Rogatio Sandbox

From Ancient Ways

Revision as of 19:17, 1 March 2007 (view source) Marius (Talk | contribs) (Trib Senate reports) ← Previous diff		Current revision as of 03:00, 4 April 2007 (view source) Marius (Talk | contribs) (hang-tags)
(14 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	==I. Magistrates==	+	[[Category:Stolen Rules]]
		+	Sandbox Article page cleared.  Talk page to remain as is. -[[User:Admin|Admin]] 04:10, 2 March 2007 (EST)
-	===A. Positions, Selection, Terms, and Qualifications of Office===	+	:Sez You!  <g>
-		+
-	:1. The magistrates of the Society shall be one (1) Consul, one (1) Censor, one (1) Aedilis, and one (1) Tribune.	+
-	:2. All magistrates will be elected by the Comitia.	+	==We're '''Not''' Done Yet!==
-	:3. All candidates must demonstrate a consistent record of significant contribution to the Society.  Candidates for the position of Aedile must also demonstrate the knowledge required to perform the technical tasks required by the Society.	+	I've sent the proposed ''rogatio'' to Valerius Scerio and Horatius Piscinus for their review and input.  (I've also offered them Edit privileges on the Wiki.) No word from Scerio just yet; but Piscinus likes it very much, with just a couple of questions.  These deal with integrating the ''rogatio'' into our existing Regula:
-	Added back per your request in the Talk page.  I put it closer to the beginning for added emphasis.	+
-	''[I've moved it to right after 'elections'...id est, the paragraph moves from "elections" to	+	*The ''rogatio'' provides for four Magistrates; the Regula, for up to seven Curatores. Assuming the Rogatio is intended to expand on, not replace, the Regula...what do we do with the other three Curatores, if the Sodales ever elect that many?
-	'' "candidates" to "terms of office."  Also: Aedilis needs dedication'' '''and''' ''tech smarts!]''	+
-	:4. All magistrates will serve a one (1) year term except the Censor, who shall serve a two (2) year term.	+	*Should the Senate section and the Magistrates section be presented as separate proposals?
-	:5. There are no restrictions on the number of terms that a magistrate may serve.  However, no magistrate may serve consecutive terms except for the Aedilis.	+	*Should we make provision for increasing the number of Magistrates as the size or activity level of the Societas permits?
-	:6. All magistrates who are not already a permanent member of the Senate will sit ''ex officio'' in the Senate only for the duration of their prescribed terms of office.  ''Ex officio'' Consuls and Censors carry full privileges in the Senate. ''Ex officio'' Aediles and Tribunes may sit in the Senate and speak, but may not introduce motions or vote.	+	For myself, I don't know the answer (yet) to the first point.
-	Added per notes in the Talk page.	+
-	:7. Any magistrate may appoint assistants to aid in carrying out assigned duties and responsibilities.	+	On the second point, I'd rather not separate them, as the Magistrates' job-descriptions go into some detail about their roles in the Senate, which assumes that we'll have one for them.  But if we did separate them, the Senate article could go first; our proposed Senate can exist without the Magistrates, but not ''vice versa.''  See [[Talk:Stolen Rules Chart]] for how this might (or might not?) work.
-	===B. Duties and Responsibilities===	+	On the third point, it kicks the discussion back to a larger question implied in all the rest: Is this a ''rogatio'' or a(nother) Regula? --It is certainly expansive enough to be a new Regula (the Marian Reforms?? --Shades of my ancestors! <g>). However, to amend the one we have we'd still have to go through the Comitia.  So I'm not treating this as a new round of Regula reform.  I am treating it as an extreme flexion of Comitial musculature in the filling-in of all those '''blanks''' in the Reg we've got.  You know--"What do we call the officers", "What do we have them do", "How much of what they do has to be ratified by the Comitia", etc.? -Yeah, ''those.''
-	:'''1. Consul'''	+	Anyway: If it's a Regula ("Razzles: Is It a Candy or a Gum?"), we'd need to install an amendment procedure. If it's a queen-size ''rogatio'', then all the Sodales would have to do to change any part of it is present another ''rogatio''.
-	::a. Execute all resolutions of the Comitia and ''Senatus consulta'' of the senate.	+	Phew! ...This sounds like more work than it is, mainly because Mari blathers.  I'll post further questions, both my own and others', as they arise.  But we really did kinda forget to consider how to fit this thing into the Concilium Reform. My bad! --But I'm sturdy; I can take a hit!!  -- [[User:Marius|>({|:-)]] 00:40, 5 March 2007 (EST)
-	::b. Convene and preside over the Senate.
-	::c. Call for a vote in the Senate.	+	=="B-, b-, b-, baby, you just ain't seen na-, na-, nothin yet"==
-	::d. Convene and preside over the Comitia.	+	:(I ''love'' BTO! --One time I dedicated that particular song to my first Poodle...who did indeed "look at me with her big brown eyes"!)
-		+
-	::e. Call for votes on legislation in the Comitia.	+
-	::f. Commence elections for magistracies in the Comitia.	+	Sorry, I was listening to Bachman Turner Overdrive and thought it would make a good title for this heading.  Anyway, I anticipated some of these questions might develop.  I guess I've assumed for a long time that a new RF would eventually become necessary (hoping of course to get this rogatio passed and have the new Senate and officers from whence they came to chew the constitutional cud for awhile and develop a new RF for the comitia to ratify. Ideally, I think that is the way to go, but that assumes that your rogatio fits within the current RF (which I think it does (but just barely ;). If your rogatio exceeds the bounds of a normal measure then I don't think it would be too hard to make it an amendment to the current RF instead, but I think we should avoid that (at least for now) if possible.
