Tribune report of the session of March 2762 auc

From NovaRoma
Revision as of 21:34, 7 February 2010 by Publius Memmius Albucius (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Tribunus Plebis Tiberius Horatius Barbatus Quiritibus SPD

Salvete citizens of Nova Roma!

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

Formal Debate ended (17.00 hrs CET) on 17 Mar 2762. Voting began in the second hour at 06.45 hrs CET on 18 Mar 2762 Voting concluded at 17.00 hrs CET on 21 Mar. 2762.

a rank Name Abbr. Voted Did not vote
1 Apulus Caesar Fr. FAC yes -
2 Arminius Maior M. MAM yes -
3 Cornelius Sulla Felix L. LCSF yes -
4 Curia Finnica Em. ECF - yes
5 Curiatius Complutensis M. MCC yes -
6 Curius Saturninus C. CCS yes -
7 Equitius Marinus Cn. GEM yes -
8 Fabius Buteo Quintilianus K. CFBQ yes -
9 Fabius Buteo Modianus K. KFBM yes -
10 Fabius Maximus Q. QFM yes -
11 Flavius Diocletianus C. CFD yes -
12 Galerius Aurelianus Fl. FGA yes -
13 Galerius Paulinus Ti. TGP yes -
14 Hortensia Maior M. MHM yes -
15 Iulius Caesar Cn. GIC yes -
16 Iulius Perusianus M. MIP yes -
17 Iulius Sabinus T. TIS yes -
18 Iulius Severus I. MIS yes -
19 Iunia Laeca Eq. EIL yes -
20 Iunius Palladius Invictus D. DIPI yes -
21 Lucretius Agricola M. MLA yes -
22 Marius Merullus C. GMM yes -
23 Memmius Albucius P. PMA yes -
24 Minucius Audens M. MMA yes -
25 Moravia Aurelia Arn. AMA - yes
26 Moravius Piscinus Horatian. M. MMPH yes -
27 Octavius Pius Ahen. T. TOPA yes -
28 Popillius Laenas G. GPL yes -
29 Suetonius Paulinus Q. QSP yes -
30 Tullia Scholastica A. ATS yes -
31 Tullius Marcellus Cato. Ap. ATMC - yes
32 Ullerius Venator St. SUV yes -
33 Vipsanius Agrippa G. GVA yes -

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


ITEM I - Appointment and dismissal of Senators of Nova Roma and Directors of Nova Roma Inc.


The Senate of Nova Roma, recognizing the constitutional authority of the Censors to appoint and dismiss Senators, resolves that for corporate purposes the Censors act as the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of Nova Roma Inc. to appoint and dismiss the Directors of Nova Roma, Inc., who are at the same time Senators enrolled in the Album Senatorium by the Censors.

The Senate recommends to the Censors that among the causes for dismissal should be unjustified absence from four Senate meetings, or two announced meetings of the Board of Directors of Nova Roma Inc., in the course of one calendar year. In making this recommendation the Senate recognizes the ultimate authority of the Censors to make all decisions concerning membership in the Senate and acknowledges that the recommendations of the Senate are in no way binding on the decisions of the Censors in matters of Senate membership.


13 UR, 4 ABS, 12 ANT: the item has passed.

Votes and opinions

  • MMA – ANT. I agree that the rules here are too loose, and considering some past

Censors actions and comments, I further consider that relying on the fair determination of even of a pair of Censors is insufficient for a specific decision in removing a Senator. I want to see some more specific items which govern this activity.

