling from some in office this year. As we have seen, this was someone who helped glue Nova Roma together (and we are currently obviously working out how to fill his very big pair of shoes - without any imminent signs of success I might add), as the majority of its business and future still rests in cyberspace, however much some of you may want to downplay that. If he can depart with barely a squeak of protest then the claims that people may leave and the house of cards will come tumbling down seems somewhat selective. I suppose people who say that doom is imminent really mean they or their friends will quit, if they really mean it at all and aren't simply using it as a convenient device to stir up public sentiment (rarely happens as the silent majority on the Main List remain silent) and create an atmosphere of fear, in order to nullify their political opponents. I see this proposal as either a reaction by one side to the opposition of the other, borne out of frustration and a complete loss of direction and control (which is really what this is about I suspect), or a deliberate effort to nullify their opponents. The supporting arguments are unconvincing. You want peace in this house? Start to debate issues. Start to dialogue with your opponents to secure your legislation. Do something really original and negotiate, in advance of putting changes to the people. Ensure you can pass constitutional changes before you bother us all with them, through the simple device of calculating support and taking steps to secure support if you don't initially have enough. Peace won't come by shutting down the one place where dialogue needs to happen, before, during and after formal sessions. Until many of you stop proclaiming the doom of Nova Roma is imminent unless measures like this are passed, until you cease the rather uninspiring and dull insults (at least be witty or cuttingly sarcastic instead of the witless gibbering about "rats" and the rest of the usual drivel that passes for an intelligent insult) and until you decide to give value to your proposals by negotiating for them, rather than turning up your noses at talking to your opponents, until all that happens this proposal can only be seen as either a forlorn hope to regain control of the situation by suppressing the very dialogue that is needed, or, an attempt to squash dissent. Neither option is worth supporting. One last thought, as with all repressive acts this could one day come back to bite all of you who support it, for it is predicated on having consuls you as individual Senators trust at the helm. One day you may find yourself facing two consuls who abuse the powers proposed. A shocking concept I know, entirely unknown in Nova Roma of course, but it may happen. Some may say it will happen, as sure as the sun rising and setting, and then what? By then it will be too late, having gifted so much power over this house, a house barely able to function. Stop looking to others to solve the problem and solve it individually. We need a collective resolve to solve our own issues, not a consular nanny service, putting us all to bed with no tea for being bad children.
- QSP: Antiqvo. I respectfully ask that ALL Senators vote against this measure
for the freedom of speech you save today will be your own. I agree with Censor Tiberi and could not have said this better myself.
- ATS: Antiqvo. While there are certainly members
of this body who, like a student who just expelled himself before we did, require considerable external control as they are unable to restrain themselves, it seems excessive to impose this on all members of this body. Moreover, closing the curia (better known as its mailing list) while the Senate is out of session is counterproductive, and if anything, gives the consules more power as no one could speak up in between sessions. Perhaps certain members who are prone to emotional outbursts and the like should be moderated, but to me it is offensive for all of us to be dealt with as if we were naughty children or feeling the effects of excessive indulgence in assorted psychotropic drugs. The same could also be said about unjust moderation elsewhere.
- PUSV: Antiqvo. I have been reading both historical and well-researched
historical, fictional accounts recently; the Senate Antiqua was, to my eyes, a rather rough house. I also agree that no documentation has been promulgated that supports closing this email list and allowing any "gagging" between or during sessions.
- TIS: Antiqvo. I paid attention to all what my colleagues said about this
item. Indeed, for some Senators, is necessary more discipline and focus to the specific subject of the items presented during the debates time of the sessions. It's normal as this to be accomplished through their own efforts as a continue process of understanding of the Roman moral values. With all of these, in the current political climate of Nova Roma, this item sounds to me not as a regulation of the Senate debates but as a restriction of the freedom of speech. The health of a Republic consists in the powerful voice of the political opposition. Without that opposition there is not any correct development and democratic progress.
- EIL: Antiqvo. As the Senate is the governing body of this organization,
there needs to be a line of communication open to its' members at all times in order to monitor the routine policies, actions and affairs of the state. However, I am in favor of placing those members unable to conduct themselves with decorum, especially with regard to controlling their emotions, be placed on moderation for a time to ensure that discussions do not devolve into unproductive or damaging rhetoric.
- QFM: Antiqvo. We got along fine for X years without such. Why now? There is
a need for lines of communication open to the Senate members so all can discuss if necessary the affairs of Nova Roma. Rhetoric was a part of the speaker's weapons, and we are not all stupid Yes men to the Consules, we all have our opinions and we retain our right to express those. If I did not know better I'd say that this was a veiled attempt to censor outspoken Senators. But I know better. So, we don't need this. Peer pressure is more then enough to keep the occasional boisterous Senator in line.
- DIPI: Antiqvo. If I thought this was being proposed out of concern for the
Senate I would vote for it. I am not blind to the puerile behavior of people of every faction in these "chambers," especially of late, but let's be honest with ourselves. This is not a chamber of any kind but an email list and thus prone to the abuse of those who run it. My fear, which is quite probably justified, is that this item is not proposed out of any concern for the well being of the Senate or Nova Roma but rather it is meant to stifle dissenting voices and discussion of any kind, ESPECIALLY since part of the proposal states that senators will be moderated even during the contio. That is going too far. A vote for this item would be a vote to damage the Senate and Nova Roma. No legislative or deliberative body in the world, especially the ancient Roman senate, would put up with such a restriction. The ancient Senate was a pretty rough and raucous place, our Senate is quite tame by comparison in tone and language. These rules would in essence mean that every post would have to be approved by the presiding magistrate before they could be posted. Just think. If this were done in person each senator would have to quietly go up to the consuls, give them a copy of his remarks, and have them approved before he could speak. No senator should agree to put up with this! No other deliberative or legislative body would put up with it either unless in a dictatorship. This proposal is anathema to free speech. As far as the so-called religious arguments brought up for forbidding casual conversations between sessions, they are straw men and not very substantial ones at that. Any religious restrictions--none of which are listed as a reason for this proposal--only apply to meetings of the Senate. They do not apply to casual conversations on this email list between sessions. There has to be an open line of communications among members of the BOD.