-	''[e and f clarified.]''	+
-	::g. Pronounce veto against the actions of all other magistrates except the Tribune.	+
-	::h. Issue edicts as appropriate and not in contradiction of existing rules required to fulfill assigned duties and responsibilities.	+	Here are my thoughts on the questions you posed above:
-	''[Missed a spot! <g>]''	+
		+	'''*The ''rogatio'' provides for four Magistrates;...what do we do with the other three Curatores..."'''
-	:'''2. Censor'''	+	I think this either is moot or can be made so within the bounds of our current RF. Here's why/how: The RF only says "No less than three and no more than seven officers may hold office at any one time", it doesn't say how the number shall be determined.  So, the next time we have elections (hopefully for the renewed magisterial positions in your rogatio) since the Curatores are empowered to "oversee elections held in the Comitia" you simply announce that four positions will be elected which have been titled and assigned individual duties as defined by this rogatio and allowed under by IV.a of the RF: "The individual titles of the officers and their individual duties shall be established by the Comitia."
-	::a. Conduct the annual Census and, with the help of the Aedilis, maintain the list of members accordingly.	+	:Actually, we ''did'' pound out how the number was to be determined: by how many candidates showed up. ''Vide'' Concilium discussions for what the US Supreme Court would call "the intent of the Framers".  We know an SVR "officership" does not draw the crowds like a BTO concert or a Star Wars movie; people aren't lining up around the block for a seat in the Curia.  ('''Nobody''' wants my job...which has me worried, as I intend to resume a full reenactor schedule next year.  Maybe contact the employment office...?)
-	::b. Process application requests to join the Society and decide upon them accordingly.	+	:Given the trend, I doubt we'll see all seven chairs filled any time soon. But we still have to plan for them. And redefining the term "oversee" so drastically doesn't sit well with me.  -- [[User:Marius|>({|:-)]] 12:22, 5 March 2007 (EST)
-	::c. In coordination with the Aedilis, maintain the list of magistrates and Senators accordingly.	+	*'''Should the Senate section and the Magistrates section be presented as separate proposals?'''
-	::d. Manage all financial matters of the Society.	+	hmmmmm, I would try to avoid this, only because as you have said, there are many links between the two and I'd hate for us to lose sight of the big picture but it is doable.
-	::e. Issue edicts as appropriate and not in contradiction of existing rules required to fulfill assigned duties and responsibilities.	+	:I concur on the nondesirability. My ''rogatio's'' tiny; c'mon, guys, you can swallow it whole...!  -- [[User:Marius|>({|:-)]] 12:22, 5 March 2007 (EST)
		+	'''*Should we make provision for increasing the number of Magistrates as the size or activity level of the Societas permits?'''
-	:'''3. Aedilis'''	+	We did have this in there but then took it out.  I felt comfortable removing it because I think we would need to have some exponential growth to justify more officers AND as I said earlier, I guess I always saw a new RF somewhere down the road that among filling in the rest of the holes would handle more officers as well.
-	::a. Administer and maintain the Web site of the society.	+	In summary, IMO we should keep this as a single rogatio for now and keep in mind that a new RF will probably have to follow some day (before elections next year). If we cannot keep this as a single rogatio and/or we need to amend the RF I think we need to alter our approach slightly.
-	::b. Administer and maintain the message boards of the society.	+	- [[User:Admin|Admin]] 08:55, 5 March 2007 (EST)
-	::c. Issue edicts as appropriate and not in contradiction of existing rules required to fulfill assigned duties and responsibilities.	+	:I am trying to avoid a new Regula if at all possible. I am sick to death of amending/replacing the damn thing every other year.  I think the Sodales are too; we're not NR, we have plenty of things to talk about besides government. Besides--the current Regula has so many blanks in it, I think we can flesh it out without replacing the thing--or do people toss a form before filling it out?  Piscinus' vision for the Regula was as a bare-bones template that the Comitia could add the content to.  Rather like a Wiki that way...so let's think about editing the thing!  -- [[User:Marius|>({|:-)]] 12:22, 5 March 2007 (EST)
-	:'''4. Tribune'''	+	=="When E.F. Marius Talks...Severus listens."==
-	::a. Convene and preside over the Comitia.	+	''Marius said:''
-	::b. Call for votes on legislation in the Comitia.	+	Given the trend, I doubt we'll see all seven chairs filled any time soon. But we still have to plan for them. And redefining the term "oversee" so drastically doesn't sit well with me. -- >({|:-) 12:22, 5 March 2007 (EST)
-	::c. In the absence of the Consul, commence elections for magistracies in the Comitia.	+	''Severus replies:''
-	::d. Pronounce veto against the actions of all other magistrates.	+	The easiest way to do this me thinks is to add a line as such (New language in '''bold):'''
-	::e. Report on the proceedings of the Senate.  '''These reports shall include a general description of items brought before and the Senate and final voting results but will not include accounts of the actual debate or individual Senator voting records.'''	+	1. The magistrates of the Society shall be one (1) Consul, one (1) Censor, one (1) Aedilis, and one (1) Tribune.  '''One (1) additional Consul, Censor, and Aedilis position may be created as approved by the Comitia so that no less than three and no more than seven officers may hold office at any one time.'''