  • LCSF: ANT: This proposal is very poorly written; and will increase the future possibility

that Nova Roma will experience another situation similar to my near lawsuit of the organization. It is an unfortunate fact that Nova Roma has elected magistrates who have abused their position; and that the position most likely to be abused is the very position this proposal strengthens. With this fact established, passage of this proposal would further endanger the corporation and the individual board members to future litigation (especially as Nova Roma acquires more wealth). As I stated in the debate to all the board members, "are you willing to put your assets on the line in the event that Nova Roma gets sued?" - because in the big scheme of things when a future lawsuit does happen, it will most likely come from one of us (Senators/BoD members) - (citing the examples of Lucius Equitius, Marcus Cassius and my most recent near lawsuit). And, it will be the board members who will end up paying the consequences by having their wages garnished, property liened (regardless of the location of the Board Member). The issue of a quorum was stated as the rationale for this proposal. However, I do not buy that rationale, instead of finding a way of lowering the quorum, this proposal will give additional discretionary powers to the Censors, a position that is already too powerful; and it is in that very office that nearly brought Nova Roma to a lawsuit due to the actions of then Censor Modianus. Either the Consuls have chosen not to learn from the prior episode or my attorney's view of them is correct. I VOTE NO.

  • PUSV: ANT - I have had enough reasonable doubts raised in my mind during the discussion to withhold support; perhaps a closer look at modifying the Lex Popillia Senatoribus is warranted as a better first step.
  • PMA: ABSTINEO, for, if I understand the spirit of this item, its current form needs in my mind a further work.

It is first imho a legal error to carry on confusing our Senate sessions and our Board ones. Though the people in both are the same, the legal approach is not the same one. As directors of the board, we are to care about how NR Inc. respect the Maine and U.S. laws. As senators, we are to act in the frame of our Republic rules, i.e., in the point of view of U.S. and Maine laws, our internal regulations. Going on mixing the two approaches will lead us, again, towards new difficulties, especially legal ones in the frame of the current registration and incorporation laws.

On the matter, every disposal reminding the censorial powers are, first, no use, because redundant.

On the part of the sentence that says: "The Senate recommends to the Censors that among the causes for dismissal should be unjustified absence from four Senate meetings", the Senate is here in the frame of its traditional advising function.

Therefore, concerning the "four meetings" clause, which means, currently, at least a four months silence (!), it could be, with some reason, considered as one of the possible applications of Lex Popillia IIC, which provides a removal of senators "whose past conduct they consider seriously harmful to the dignity of the senate".

I will not be able to express my opinion on the remaining parts of the paragraphs as long as the NR Inc. and Republic systems are not clearly separated.

  • GVA: ANT
  • TIS: UR. The censors authority is respected and the Senate act as an

advisory body which is it first duty. Approving this item it means that somewhere are some problems and who is in charge with resolving them must pay more attention to what is happen. Through this item the Senate signals that some changes are necessary in the future in what it means the Senators active participation in sessions. I understand by these future changes some law modifications which is the necessary logical step.

  • TGP: Antiquo

We need to draft a formal change to the articles of incorporation and submit it to the State of ME. This needs to be reworked.

  • GPL: Antiquo.

I appreciate the spirit of this item, but I believe any Censors acting on the advice to remove absent Senators would be second guessed on the applicability of the Lex Popillia. The Lex Popillia was originally drafted to follow ancient practice as closely as possible. Unfortunately, the practices of the Ancients in this area do not suit all of our needs in this day and time. We need to explore an ammendment to the Lex Popillia and the idea of seperating the Senate from the Board of Directors of Nova Roma, inc.

  • QSP: Antiquo

I agree with Censor Tiberius that we need to draft a formal change to the articles of incorporation and submit it to the State of ME. This needs to be reworked.

  • CFD, GIC: Antiquo
  • KFBM: Uti Rogas. I do agree that this whole matter needs more work, but to my

understanding this is to help make us more compliant with Maine law.

