This topic contains 68 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by Anonymous 4 years, 2 months ago.
March 3, 2016 at 2:41 pm #734
Made this thread so that the public can discuss freely in one space what is beeing decided by the current March 3 Comitia Curiata meeting. Anyone who has an opinion to share, a disagreement with the current path the Comitia is taking in its discussion or even who simply wants to express their support on the argument of any Lictor Curiatus, feel free to post your observations here.March 3, 2016 at 9:43 pm #3104
Well, I’ve read the Bylaws that are to be passed. My personal questions:
In Class: Citizen Members, 3 (p. 4), it says that "Subject to the Act and the articles, a Class: Citizen non-voting member shall not be entitled to receive notice of, attend or vote at meetings of the members of the Corporation."
Shouldn’t all citizens recieve notice of a meeting of the CC? Even if we do not vote, it would be in the interest of transparency that we are by law permitted to be informed of the meetings (if we so wish) and to see the decisionmaking proccess. I think this as a long-term security measure, since even though the current CC has good will and leaves their discussion transparent and evident, a future CC might not, so why not make this a citizen’s right?
In 11. Discipline of Members (pp. 6-7) it is stated that that a board of designated officers shall have the authority to expel members from the Corporation. My question is regarding "c." where it says "for any other reason that the board in its sole and absolute discretion considers to be reasonable, having regard to the purpose of the Corporation." Does this include internal instances of appeal or will that be added later? And doesn’t that give this board almost arbitrary power of expeling members? (even if they have to ‘have regards to the purpose of the Corporation’) It seems a very vague section and capable of much arbitrary interpretation. And who are those of this board of designated officers? In the end it states that the CC’s decision regarding the expeling of Lictores to be final and unappealable. Doesn’t that make being a Lictor something of a risk? Because instead of passing through the normal system of judgement, you are in the mercy of 2 to 29 people that have absolute authority on your expulsion.
In Committees of the Corporation, 2 (p.10) you speak of "Temporary Comittees". Are these the Collegia and Sodalitates? If so, why does the simple decision of the Board of Directors (Magistres Lictorum Curiatorum) have the power to dissolve them? Isn’t that a serious threat to the Collegia and Sodalitates, being subject to the whim of 3 people? There should be more instances of appeal in this proccess. Im not sure if this will be done later or if this wasnt thought of, but Im putting it here just so you can see.
All in all, Im not sure if the CC is given too much power or if it will simply have symbolic power (like in the conference of Imperium) and everyone of their decisions needs the approval of Assemblies or the Senate or other institutions (it serving only as a tool to fullfill the will of these institutions in a marconationaly legal way).
In 26. Appointment of Officers (Magistrates) (p. 11) it states that "Two or more offices may be held by the same person". I’m not sure if that is the best thing to do. With that, you permit a possible scenario where organs that were suppost to fiscalize one another are held by the same person. That is dangerous and can cause problems to the organization. (something, from what I read, Cato thought so as well, hence his fight agains’t the possibility of accumulation of offices). If I can make a suggestion I’d say only make it possible for people to hold one office at a time, naming exceptions to this rule (like Pontifices, so that Pontifices can be Pontifices and still be on an office, or governors, so that they can also take up a senatorial position for example.)
Regarding the 27. Description of Offices (p. 11) shouldn’t it be made clear that the CC is obligated to ratify the decision of the committees responsible for the election of the officers? As it is, it seems optional.
Still in the same article, "The managers shall be subject to the authority of the board. The mangers may suspend or expel Class: citizen members as a disciplinary measure as defined in the bylaws" In what way shall the Consuls be subjected to the authority of the CC and why does the Consuls have the power to expel members? It just gives the feeling that there is no safeguards on this. Again, not sure if it is because it will be supplemented by further regulations or if it is just as it is, but just in case I am showing this to you.
In 28. Vacancy in Office (p. 15) it seems as if the Magistres Lictorum Curiatorum have arbitrary power to dispense any officer of the Republic and even appoint new ones as they see fit without election (election here being one of the options). This shouldn’t be so and election should be mandatory (I think at least).
In 32. Dispute Resolution Mechanism, d, (p. 17) you state that "The parties agree that all proceedings relating to arbitration shall be kept confidential and there shall be no disclosure of any kind." Why? I understand them having the right to not make anything public if they so wish to, but if they do wish to why can’t they make these things public?