-	''[Needs refinement, but...this clause was supposed to be'' your ''job! <g again>]''	+
-	'''Refined language in bold above, see talk page for more detail.'''	+	Tweak or counter as you see fit.
-	::f. Resolve disputes between members.
-	::g. Intervene on behalf of any member in a dispute between that member and another magistrate.	+	''Marius said:''
-	==II. Senate==	+	I am trying to avoid a new Regula if at all possible. I am sick to death of amending/replacing the damn thing every other year.  I think the Sodales are too; we're not NR, we have plenty of things to talk about besides government.  Besides--the current Regula has so many blanks in it, I think we can flesh it out without replacing the thing--or do people toss a form before filling it out?  Piscinus' vision for the Regula was as a bare-bones template that the Comitia could add the content to.  Rather like a Wiki that way...so let's think about editing the thing!  -- [[User:Marius|>({|:-)]] 12:22, 5 March 2007 (EST)
-	===A. Positions, Selection, Terms, and Qualifications of Office===	+	''Severus replies:'' That works for me!!!
-	:1. The Senate of the Society shall consist of five (5) Senators with a permanent seat.  The longest serving Senator shall be designated the ''princeps senatus''.	+	===Dragging the Cat Back In===
-	:2. The initial membership of the Senate will be elected by the Comitia.  The Senator receiving the largest number of votes will be designated the ''princeps senatus''. Entry into the Senate after initial formation shall be through selection by the Censor.	+	Still awaiting Scerio's detailed commentary, but he does object to our five-member Senate.  Specifics to follow.
-	''[We don't want to start talking about "majority votes". Hell, most days we barely make quorum...]''	+
-	:3. All Senators with a permanent seat shall remain in the Senate, at the discretion of the Censor, as long as they remain qualified and desire to serve.	+	But those extra Curatores...  First, the upside: Piscinus has the same idea you do about having any "extra" Curatores become the colleagues of the Magistrates who need them.  (Everyone except the Tribune, I'm thinking.)
-	:4. The Senate itself shall determine by ''Senatus consultum'' ("advice of the Senate") what the qualifications of its members shall be.	+	Now for why this detail is becoming a very big headache, especially for a fellow whose brain is full already:
-		+
-	:5. In the absence of the Consul, the ''princeps senatus'' shall convene and preside over the Senate.	+
		+	*If we say that seven Curatores equal seven Magistrates, and they all sit in the Senate, we run back into the problem of "overwhelming" the Senate.  If they don't all sit in the Senate, how do we decide who gets a seat and who doesn't?
-	===B. Duties and Responsibilities of the Senate===	+	*Also, how would we sort out which of the extras would be the colleague of which Magistrate?  If the candidate did not run for a specific Magistracy himself, he was probably not interested in it.  Hanging a tag around someone's neck is not sufficient to make a Censor or Consul or Aedilis out of that individual; so how would we assign colleagues who were both motivated and qualified?
-	:1. Approve all financial matters of the Societas.	+	So far we've been assuming that we have elected at least one person to each Magistracy. Suppose we don't? --I've said it before, nobody's lining up for ''my'' job. Our "extras" dilemma gets even knottier if we consider two suboptimal scenarios:
-	:2. Assign duties and responsibilities not otherwise assigned, to include the governing of the Colleges of the Society and appointment of representatives ''(Legati)'' to external organizations.	+	#We elect more than four Curatores, but not all actual Magistracies had a candidate (say nobody wanted Mari's job). We have the bodies, but, between 'em, maybe not the l337 skilz (Aedilis), the bedside manner (Censor), the OCD (Consul), or the BS-resistance that makes a good Tribune. <g>  Now it's not just a "colleague" situation, we actually need one or more to function as full-blown Magistrates. Who fills the hole?
-	:3. Provide guidance to the magistrates, Comitia, and the Society as a whole, using their deep body of knowledge of the inner and outer workings of the Society and based on their perceptions and experiences.	+	#We elect less than four Curatores. Oh, crap.  You know, we haven't even ''touched'' what happens if we don't get a full slate?
-	:4. Grant recognition to individual members or groups within the Societas for significant or outstanding achievement.	+	Is it just me, or could this issue blow our rogatio clear out of the water if we're not careful?  How to provide jobs for a full seven Curatores? ...without dislocating a rogational shoulder?  We ''have'' to handle the situation, even though it is very unlikely to come to pass, and thus hardly worth pummelling anything out of shape.  The less-than-four scenario is easy by comparison: we could perhaps have the Senate approach some worthy Sodalis and ask him if he wants to serve in the missing Magistracy.
-	:5. Issue ''Senatus consulta'' regarding the administrative, financial, and external affairs of the Society.	+	The in-betweens (4+ Curators, not all of 'em assigned) would seem to require some ugly modifications...but maybe that's just me going all bug-eyed and skittish.
		+	(...I'd said more the first time I typed this, but the session timed out in mid-edit and...you know.  If I remember the rest, I'll come add it back in.  But this ought to be a big-enough chewstick to keep us occupied in the meantime...)  -- [[User:Marius|>({|:-)]] 16:24, 10 March 2007 (EST)
-	==III. Simplified Chart==	+	==The 3-4-7 Dilemma==