  • MMPH: Abstineo

I do not know that this recommendation really advises the Censores well in how they might address the concern of the Senate. We need an active Senate to stay on top of all the developments occuring now and in the future. For an active Senate, we need active Senatores and Senatrices. I do not agree with the Senator from Arizona or with his lawyer that the Constitution limits the decisions of the Censores in any way on what causes they may offer in removing someone from the Senate. The Constitution gives them full authority, for any rhyme or reason, to remove a Senator or Senatrix that they feel are not in the best interest of the Res Publica to retain in the Senate. The only restriction is that this must be done by colleagial assent. Unfortunately that stricture has not always been followed, including by the Senator from Arizona when he was Censor. The Senate has authority to advise any magistrate on his or her duties. I do not see the Senate exceeding its authority to do so here, since the wording has been very carefully posed to affirm the authority of the Censores. But the recommendation itself, I don't think, serves much purpose, or even expresses what the Senate desires. I do agree with the Senator from Arizona that clearer rules on the acceptable or not acceptable conduct of our Senate members be established. The Censores themselves could announce each year what they will consider in making their determinations, just as the Praetores post an edictum each year on acceptable conduct on our lists to maintain decorum. Otherwise, perhaps the Senate Rules Committee could draft a proposal with the Consules and we could give a more expansive statement of advice to the Censores. But the current proposal, piecemeal as it is, does not seem to me to resolve anything or to offer solid advice to our distinguished Censores.

  • FGA: Antiquo. This needs some more work to clarify exceptions and extenuating

circumstances. I personally feel that this is more than it appears to be and believe it should be studied.

  • GEM: UTI ROGAS. There has been a great amount of effort expended to create

fear, uncertainty, and doubt about this agenda item. I consider it all a lot of nonsense. The item is very straightforward. It does two things: 1) It makes clear that the Censors are the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors, in compliance with the laws of the state of Maine governing corporate boards, and 2) It recommends -- without requiring -- some criteria the Censors may consider when deciding to remove inactive senators from the Senate.

For those who don't like the system that Nova Roma has, with the Senate serving as the Board of Directors, I recommend that you seek to change that through the proper channels. But don't stand in the way of the Consuls' efforts to place us in compliance with the law because you don't like the current situation. As directors of this corporation you have a fiduciary responsibility to the corporation and its stakeholders. If you honestly think you are satisfying that fiduciary responsibility by voting against this measure, I can only say that I do not understand your thought processes.

For those of you who think this is just part of some clash of personalities, I assure you that you are wrong.

  • DIPI: Antiquo

I think enough doubt has been raised about the potential harm of this item and as a director I would be remiss in my duty to the corporation voting for this.

  • CFBQ: Uti Rogas. This isn't really the solution that I want. Having given this

deep thought, my solution is to leave Maine or even USA as the HQ of Nova Roma Inc., but until then I would like to make our law more compliant with Maine law and i think this does so.

Still I basically want to change Lex Popillia, first I do agree with Lucius Sulla, even though I see him as a nuisance in the Senate, that we should not have something that is in any way possible to see as two levels of Senatores/Directors . Secondly. I think the lex should clearly allow the Cenores, if they both agree, to remove Senatores as they did in Roma Antiqua.

  • ATS: UR, etsi non sine dubitatione.
  • EIL: UR. This is an important and necessary clarification to reconcile

Nova Roma law to the Title 13-B Maine Nonprofit Corporation Act.

  • GMM: Abstineo. As someone who has had significant difficulty meeting

participation requirements in the past, and will most likely have to request a leave of absence or resign in the near future, I don't feel right voting on this item.

  • QFM: ANT. I believe the legal fiction of NR Inc was important to allow the NR State for

maintenance of the Religio. This is no longer the case. If we are becoming a real corporation, the BoD will have to change.

Most stockholders here have no interests in NR as a corperation, and as such have no business being on a BoD of corporation. I'll bet even a quarter of the BoD (Senate) has not even read our bylaws or State of Maine corporate law. I sit on two BoD for profits LLCs here in Ca, and I have to know the laws governing our existence.

As Iulius said earlier, "what should be done?" I believe all curule magistrates past and present should only compose the NR Inc. BoD. Why? Because these individuals have shown the most interest in NR, and have at least sacrificed somewhat in both time and effort to do something. The rest? If you want to be on the board of NR Inc, the Curus Honorum is available.