In 33. By-laws and Effective Date (p. 17), shouldn’t the regular roman Assemblies have any say regarding the change of common by-laws? Why does the CC have all the power regarding that? Especially since in 34. Operating Procedures (pp. 17-19) you state that all of the operating procedures must addhere to the by-laws of the Corporation… In the same section it also states that the CC can create and ratify leges itself, as stated in "Alternatively, the board may directly issue and ratify standing operating procedures by resolution". They can also rescind anything themselves without any checks-and-balances as stated in "The board may also rescind standing operating procedures by resolution". Shouldn’t the CC be much more Low-Profile then that? They seem to have a lot of power…
Besides this, there is some minor latin errors in the text, but that doesn’t really matter much I think…March 4, 2016 at 12:32 pm #3115
Hmm … I have read Bylaws of the Corporation. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with Canadian law, for this reason, it is rather difficult to carry out due diligence of the document. But this does not prevent me to make an examination of the document for historical accuracy and utility for our Roman Republic.
I will be frank. This document – not what I expected to see. I was going to point out a number of problematic issues in the document, but you, mi amice Victor, was ahead of me. Therefore, I will not focus on specific issues, and will touch on general issues.
Firstly, there are serious claims to the historical authenticity of important procedures. In some moments – offset the value of the civil community. It is not always respected the historical order of arbitration and appeal. Those, there are provisions that are inconsistent with the provisions of the Declaration. This situation causes me some concern. A number of provisions contrary to the historically established procedures and administrative arrangements of the Roman Republic.
Secondly, the entity officially positioned as an appendage of the Roman Republic. However, this document regulates such a large amount of fundamental issues that raises the question of the relationship between the legal entity and the Roman Republic. Through this document, the legal entity from the appendage is converted into a comprehensive fundamental basis. This document – an expression of the consent of the three person. But Roman law, an expression of the consent of the civil community. But it turns out that the agreement of the three persons, laying the foundation by means of this document will always be crucial in relation to the decision of the civil community. This implies a fairly important issue. Did the founders wondered about what would happen when the decision would be contrary to the provisions of the document? What will be the mechanism for resolving this problem? I understand that now the CC is a group of good people with the lightest intentions. However, so maybe not always. In other words, what is now approved by good people, tomorrow may be used bad people and this will lead to the collapse of the community.
I do not mean that the document is bad or has no right to exist. But given its importance, I would like that to lictors treated with due regard to the substantive issues that were raised by me and Victor.
T. Fl. SeverusMarch 4, 2016 at 2:36 pm #3119
I understand the necessity of having rules that work correctly under macronational laws, but I don’t see why the Lictores have to vote on who becomes a Lictor instead of keeping that strictly under the power of the citizens through vote. It still doesn’t make sense to me… And I still don’t see why it is strictly prohibited to speak of legal issues thst started in the RR. What if it’s legal action regarding an official? As I said, people have the right to stay quiet but to take away their right to not stay quiet needs a hell of a good reason in my opinion… And sincerely, even if you guys say that their work shall be marginal, it can come a time when it isnt. I don’t think it is asking much to have automated messages sent to interested citizens of the time when these meetings occure and I dont think it unreasonable to permit citizens to watch (as we are watching right now) the decision making proccess if we so wish. This shouldn’t be just a thing the Lictores grant us because they are nice, this should be our Right as members.March 4, 2016 at 4:06 pm #3120
There seems to be some confusion here about notices. I think we are talking apples and oranges. We are discussing the required notices that are sent to any corporate director concerning a meeting as required by law or the waiver of notice by directors. This has nothing to do with notifying the members of the organization that a meeting will occur or their right to view the proceedings. The "notice" to everyone that the CC or any other body will be meeting should probably be stated as "announcement." There is nothing here that requires or prevents the CC or any other body from notifying the membership that the org is meeting for one reason or another, because there is no legal requirement to do so. What you are suggesting should be included in a separate section, for instance:
#. Member Notification
All public committees and sub-committees are to be held in an open status and observation of the proceedings shall not be closed to members of the organization. All public committees and sub-committees should make an announcement in the forum advising the public of any upcoming meetings to be held.
In the case of Lictor elections by the CC, we are discussing basically the oversight/governing committee of the RR, which in the near future will be composed of experienced members of the organization. When the CC is opened up to regular election by the people, and 175 members of another org join right before an election, out vote the current members, and change the focus of the organization, then there can be no complaints…none…nada…ziltch. Like the old commercial said, "You ask for it. You got it. Toyota."