-	=== '''Duties, Rights, & Responsibilities''' ===	+	Earlier you said that "intent of the framers" precluded us from fixing the number of officers at four.  I think this argument loses prominence as other precedents are established both within the Regula, and outside of it (measures passed through the comitia that complement and clarify the regula).
-	{| style="text-align:center" cellspacing="0" border="1"	+	Here's what I'm getting at:  Despite the intention that the number of magistrates to serve is based on the number of candidates throwing their ''coronas'' in the ring (given the min and max established by the RF) this is not implicitly stated anywhere in the actual RF or other properly-passed measure and I view it as one of the "holes left to be filled in".
-	| bgcolor="silver"|'''Duties & Responsibilities''' || bgcolor="silver"| '''Consul''' || bgcolor="silver" |'''Tribune''' || bgcolor="silver" |'''Censor''' || bgcolor="silver"|'''Aedile''' || bgcolor="silver"|'''''Princ. Sen.''''' ||bgcolor="silver" |'''Senator''' || bgcolor="silver" |'''Sodalis'''	+
-	|-    <!-- These comments are for ease of editing C    T    E    A    P    S    O -->	+	But, your rogatio will (finally) fill in some of those holes.  The RF says between 3 and 7, well, your rogatio says four (which is between 3 and 7, and therefore does not violate the RF, nonne?) and without any other clause of the RF or other comitia-passed measure contradicting the number 4 in your rogatio, your rogatio takes precedence.  If we are concerned that your rogatio violates the RF in that it doesn't allow for up to 7 magistrates then simply adding language saying "The number of Consuls, Censors, and Aediles may be increased to two each for a total number of seven magistrates if decided by the comitia." should do the trick. This will also solve the seven magistrates ex officio in the senate problem.
-	| '''Execute Resolutions and SC's'''         || X || - || - || - || - || - || -	+
-	|-	+	If you do not find my argument above compelling enough then the only other solution is I think... <Severus braces for impact>...an amendment to the RF. Not a new RF, just an ammedment that essentially takes the current Article V and replaces it with the language in your rogatio. Believe me, I want to avoid further amendments (at least for now) too, I just don't know what else will work.
-	| '''Veto All Lesser/Equal Magistrates'''      || X || X || - || - || - || - || -	+
-	|-	+	Regarding the too few scenario...if it comes that, well...we can talk about that another time. (p.s. with some more self-training and experience, I would be willing to run for Aedile (only if you wanted a (well-deserved) break).
-	| '''Veto All Magistrates and Actions'''        || - || X || - || - || - || - || -	+
-	|-	+	I actually hate to open-up this can of worms, but, technically the RF says that all officers will serve two year terms...what do we do about that?
-	| '''Settle Disputes Between Members'''         || - || X || - || - || - || - || -	+
-	|-	+	[[User:Admin|Admin]] 13:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)
-	| '''Intervene in Disputes vs. Magistrates'''  || - || X || - || - || - || - || -	+
-	|-	+
-	| '''Report Senate Proceedings'''              || - || X || - || - || - || - || -	+	===Coronas in the Ring===
-	|-	+
-	| '''Conduct Census'''                         || - || - || X || - || - || - || -	+	(Mari just had this beautiful image of a bunch of Mexican-beer-swilling [or is it cigar-smoking?] Romans tossing their empties [or stubs] into a grounded Hula-Hoop...)
-	|-	+
-	| '''Approve and Maintain List of Members''' || - || - || X || - || - || - || -	+	'''Number of Officers:'''
-	|-	+
-	| '''Approve and Maintain List of Senators'''   || - || - || X || - || - || - || -	+	OK, so you're saying since the Regula allows for between three and seven "officers", the Comitia can establish four ''fixed'' positions if it likes to? --Bene, '''I''' like it...but it does glance sideways in the general direction of empty-chairs, that whole unhealthy tendency we've had since the beginning to set aside more positions than we have Sodales willing to fill them.
-	|-	+
-	| '''Approve and Maintain List of Candidates''' || - || - || X || - || - || - || -	+	Heck, maybe this whole ''rogatio'' has that tendency.  Maybe being specific about ''anything'' has that tendency.  We're saying there's gonna be a Censor, a Consul, a Tribune and an Aedile no matter what.  And if somebody doesn't show up...?  Sigh.
-	|-	+
-	| '''Maintain List of Magistrates'''         || - || - || X || - || - || - || -	+	Nevertheless, I feel and have always strongly felt that those specifics ''do'' need to be filled in.  We'll just need to be ready to answer the charges.  Let's make an escape-hatch for the possibility of not having candidates for all four positions (the Senate puts out a draft notice, or maybe the Consul doubles up as Censor too, or...). Let's make another one for having more than four successful candidates. Maybe every candidate should have to declare for a specific Magistracy, and if two people interested in the same spot get elected, they become colleagues.  The rest should (hopefully!) be able to take care of itself...
-	|-	+
-	| '''Manage Financial Matters'''         || - || - || X || - || - || - || -	+	Oh, your basic approach.  Yes.  I would say that, if the Regula permits three to seven, then an act of the Comitia can say there'll at least be four...''positions'', which must be filled by at least three ''bodies'' (counting our Consul/Censor dude).  Does that make sense...?  (I'm home sick, so I may be rambling or contradicting or repeating myself.)
-	|-	+