My view on the Senate is well known. Either a Senator is active or inactive unless they commit a crime against the citizens of NR. Then the Censors may remove them. Or Senators fail to pay the dues (the Monetary Qualification) which forces their dismissal. The idea that the Senate cannot achieve a quorum unless this absence law is enforced, is nonsense and against the spirit of Rome.

ITEM II - Waiving for G. Equitius Cato the 90 days period after his resignation of citizenship


Gaius Equitius Cato 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. In support of the Censors, the Consuls request the Senate of Nova Roma waives the ninety day waiting period and returns Gaius Equitius Cato to Nova Roman citizenship as of this date.


15 UR, 4 ABS, 10 ANT: the item has passed.

Votes and opinions

  • MCC> Abstineo
  • MMA – YES
  • MIS: Abstineo
  • LCSF> Yes
  • PUSV: Uti rogas - Under our current laws, this is how we can help someone of

worth undo a hasty decision.


Our laws will be respected and respectable as long as the Senate and the highest magistrates will and can show the example. In addition, our citizenship and our dignities, especially the senatorial one, must not be, for us, like shops we can walk in and out, according the needs we have in the moment.

As one, now, of our elder cives, our former collega Cato has more duties than an average citizen. The simple application of roman virtues or the closing of his computer session would have allowed him to take some distance with the specific crisis he had lived and to have time enough to think about the difficulties he had to face, before taking an unhappy decision.

As our Cato is neither a Pater Patriae nor has yet impressed our republic with major lasting achievements, I do not see any reason for the waiwing of his return period, which would thus appear as an act of weakness and a loss of dignitas for the Curia, and, also, for Hon. Equitius Cato himself.

  • GVA> Uti rogas
  • TIS: Antiquo. I understand the censors right to move this way. However, I don't

encourage that practice because will set bad precedence. I consider is more correct as the censors to let Cato to assume the responsibility of his rash decision. Assuming the responsibility it means to accept the consequences of the terms of the law as any ordinary citizen.

  • GPL: Uti rogas.
  • MLA> Nobody knows the law as well as my friend Cato. I need to see a stronger

reason than "because we want to" to support this. No.

  • CFD: Antiquo

I cannot see any reason for an exception in this case.

  • KFBM: Antiquo. I know Cato will eventually return to Nova Roma and the senate,

and I do not oppose that. He is an advocate of the a strict observance of the law; let him observe it. There is no pressing reason to have him back right this second.

  • MMPH: Adsentior uti rogas
  • FGA> Antiquo. While I have the utmost regard for G. Equitius Cato and

acknowledge his contributions to Nova Roma, I do not feel that we are doing him (or any others who have or might act as rashly), any favor by allowing him back into the Senate and Nova Roma so soon. It was a childish display of temper for him to resign his citizenship and offices. I have considered resigning from Nova Roma on several occasions myself but always had the self-control to take a few days to think about it. Let Gaius Equitius Cato take the next month or two to contemplate his hasty and ill-thought actions before allowing him to return to his posts at the end of the full 90 days.

  • MHM> Antiquo

I quote the wise words of M. Lucretius Agricola: Nobody knows the law as well as my friend Cato. I need to see a stronger reason than "because we want to" to support this.

  • DIP> Abstain

Much as I like Cato, I generally don't approve of automatic exceptions to our laws. Resigning was a rash act, the law says one must wait 90 days. It is not a question of mercy, he is not being prevented from returning to his citizenship or positions.

I think perhaps it is time to revisit the laws regulating resigning citizenship.

  • CFBQ: Antiquo. I agree that Cato is an advocate of the a strict observance of

the law; and that he then should observe it. On the other hand maybe the law should be changed?