This provision is established to allow for those elected by the populus to be selected to the CC. If it is not done this way, then the Pontifex Maximus and Consuls, nor any other magistrate, might not be accepted to the CC. This is the fail-safe mechanism to prevent or significantly delay a rogue group from executing a take over. It is not about preventing the membership from any rights of election. They have already elected the potential candidates. In keeping it simple (max 30 members) and selecting from citizen-elected positions, we avoid the problems resulting from say, a Senate of 300 people, who cannot decide upon anything.
It would be nice if everyone who became a member of this and every other org joined and acted like an adult, but we all know that will never happen. We will get our allotted share. It is inevitable. To me, it makes more sense to allow those who are currently governing and those that have in the past to regulate and monitor the day-to-day operations, rather than turn the operation over to those who have no proven leadership experience in the organization. This is a recipe for failure.
Does this explanation help or make things worse?March 4, 2016 at 4:45 pm #3121
I agree with you in everything stated Triari. Your argument is sound regarding the fail-safe. Makes sense. And I do agree that there should be a separate section as you stated that makes it mandatory for meetings to be public and announced ahead of time to the general public.
My only issue then would be regarding the obligation (mind you, I dont mind people freely deciding to be the gentlemen and leave private problems private, just the Obligation) to keep things secret regarding legal problems coming from the RR. But that’s my personal opinion and I do not wish to make a hassle out of something that probably wont cause trouble.
And till now the little I talked with you you have not created any confusion and your explanations havent so far made things worst. Ocasionaly I sometimes understand what you’re saying wrongly, but you’re doing a good job I think ^^March 4, 2016 at 5:08 pm #3122
I take your feedback very seriously.
As a member of the Comitia Curiata my task is to achieve a compromise between multiple interests. At the end of the day these various interests need to be reasonably satisfied, otherwise the Roman people are not being served. The interests are: (1) fulfill our corporate responsibilities for we can have safely held public assets, (2) to make things as culturally and historically respectful as possible, (3) to create a system of governance that does not dominate affairs (we are mainly about culture and the cultus Deorum not politics) and is stable and fair to republican principles. Some of these interests compete with eachother and compromise will be required.
Now if I may summerize the general theme of concern. Citizens are worried the Comitia Curiata may have too few checks and balances. Theoretically if some rouge directors were elected then they could abuse power, expel magistrates, citizens and so on.
Now I think this is unlikely because the directors are elected and have set terms. But I can see how this could be preceived as a weakness. Let’s try to address this theoretical problem as efficiently, and historically as possible while remaining mindful of corporate rules that need to be followed.
In ancient times if a group with power abused this privilege grossly what occurred? The people of Rome rose up. The mob spoke and the rouge politician would probably be confined to their home, flee the city or be killed. Obviously we don’t want to and can’t resort to such extreme measures here in our new Res Publica. So what can we do to create this final check and balance?
We can implement a no confidence system in the bylaws. If a proportion (maybe 2/3?) of all active/tax paying citizens who have been citizens for at least over 18 months sign a legally binding petition then a vote of all citizens is to be called and a one vote one member confidence vote is to be held. If supported by the people then the directors must step down and the Comitia Curiata elect new directors within 30 days. This would be the modern equivalent of the ancient mob rioting. But fortunately it’s much more regulated and civilized. Under this system the ultimate power will be shared by the Comitia Curiata and all citizens with the Roman people holding the heads of the Comitia Curiata to account. If the directors, eg. heads of the Comitia Curiata acts like tyrants or try to hijack the Res Publica against the wishes of the people they are able to be removed legally by the bylaws by all members. This fulfills corporate, republican and historical requirements. It’s a compromise, but I think it strengths the bylaws and provides reassurance as to who the Comitia Curiata serves.
Think what would occur at that other organization if this system was in place. A petition would be signed. A one vote per-person vote of confidence would be legally required. The directors would be dispatched and replaced. I think is is the ultimate counter balance to tyranny.