-	|''' Maintain Website'''                 || - || - || - || X || - || - || -	+	A detail: I'm pretty sure the Regula deals in odd numbers because, as the projected sole governing body of the Societas, the Curatores would want to avoid a tie vote amongst themselves on anything.  But two things--one potential, one already in place--may serve to blow that theory sky-high:  One, we're bringing back the Senate, with an odd number of Senators...and Two (you're gonna love this), the first-ever board of directors under the new Regula (nobis) ''has'' four officers in it.  We're running that way now, so even numbers can't be as taboo as the RF wants us to think.  There's precedent.  Romans eat that up.
-	|-	+
-	| '''Maintain Message Board'''                 || - || - || - || X || - || - || -	+	===For the Duration===
-	|-    <!-- These comments are for ease of editing C    T    E    A    P    S    O -->	+
-	| '''Issue Edicts'''                           || X || - || X || X || - || - || -	+	That two-year term: '''Not''' a can of worms.  Salvation.  Marius fought hard for it, and it stays...because we're trying to get away from politics and elections, and making the ones we have touch Sodales' lives as lightly as possible.  Yearly elections were a pain in the ass, and I don't think a year is long enough for anyone to really accomplish much.  That may be one reason the SVR magistracies always had a "king for a day" flavor to them.
-	|-	+
-	| '''Appoint Assistants'''                 || X || X || X || X || - || - || -	+	If there is anything in this ''rogatio'' that contradicts the two-year term, we'll change it to favor the two-year term.
-	|-	+
-	| '''Preside in the Senate'''                 || X || - || - || - || X || - || -	+	===Impact===
-	|-	+
-	| '''Call for Senate Votes'''                 || X || - || - || - || X || - || -	+	On those rare events when I have sailed into someone, they have compared it to being hit by a pregnant bomber-jet.  I am tending vulture eggs for this one especially-unwelcome fellow so that there will always be birds to tear out his liver once I bind him to a suitable rock.  Others are merely French-fried in sheep manure, or spun off the Forum so hard and so fast that their rear ends may be used for airplane grease.
-	|-	+
-	| '''Introduce Senate Motions'''         || X || - || X || - || X || X || -	+	If you have not found yourself in any comparable batch of trouble, it's a good sign that Marius is not mad at you!!  <bg>  -- [[User:Marius|>({|:-)]] 20:57, 11 March 2007 (EST)
-	|-	+
-	| '''Speak in the Senate'''                 || X || X || X || X || X || X || -	+
-	|-	+	==Filling in the Holes==
-	| '''Vote in the Senate'''                 || X || - || X || - || X || X || -	+
-	|-	+	'''Tu:
-	| '''Preside in the Comitia'''                 || X || X || - || - || - || - || -	+	Let's make an escape-hatch for the possibility of not having candidates for all four positions (the Senate puts out a draft notice, or maybe the Consul doubles up as Censor too, or...). Let's make another one for having more than four successful candidates. Maybe every candidate should have to declare for a specific Magistracy, and if two people interested in the same spot get elected, they become colleagues. The rest should (hopefully!) be able to take care of itself...'''
-	|-	+
-	| '''Call for Comitia Votes'''                 || X || X || - || - || - || - || -	+	I like the Consul doubling as Censor option, it is more structured, but I also think we should have the Senate option as well.  I also think candidates should declare for a specific magistracy up front.
-	|-	+
-	| '''Commence Comitia Elections'''         || X || X || - || - || - || - || -	+	The two years clause is fine with me, we'll just have to change the rogatio language because I made it one year.
-	|-	+
-	| '''Introduce Comitia Motions'''         || X || X || X || X || X || X || X	+	[[User:Admin|Admin]] 08:26, 13 March 2007 (EST)
-	|-	+
-	| '''Speak in the Comitia'''                 || X || X || X || X || X || X || X	+	==Idea==
-	|-	+
-	| '''Vote in the Comitia'''                 || X || X || X || X || X || X || X	+	Four Magistrates.  Any leftover Electeds to be just-plain-Curatores, doing admin sorts of things like our ''apparitores'' do now, help the Magistrates and step in for one if s/he has to be unavailable for some reason. Just-plain-Curatores would not sit in the Senate unless they're serving as Magistrates ''pro tempore''.
-	|-   <!-- These comments are for ease of editing  C    T    E    A    P    S    O -->	+
-	| bgcolor="silver"|'''Duties & Responsibilities''' || bgcolor="silver"| '''Consul''' || bgcolor="silver" |'''Tribune''' || bgcolor="silver" |'''Censor''' || bgcolor="silver"|'''Aedile''' ||  bgcolor="silver"|'''''Princ. Sen.''''' ||bgcolor="silver" |'''Senator''' || bgcolor="silver" |'''Sodalis'''	+	("What ''apparitores?''" you may well ask.  Besides the four Curatores serving now, these individuals have Curia access: '''Tiberius Dionysius Draco,''' my predecessor as Aedilis, who held my paw early on and still helps out with uploads and Spam control; '''Quintus Servilius Priscus,''' a former Censor, assisting in that capacity; '''Quintus Valerius Scerio,''' brought on board for the Forum upgrade, for which reason I have agnominated him ''Restitutor Fori;'' '''Quintus Pomponius Atticus,''' former chairman of the Concilium, who we figured might have some valuable things to say; '''Marcus Octavius Gracchus,''' our Gracious Host, who has Admin access anyway; and '''Conditor Gnaeus Dionysius Draco,''' Just Because.  I told you the bulk of them were my helpers! <g>)  -- [[User:Marius|>({|:-)]] 16:07, 15 March 2007 (EST)
-	|}	+
		+	:Mi Severe, I've moved the discussion to the [[Talk:Stolen Rules Chart]] page for easier flipping back-and-forth between it and the actual Rogatio.  [[Talk:Stolen Rules Chart]] only has the basics, but I think there's enough to capture the essence of the problem and the solutions presented thus far.  (If it's not, then of course feel free to port other things over!) -- [[User:Marius|MariPere']] 13:17, 16 March 2007 (EST)