  • GIC: Uti rogas
  • ATS: Uti rogas. Meá sententiá, autem, partem legis de civitate ejuranda

abrogare debemus ut nundinum restituamus. [In my opinion, however, we should replace the portion of the law dealing with resignation of citizenship in order to restore the resignation nundinum].

  • EIL: Antiquo. This is a highly regarded citizen who has given much to this organization and my vote is not a reflection on his value or contribution s to Nova Roma. However, I am concerned that the letter of this law allows it to be applied too subjectively and as a result diminishes its intended purpose. We must be very careful about writing laws that provide exceptions in which their enforcement can be influenced by personal feelings or opinions. I am unable to vote in support of this item as it sets an unfair standard and therefore, bad precedent.
  • MAM> Uti Rogas
  • GMM> Vti rogas I vote to waive the 90 days for reinstatement of Gaius Equitius


  • QFM: Antiqvo

While the lex in this case is asinine, its the Law, although I believe Conscript Fathers, we should restore the 9 day "cooling off" period and drop this ninety day purification. Perhaps we should look into readopting this.

  • CCS> Uti Rogas. I think the law should be changed. The current law clearly does

not prevent resignations, it only makes coming back more difficult - really what's the benefit in that? If a member of this organization wants to come back and be active why make it difficult? Do we have too many active members? I think not. I must point out that this was what I said also when the law was enacted

ITEM III - Nova Roma Youtube Channel is considered as a development public tool of NR


T. Iulius Sabinus has created on the YouTube the group Nova Roma to keep all our videos in the same place: com/group/ novaroma

He will take care about it, but take in consideration that the ownership can be transferred at any time.

The Senate approves its creation as a tool for NR promotion and the group is considered as one official of Nova Roma.

Our hope is as the CIO Technical department to pay attention to the possibility as NR to develop in time a wonderful YouTube channel and the department to help producing more professional and with great quality videos (maybe a spot to promote NR). Our CIO is professional in video production, so, we are sure he will have great advices for what we want to promote using images.


29 UR, no ABS or ANT: the item has passed. 0 ANTIQUO 0 ABSTINEO

Votes and opinions

  • MCC> VTI ROGAS, with my gratitude to Senator Iulius Sabinus for his help and

his work.

  • MMA –Yes
  • MIS: VTI ROGAS. Senator Sabinus is an outstanding example when it comes to live

as a Roman and to devote his best efforts and capabilities to our Res publica.

  • LCSF> Yes
  • PUSV: Uti rogas - A good tool for showcasing Nova Roma; gratias Sabinus.

If the proposal would deserve being worked further [the Senate has no right 'approving' the creation of such a tool, which is either an individual initiative (Hon. Iulius'), or a consular one ], this tool is a wonderful one for Nova Roma, if however we can use it as actively as Sabinus consularis had imagined it.

I will therefore back this proposal up even is I regret that my suggestion to reword the proposal, especially by the addition of a few words, which would express our thanks to Consularis Sabinus for the donation of this wonderful tool, have not been able to be taken in consideration.

  • GVA> Uti rogas
  • TIS: Uti rogas. It's my donation for Nova Roma.
  • GPL: Uti rogas.
  • MLA> Yes and thanks to Sabinus for taking the initiative.
  • CFD: Uti Rogas
  • KFBM: Uti Rogas. Good initiative, but I think this could have been approved by

our new CIO without the necessity of senate approval.

  • MMPH: Assentior uti rogas
  • FGA> Uti Rogas
  • MHM> Uti Rogas. This is a great idea, my thanks to Titus Iulius Sabinus
  • GEM: UTI ROGAS, with thanks to Iulius Sabinus for his initiative.
  • DIP> Uti rogas
  • CFBQ: Uti Rogas. Well done Titus Sabinus, but I agree that approving such

things is part of the respoensibilities of the CIO without the necessity of senate approval.