BrutusMarch 4, 2016 at 5:42 pm #3123
Salve Brute! It is a great compromise and it would probably detour most attempts of mindless takeover (since we can all agree that forcefully taking over any organization with no coersion power is at least a sign of mental instability). There is one problem though. Although unlikely, a deranged group that wants to attempt a takeover could do so bidding their time and acting behind the scenes, finding those that disagree with them and expelling any resistance in mass before it has any time to organize itself for such petition. Although I like the idea of a few days of notice before an expulsion I know it can be unpracticle. So another alternative, as an addition to your proposal Brute, would be to give the Comitia Curiata the same No Confidence powers. Why? Because only an unanimous vote of the entire CC can expel a Lictor. If that is so, it would be virtually impossible for three people to take down all opposition among the people and still have the approval of all Lictors to stay in office and, not being able to expel the Lictors, they could then easily be removed from power and the affected people reinstated. I believe in that way the Lictors would serve as an ultimate last defense against blatent stupidity (tyranizing an online group). What do you think?March 4, 2016 at 6:13 pm #3124
Anonymousquote Gaius Atius Victor:
Giving the Comitia Curiata a voice in expulsions seems reasonable to me. I will be proposing some changes to the document introduced to the Comitia Curiata. I hope this accounts for some of the compromises and good suggestions made.
I think we are on track.
BrutusMarch 5, 2016 at 1:07 am #3131
I find that the latest edition of the By-laws is practically perfect. It contains great attention to checks-and-balance and even gives expelled members reaction time to defend themselves. All in all, a very safe and grounded by-law. Only addition I’d give (and I hope I’m not complaining in excess here, but I prefer to fail because of overzealousness then because of fear of being bothersome in details) would be to make it a citizen’s proclaimed right to oversee any meeting of the CC as it happens. This could be done in two forms: Completely or Exceptionally. Either forms satisfy me, although the Complete naturally satisfies more (even though it is a bit harder to implement so it is completely understandable if it isn’t).
By a Complete right, I mean to say that not only virtual meetings are in mind, but any meeting. That would mean that a virtual meeting in a forum (for example) must permit that the people see the discussion thread and the content of it, being in pare with all that is happening. Otherwise, if it is a real-world meeting (something not very likely to happen, but hey, still possible), the meeting would have to be live-streamed. More complicated, but from what Youtubers have been doing lately I hardly think it is that much of a complication that it can’t be done. If the meeting is through Skype or other telephone-like media it would also be live-streamed and if it is by e-mail, a copy could be sent to anyone who asks for it (which, with the current automated e-mail features isn’t that hard to do). Regardless, it is more difficult to implement so I understand if it isn’t. But I do find it to be the best thing to implement. It encourages that the discussions be made through a transparent media and keeps everything in the open for all to see always.
By Exceptional, I mean that this right would only be given regarding Forum meetings (like the ones being held now). It would simply reassure that all forum meetings of the CC would be strictly public. It is a lesser version of the right and I think we can do better, but let’s face it, most of the meetings of the CC will probably always be forum based so I find it pretty alright us just having this right. But I do hope that you can consider both options (and, of course, the always existing option of not doing any of these lol Everyone has an opinion regarding transparency and what needs and needn’t be in the by-laws so this is just my personal view on the matter ^^ )
Anyhow, Im loving how receptive and dedicated the current CC is and I wish it good works and good wisdom, and may the Gods all bless you with clear sight.March 5, 2016 at 4:50 am #3136
I think the current by-laws would cover a RL meeting. One thing I would like to see is a RR-TV Station, that would air videos about happenings in RR. It could be anything from cultor practice at the lararium, public event coverage, live meetings, historical reenactments, roman cooking show, Latin instruction, documentaries, etc. Each different Roman group out there could use time to explain their niche in the modern Roman world and recruit new members to their group. It would be a gateway to their own org’s website, collegium page, or sodalitas page. It would not take that much to set up an online station. It is the next step beyond a youtube channel, which we also need.March 5, 2016 at 10:18 am #3137
Yes, the new version is definitely better. How not cool, but the original version was quite "raw". Let’s hope that the improvement of this important document will continue in the same productive way.March 5, 2016 at 12:39 pm #3139
Anonymousquote Lucius Vitellius Triarius:
In what way, Triari? Does the By-law make it obligatory for meetings to be held publicly? If so, I did not see it (only that it had to be notices to the public)March 5, 2016 at 2:51 pm #3140
I have noted your concern about public meetings. Not all meetings of the Comitia Curiata have to be public and this is purposeful. There might be an occasional item discussed by the Comitia Curiata which is sensitive. For instance matters debating a conflict resolution process or information which is particularly sensitive to a single citizen or group of citizens. Furthermore, some issues discussed might be sensitive to other organizations, such as those who have submitted bids for services or other Roman groups which could be opposed to the Res Publica. Discussing such matters publically could harm the interests of the Roman Republic.