---

Current revision as of 03:00, 4 April 2007

Sandbox Article page cleared.  Talk page to remain as is. -Admin 04:10, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Sez You! <g>

Contents [hide] 1 We're Not Done Yet! 2 "B-, b-, b-, baby, you just ain't seen na-, na-, nothin yet" 3 "When E.F. Marius Talks...Severus listens." 3.1 Dragging the Cat Back In 4 The 3-4-7 Dilemma 4.1 Coronas in the Ring 4.2 For the Duration 4.3 Impact 5 Filling in the Holes 6 Idea

We're Not Done Yet!

I've sent the proposed rogatio to Valerius Scerio and Horatius Piscinus for their review and input. (I've also offered them Edit privileges on the Wiki.) No word from Scerio just yet; but Piscinus likes it very much, with just a couple of questions. These deal with integrating the rogatio into our existing Regula:

• The rogatio provides for four Magistrates; the Regula, for up to seven Curatores. Assuming the Rogatio is intended to expand on, not replace, the Regula...what do we do with the other three Curatores, if the Sodales ever elect that many?

• Should the Senate section and the Magistrates section be presented as separate proposals?

• Should we make provision for increasing the number of Magistrates as the size or activity level of the Societas permits?

For myself, I don't know the answer (yet) to the first point.

On the second point, I'd rather not separate them, as the Magistrates' job-descriptions go into some detail about their roles in the Senate, which assumes that we'll have one for them. But if we did separate them, the Senate article could go first; our proposed Senate can exist without the Magistrates, but not vice versa. See Talk:Stolen Rules Chart for how this might (or might not?) work.