  • GIC: Uti rogas
  • ATS: Uti rogas.
  • EIL: Uti Rogas. With appreciation to Senator T. Iulius Sabinus and 

others involved in this initiative. It will provide an 
interesting and informative visual dimension to benefit citizens and 
further promote Nova Roma.

  • MAM> Uti Rogas
  • GMM> Vti rogas I approve the Youtube channel.
  • QFM: Vti Rogas
  • CCS> Uti Rogas. This is something I had in mind for the future as a part of our

social media strategy, but it seems that active citizen took the lead here and I applaud it.

ITEM IV - Laurels and 10 additional century points for Cn. Equitius Marinus


The Senate decides that within the Album Civum, men and women who are recognized as providing exceptional service to the Res Publica will have their picture framed in a green laurel wreath. This award is hereby granted to C. Equitius Marinus, and the Senate also approves to give him 10 Century Points as an additional token of gratitude for his services to Nova Roma and the Nova Romans.


23 UR, 4 ABS, 1 ANT.: the item has passed.

Votes and opinions

UR with no comments: GVA, TGP, GPL, QSP, MLA, CFD, FGA, MHM, DIPI, GIC, MAM, GMM.

  • MCC: VTI ROGAS. Cn. Equitius Marinus deserves this recognition for his past and present services
  • MMA – Yes. I agree wholeheartedly, that Senator Marinus deserves this award. He has worked tirelessly for Nova Roma in many different venues, and has in several different ways brought the organization to the point that we have today. His labors, often unrecognized, fully deserve the recognition that the Consuls have seen fit to offer.
  • MIS: VTI ROGAS. Senator Marinus is another outstanding citizen and magistrate, always ready to help, to support the best proposals for Nova Roma and to show us all how a real Roman should behave in each and all his actions.
  • LCSF> Abstain. I do not know the man.
  • PUSV: Uti rogas - I am glad that an accommodation was reached that both gives an accolade to Marinus and provides a method of future recognition for others.

The first proposal (the grant of an agnomen) was not, in itself, unappropriate. It had however three defaults: not having been discussed with the concerned civis; not having been worked a long time enough, especially with our censors and princeps senatus; last, the proposed agnomen ("censorius" ) did not managed underlining better (if it is ever possible!) Marinus' dignitas, for other citizens, especially here in this Curia, being allowed been called "censorius", before - still - their tria nomina.

I will support the current proposal, though I would like that, as for every future similar situation, a short note reminds all the merits of the concerned civis, here Hon. Marinus. This note would help our citizens, especially the youngest ones, understanding what our collega has brought to the republic, and help us as a model for future cases.

These formal elements reminded, no one can oppose the fact that Hon. Equitius is one of the very few of us who have constantly applied our Roman values and watched on our republic as he would have of his own home. Beyond my voting duty, it is thus a pleasure for me casting here an "uti rogas" suffragium.

  • TIS: Uti rogas. My special thanks to Equitius Marinus for his great and

continue contribution to the Nova Roma development.

  • KFBM: Uti Rogas. It is good to see someone will continued drive and passion within Nova Roma.
  • MMPH: Assentior uti rogas.

It is small tribute, but most fitting for a man who continues to serve Res Publica nostra so well. Gratias tibi ago et gratulor, Gnae Marine, exopto

  • GEM: ABSTIENO, though I thank the Consuls for their efforts in this matter.
  • CFBQ: Uti Rogas. I think my old friend and loyal co-citizen fully deserves this


  • ATS: Uti rogas. Dignissimus est talibus honoribus.
  • EIL: Uti Rogas. Well deserved!
  • QFM: Antiqvo. I'm against anyone, myself included, receiving special awards above the norm just for doing their duty as a Nova Roman Citizen and Magistrate. Praetor Marinus has my gratitude as he does his fellow Romans. What more is needed? We do not need to set precedents, Conscript Fathers.
  • CCS: Uti Rogas. He has well deserved to get this recognition for his extraordinary service. My only pity is that that the reward is so small, we could and should have given more.
Personal tools