However, I certainly respect the need for transparency. This is important. Therefore, I propose the following compromise. (1) The minutes of all Comitia Curiata meetings must be made public by a certain date specified in the bylaws. (2) The tribunes have the right to attend and observe all Comitia Curiata meetings as representitives of the general membership. Note that tribunes cannot be voting members of the Comitia Curiata as stated in the bylaws. Therefore, the tribune in their person can be the representative of the general membership and relay any abuses or concerns back to the public during the rare closed meeting.
I will be proposing these additions to the Comitia Curiata today.
BrutusMarch 5, 2016 at 3:03 pm #3141
I find that a great compromise Brute. And the Pontifex Maximus will also have that right? (I dont remember if the PM was also a Lictor or not).March 5, 2016 at 3:24 pm #3143
Anonymousquote Gaius Atius Victor:
Section 19 states that online, electronic meetings are an option, this regular face-to-face meetings (as would be normal in a non-profit setting) would be the standard. The only time that there would be a meeting like this would probably be at a conventus somewhere, of which, the meeting would be such a rare opportunity that I couldn’t imagine it would be a closed meeting. Where we get into the issue of a closed meeting vs. public viewing occurs in a different environment.
In some rare cases it might not be a good idea to project the proceedings to the public.
For example, here’s why:
Atia and Victor are elected to the position of Quaestor. Funds are collected and tracked on an ongoing project, and Atia and Victor elect that Atia perform the normal day-to-day accountancy, since she is a Certified Public Accountant in New York as her regular occupation.
In inspecting the monthly financial report, Victor discovers the financial records do not match the funds in the bank account. Victor casually mentions this to one of the Consuls, who unexpectedly calls for an immediate inquest into the situation. Atia does not respond to numerous emails or phone calls on the matter. Suspicion arises and someone files a complaint that Atia and Victor are working together to steal money.
A meeting of the CC is called and held publically for all to see. Victor asserts his innocence, but has no real means to prove it other than his "good word and reputation," which some allege is worth nothing apparently. Citizens become suspicious of Victor and Atias from watching the proceedings. Some citizens resign membership as to not be associated with "a bunch of thieves." Some citizens demand justice and the torches and pitchforks come out with the mob.
Eventually, it is discovered that Atia, who is single and living alone, was in an automobile accident and has been hospitalized for the last several weeks. When contact is eventually made, it is discovered that there is no discrepancy in the finances, because Atia, being a CPA, uses accrual accounting on a daily basis. Victor and everyone else assumed she was using cash accounting and she wasn’t. She posted income from pledged donations from reliable citizens that had not been received yet (a totally and legally acceptable practice), thus showing the project having more funds than had actually been deposited.
Victor and Atia were cleared of any wrong doing. Meanwhile, because these proceedings were public, 27 members have left RR because the RR is composed of "a bunch of thieves" who "steal citizens’ money internally" and have filed a lawsuit against RR, Atia, and Victor for a violation of fiduciary responsibility.
Were the meeting held in private, this would not have happened. But, now there is forever a suspicion of Victor and Atia of being untrustworthy with monies by the casual viewer who did not get the whole story.
If it in fact was found out that monies had actually been taken inappropriately, then the issue should be made public at that point. This is why there should be the right of the CC and other assemblies to hold closed meetings in some cases.
The day-to-day operations of any organization should not be hidden from the membership or the membership be prevented from knowing the proceedings, but it is not necessarily the greatest idea to put every single thing out in the public eye for people to view and form wrong opinions, based on a lack of or partial information.
I have personally dealt with this in non-profit management in the real world, and I say to everyone, 100% transparency in all things can kill your organization. Bob the new member doesn’t necessarily need to know the ins and outs of operational management. In the first place, he is not necessarily involved in the process. Second, he may form the wrong opinion because he doesn’t understand what’s going on. Third, it may not really be any of his business to begin with. If there is a technical issue with the election system software function or a wordpress glitch, everyone does not need to see and follow the discussions about how to solve it. these discussions might reveal a way to manipulate the system through a code string, which is being discussed on how to prevent a manipulation from happening by the IT people. That is not something we wish to project to the community.
Is any of this making sense? I can only explain my viewpoint from past experiences. It is not that any of us wish to hide anything from anyone or prevent anyone from being "in the loop," but there are just times that everyone DOES NOT need to be in the loop. And, we should never legislate that in any form or fashion that every citizen has a 100% right to know at all times, because they don’t. In most cases yes, in all cases no. If a particular situation dictates confidentiality to protect the RR or a citizen, then the discussing committee should be able to close the proceedings if they feel it necessary to protect. Should we get involved with another org, collaborating on an event or project, there is a real chance that we would have to sign a non-disclosure agreement to protect proprietary information, such as confidential membership lists, financial data, etc. Without the ability to hold a closed discussion for this sole purpose, the collaboration is over before it begins.