On the third point, it kicks the discussion back to a larger question implied in all the rest: Is this a rogatio or a(nother) Regula? --It is certainly expansive enough to be a new Regula (the Marian Reforms?? --Shades of my ancestors! <g>). However, to amend the one we have we'd still have to go through the Comitia. So I'm not treating this as a new round of Regula reform. I am treating it as an extreme flexion of Comitial musculature in the filling-in of all those blanks in the Reg we've got. You know--"What do we call the officers", "What do we have them do", "How much of what they do has to be ratified by the Comitia", etc.? -Yeah, those.

Anyway: If it's a Regula ("Razzles: Is It a Candy or a Gum?"), we'd need to install an amendment procedure. If it's a queen-size rogatio, then all the Sodales would have to do to change any part of it is present another rogatio.

Phew! ...This sounds like more work than it is, mainly because Mari blathers. I'll post further questions, both my own and others', as they arise. But we really did kinda forget to consider how to fit this thing into the Concilium Reform. My bad! --But I'm sturdy; I can take a hit!! -- >({|:-) 00:40, 5 March 2007 (EST)

"B-, b-, b-, baby, you just ain't seen na-, na-, nothin yet"

(I love BTO! --One time I dedicated that particular song to my first Poodle...who did indeed "look at me with her big brown eyes"!)

Sorry, I was listening to Bachman Turner Overdrive and thought it would make a good title for this heading. Anyway, I anticipated some of these questions might develop. I guess I've assumed for a long time that a new RF would eventually become necessary (hoping of course to get this rogatio passed and have the new Senate and officers from whence they came to chew the constitutional cud for awhile and develop a new RF for the comitia to ratify. Ideally, I think that is the way to go, but that assumes that your rogatio fits within the current RF (which I think it does (but just barely ;). If your rogatio exceeds the bounds of a normal measure then I don't think it would be too hard to make it an amendment to the current RF instead, but I think we should avoid that (at least for now) if possible.

Here are my thoughts on the questions you posed above:

*The rogatio provides for four Magistrates;...what do we do with the other three Curatores..."

I think this either is moot or can be made so within the bounds of our current RF. Here's why/how: The RF only says "No less than three and no more than seven officers may hold office at any one time", it doesn't say how the number shall be determined. So, the next time we have elections (hopefully for the renewed magisterial positions in your rogatio) since the Curatores are empowered to "oversee elections held in the Comitia" you simply announce that four positions will be elected which have been titled and assigned individual duties as defined by this rogatio and allowed under by IV.a of the RF: "The individual titles of the officers and their individual duties shall be established by the Comitia."

Actually, we did pound out how the number was to be determined: by how many candidates showed up. Vide Concilium discussions for what the US Supreme Court would call "the intent of the Framers". We know an SVR "officership" does not draw the crowds like a BTO concert or a Star Wars movie; people aren't lining up around the block for a seat in the Curia. (Nobody wants my job...which has me worried, as I intend to resume a full reenactor schedule next year. Maybe contact the employment office...?)

Given the trend, I doubt we'll see all seven chairs filled any time soon. But we still have to plan for them. And redefining the term "oversee" so drastically doesn't sit well with me. -- >({|:-) 12:22, 5 March 2007 (EST)

• Should the Senate section and the Magistrates section be presented as separate proposals?

hmmmmm, I would try to avoid this, only because as you have said, there are many links between the two and I'd hate for us to lose sight of the big picture but it is doable.

I concur on the nondesirability. My rogatio's tiny; c'mon, guys, you can swallow it whole...! -- >({|:-) 12:22, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*Should we make provision for increasing the number of Magistrates as the size or activity level of the Societas permits?

We did have this in there but then took it out. I felt comfortable removing it because I think we would need to have some exponential growth to justify more officers AND as I said earlier, I guess I always saw a new RF somewhere down the road that among filling in the rest of the holes would handle more officers as well.

In summary, IMO we should keep this as a single rogatio for now and keep in mind that a new RF will probably have to follow some day (before elections next year). If we cannot keep this as a single rogatio and/or we need to amend the RF I think we need to alter our approach slightly.

- Admin 08:55, 5 March 2007 (EST)

I am trying to avoid a new Regula if at all possible. I am sick to death of amending/replacing the damn thing every other year. I think the Sodales are too; we're not NR, we have plenty of things to talk about besides government. Besides--the current Regula has so many blanks in it, I think we can flesh it out without replacing the thing--or do people toss a form before filling it out? Piscinus' vision for the Regula was as a bare-bones template that the Comitia could add the content to. Rather like a Wiki that way...so let's think about editing the thing! -- >({|:-) 12:22, 5 March 2007 (EST)

"When E.F. Marius Talks...Severus listens."

