Session XLVI 29 August 2756

From NovaRoma
Revision as of 05:57, 4 August 2008 by Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Tribunus Plebis Gaius Popillius Laenas Quiritibus SPD

Senate Voting Results published on Monday, September 08, 2003.

The Senate has finished its latest session and the votes have been tallied as follows:

Formal debate ended on 29 Augustus 2756 at 6:00 AM Roman time. Voting began immediately afterwards and ended on 31 Augustus 2756 at 6:01 AM Roman time.

The following 11 Senators cast votes in time. They are referred to below by their initials and are listed in alphabetical order by nomen:

  • Lucius Cornelius Sulla (LCS)
  • Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus (LEC)
  • Caeso Fabius Quintilianus (CFQ)
  • Quintus Fabius Maximus (QFM)
  • Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus (DIPI)
  • Titus Labienus Fortunatus (TLF)
  • Marcus Octavius Germanicus (MOG)
  • Lucius Pompeius Octavianus (LPO)
  • Gnaeus Salix Astur (GSA)
  • Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus (LSAO)
  • Lucius Sicinius Drusus (LSD)

The following Senators voted, but as their votes were received after the deadline, they are not counted in the totals below.

  • Alexander Iulius Caesar Probus Macedonicus (AICPM)
  • Antonius Gryllus Graecus (AGG)

The following 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]:

  • Marcus Arminius Maior (MAM)
  • Marcus Cassius Julianus (MCJ)
  • Patricia Cassia (PC)
  • Caius Flavius Diocletianus (CFD)
  • Gaius Marius Merullus (CMM)
  • Marcus Minucius Audens (MMA)
  • Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato (ATMC)

Therefore, the necessary majority for a Senatus Consultum was 11 votes in favor.

"UTI ROGAS" indicates a vote in favor of an item, "ANTIQUO" is a vote against, and "ABSTINEO" is an open abstention.

The items for consideration were as follows:

Agenda

Item I: The senate shall adopt the following set of procedures for senate meetings, replacing its previous procedures.

[Failed - 8 in favor, 2 opposing, 1 abstention]

  • LCS:VTI ROGAS
  • LEC:VTI ROGAS
  • CFQ:UTI ROGAS I think it is good to have these things better

regulated.

  • QFM:VTI ROGAS
  • DIPI: UTI ROGAS
  • TLF:UTI ROGAS
  • MOG:ANTIQUO. It does not go far enough; it does not address the most

serious problems hindering the Senate: the rules defining a quorum, in which an unexplained absence is effectively a "no" vote; the need for augury which can take days to obtain; and the inability to revise the proposal during the debate period. I really wish this had been introduced earlier, so that it could have been fine-tuned before voting.

  • LPO:Abstineo
  • GSA: VTI ROGAS
  • LSAO:ANTIQUO I think there is much good in these procedures, but I

would like to see more time for consideration and possibly some changes. Perhaps I have been overly busy of late, but it seems to me that these proposals popped up suddenly, with little discussion. If I missed something earlier, I apologize but I would like more time to study them. LSD:VTI ROGAS

Item II: The senate shall adopt the following policy with respect to taking the auspices prior to a senate meeting.

[Failed - 8 in favor, 3 opposing]

  • LCS:VTI ROGAS
  • LEC:VTI ROGAS
  • CFQ: UTI ROGAS I am not satisfied with the fact that there is only

one Augur in Nova Roma and that the Consuls are not allowed to take the auspices when calling the Senate on equal terms with the Augurs as they were in Roma Antiqua. I reserv the right to return to this issue, but at the moment I think we can use these rules. Even if I have a bad feeling about the "nine day period", it may be too long.

  • QFM: ANTIQVO I believe the College must set the requirements as Numa

intended, not the Senate itself.

  • DIPI: UTI ROGAS This is a thorough and well thought out set of rules

for the senate which should serve us well for years, as did the previous set of rules.

  • TLF:UTI ROGAS
  • MOG:ANTIQUO. A *requirement* of augury, rather than a

recommendation, will paralyze us.

  • LPO:Uti Rogas
  • GSA: VTI ROGAS
  • LSAO:ANTIQUO

I'm not happy at the idea that we might wait for nine days, trying to get an augur to take the auspices. Surely we can do better. Also, how and by whom will the magistrates be taught to take the auspices? This needs further discussion/work.

  • LSD:VTI ROGAS If we ignore the Gods advice why should we expect

thier favors?

Item III: The senate hereby creates the province of Hibernia, consisting of the nation of the Republic of Ireland and the British region of Northern Ireland.

[Passed - 11 in favor, 0 opposing]

  • LCS:VTI ROGAS
  • LEC:VTI ROGAS
  • CFQ:UTI ROGAS I have followed the discussions about the creation of

Provincia Hibernia on the Britannia list. I have got the impression that all citizens living in Hibernia support the creation of this new provincia. Illustrus Decimus Iunius Silanus has done a good job in finding out the will of the citizens of Hibernia and my Colleague and I have been well informed. Because of this I strongly support the creation of Provincia Hibernia.

  • QFM:VTI ROGAS
  • DIPI: UTI ROGAS
  • TLF:UTI ROGAS
  • MOG:UTI ROGAS.
  • LPO:Uti Rogas
  • GSA: VTI ROGAS My best wishes to the cives of Hibernia.
  • LSAO:UTI ROGAS
  • LSD:VTI ROGAS

Item IV: Gaius Iulius Barcinus Ciconius, former propraetor of Hispania Provincia is hereby instated as the propraetor of Mexico Provincia.

[Failed - 10 in favor, 1 abstention]

  • LCS:VTI ROGAS
  • LEC:VTI ROGAS

8CFQ:UTI ROGAS Honorable Gaius Iulius Barcinus Ciconius will have a hard work in front of him. I hope that he will be able to get this important provincia going.

  • QFM:VTI ROGAS
  • DIPI: UTI ROGAS
  • TLF:UTI ROGAS
  • MOG:UTI ROGAS.
  • LPO:Uti Rogas
  • GSA:ABSTINEO
  • LSAO:UTI ROGAS
  • LSD:VTI ROGAS

Item V: The senate hereby gives permission to the consuls to release up to $1000 of the treasury in order to employ a lawyer to draw up a publishing agreement that can be used in future to allow the Eagle to publish the works of independent authors and other publishers.

[Failed - 6 in favor, 3 opposing, 2 abstentions]

  • LCS:VTI ROGAS
  • LEC:absto
  • CFQ: UTI ROGAS Just in case ...
  • QFM: ANTIQVO Only because I don't like bad business practices. This

is bad business. Might I suggest we simply reword this to include it in the budget. And myself having dealt with lawyers and publishing agreements, this estimate is too low.

  • DIPI: UTI ROGAS It is prudent to have this agreement on hand and I

support it.

  • TLF:UTI ROGAS I doubt this is necessary at this point, and therefore

expect not to use this money. However, I'd like to have the option to do it if it turns out that it is needed.

  • MOG:ANTIQUO.
  • LPO: Abstineo
  • GSA: VTI ROGAS
  • LSAO:ANTIQUO

It has been my understanding that we have learned that this expenditure is unnecessary because we can draw up our own publishing agreement based upon established models.

  • LSD:VTI ROGAS
Retrieved from "http://novaroma.org/nr/Session_XLVI_29_August_2756"
Personal tools