The last issue here is intent. We all assume good intentions. Unfortunately, it is not always going to be a reality. There are those who will come into our midsts with ill intentions. They would prey upon us violently with 100% transparency in all our operational functions. Either one trusts those we elect, or one doesn’t. But, let’s not be naïve and handicap our magistrates from doing their jobs. We can over legislate and kill ourselves before we begin.March 5, 2016 at 3:36 pm #3144
Your example Triari and the explanation of both you and Brutus were perfect. I understand your point and withdraw what I said. The compromise Brutus suggested is a sound way to prevent abuse and also stop any unnecessary situations like the one you described Triari. All in all, thanks for the time to illustrate that. Makes total sense.March 5, 2016 at 3:55 pm #3146
Victor, you are identifying issues the rest of us are missing. Excellent and continue the good work! This is what we need. As my late grandmother used to say, "What you don’t get in the washing, you get in the wringing. It’s best you get as much as you can in the washing."March 6, 2016 at 5:53 pm #3158
Congratulations to the CC on this first item approval ^^March 6, 2016 at 6:02 pm #3159
Regarding the Ludi, if Quadratus tells us what we can do to help, I’ll see if I can help as wellMarch 6, 2016 at 8:01 pm #3160
Salve et salvete,
I briefly looked at EDICTUM CURIATORUM: On the Assemblies of the Roman People. In my opinion, we should note two important issue:
1) Different types of communities elect different magistrates:
Comitia Tributa – Quaesters, Curule Aediles
Concilium Plebis – Plebeian Tribunes and Plebeian Aediles
Comitia Centuriata – Consuls, Praetors, Censors
2) It should be pointed out that the various meetings can be called only by certain magistrates.
Comitia Tributa – Consul or Praetor
Concilium Plebis – Plebeian Tribune
Comitia Centuriata – Consul or Praetor
These issues are an important aspect not only historical accuracy, but also an important element in the system of checks and balances.March 6, 2016 at 8:26 pm #3161
Victor T. Severo sal.
I think they are going to address these exact things in another edictum, Severe. They did say that document would only have the general making, hence Brutus: "This lex will establish the basic fundamentals governing the operation of the Comitia Tributa, Concilium Plebis, and Comitia Centuriata. Further legislation will outline the specifics. I’m hoping this meeting can ratify all legislation required to hold elections. This lex is the first step towards this." But it is good of you to point that out so we might recieve an assurance of that fact. But Im guessing it’s all correct and they’ll just legislate these fine details on a later edictum
Vale!March 7, 2016 at 5:05 am #3165
Many more operating procedures are coming. The bylaws already state who can chair the various assemblies. But many more details will be hashed out in operating procedures (lex).
Brutusquote Gaius Atius Victor:March 7, 2016 at 11:13 am #3169
Hmmm… Yes I agree. let’s see. Just my opinion, the rules of law, which regulate the same process should not be scattered in many different laws. Now, there are three documents that are associated with the work of the Assemblies. As seems, will be at least another one or two more.
Now about LEX CURIATORUM: On the election procedure involving Rogatores and Custodes.quote :quote :
1) Instead of the word "family", I would replace something like candidate in the election, and the Rogatores/Custodes may not be relatives and in a registered marriage".
2) I believe that it is unreasonable to put forward a requirement item that "Cannot share a nomen…". We choose nomen completely free with registration, ie in fact, nomen does not display any related communications between the carriers of the same nomen. This will lead to confusion, because we elect them for a whole year and it is impossible to predict which Nomen will have candidature to the end of the year.
It should also include a requirement that in the case of kinship (registered marriage) with the candidate or presiding magistrate Rogatores/Custodes should report it, that there was no conflict of interest.March 7, 2016 at 1:30 pm #3170
It might be wiser to keep the numen part of the lex because, over time, people might end up getting together around their gens and try to organize around it. Not sure if that will ever happen, but it is possible (as in making Collegia for same-gens religious rites, etc). That could end up making people of the same gens more united then people of different gens and make it understandable an article like that. Or I could be speaking crazy-talk, I don’t know 😆 In any way, the posts they are describing are pretty sensitive and their trustworthyness should be absolute, so Im a bit in favour of anything that enforces that (even in detriment of the right to some citizens in SOME specific moments being able to take this office). But that’s just me.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.