Marius said:

Given the trend, I doubt we'll see all seven chairs filled any time soon. But we still have to plan for them. And redefining the term "oversee" so drastically doesn't sit well with me. -- >({|:-) 12:22, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Severus replies:

The easiest way to do this me thinks is to add a line as such (New language in bold):

1. The magistrates of the Society shall be one (1) Consul, one (1) Censor, one (1) Aedilis, and one (1) Tribune. One (1) additional Consul, Censor, and Aedilis position may be created as approved by the Comitia so that no less than three and no more than seven officers may hold office at any one time.

Tweak or counter as you see fit.

Marius said:

I am trying to avoid a new Regula if at all possible. I am sick to death of amending/replacing the damn thing every other year. I think the Sodales are too; we're not NR, we have plenty of things to talk about besides government. Besides--the current Regula has so many blanks in it, I think we can flesh it out without replacing the thing--or do people toss a form before filling it out? Piscinus' vision for the Regula was as a bare-bones template that the Comitia could add the content to. Rather like a Wiki that way...so let's think about editing the thing! -- >({|:-) 12:22, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Severus replies: That works for me!!!

Dragging the Cat Back In

Still awaiting Scerio's detailed commentary, but he does object to our five-member Senate. Specifics to follow.

But those extra Curatores... First, the upside: Piscinus has the same idea you do about having any "extra" Curatores become the colleagues of the Magistrates who need them. (Everyone except the Tribune, I'm thinking.)

Now for why this detail is becoming a very big headache, especially for a fellow whose brain is full already:

• If we say that seven Curatores equal seven Magistrates, and they all sit in the Senate, we run back into the problem of "overwhelming" the Senate. If they don't all sit in the Senate, how do we decide who gets a seat and who doesn't?

• Also, how would we sort out which of the extras would be the colleague of which Magistrate? If the candidate did not run for a specific Magistracy himself, he was probably not interested in it. Hanging a tag around someone's neck is not sufficient to make a Censor or Consul or Aedilis out of that individual; so how would we assign colleagues who were both motivated and qualified?

So far we've been assuming that we have elected at least one person to each Magistracy. Suppose we don't? --I've said it before, nobody's lining up for my job. Our "extras" dilemma gets even knottier if we consider two suboptimal scenarios:

1. We elect more than four Curatores, but not all actual Magistracies had a candidate (say nobody wanted Mari's job). We have the bodies, but, between 'em, maybe not the l337 skilz (Aedilis), the bedside manner (Censor), the OCD (Consul), or the BS-resistance that makes a good Tribune. <g> Now it's not just a "colleague" situation, we actually need one or more to function as full-blown Magistrates. Who fills the hole?

1. We elect less than four Curatores. Oh, crap. You know, we haven't even touched what happens if we don't get a full slate?

Is it just me, or could this issue blow our rogatio clear out of the water if we're not careful? How to provide jobs for a full seven Curatores? ...without dislocating a rogational shoulder? We have to handle the situation, even though it is very unlikely to come to pass, and thus hardly worth pummelling anything out of shape. The less-than-four scenario is easy by comparison: we could perhaps have the Senate approach some worthy Sodalis and ask him if he wants to serve in the missing Magistracy.

The in-betweens (4+ Curators, not all of 'em assigned) would seem to require some ugly modifications...but maybe that's just me going all bug-eyed and skittish.

(...I'd said more the first time I typed this, but the session timed out in mid-edit and...you know. If I remember the rest, I'll come add it back in. But this ought to be a big-enough chewstick to keep us occupied in the meantime...) -- >({|:-) 16:24, 10 March 2007 (EST)

The 3-4-7 Dilemma

Earlier you said that "intent of the framers" precluded us from fixing the number of officers at four. I think this argument loses prominence as other precedents are established both within the Regula, and outside of it (measures passed through the comitia that complement and clarify the regula).

Here's what I'm getting at: Despite the intention that the number of magistrates to serve is based on the number of candidates throwing their coronas in the ring (given the min and max established by the RF) this is not implicitly stated anywhere in the actual RF or other properly-passed measure and I view it as one of the "holes left to be filled in".

But, your rogatio will (finally) fill in some of those holes. The RF says between 3 and 7, well, your rogatio says four (which is between 3 and 7, and therefore does not violate the RF, nonne?) and without any other clause of the RF or other comitia-passed measure contradicting the number 4 in your rogatio, your rogatio takes precedence. If we are concerned that your rogatio violates the RF in that it doesn't allow for up to 7 magistrates then simply adding language saying "The number of Consuls, Censors, and Aediles may be increased to two each for a total number of seven magistrates if decided by the comitia." should do the trick. This will also solve the seven magistrates ex officio in the senate problem.

If you do not find my argument above compelling enough then the only other solution is I think... <Severus braces for impact>...an amendment to the RF. Not a new RF, just an ammedment that essentially takes the current Article V and replaces it with the language in your rogatio. Believe me, I want to avoid further amendments (at least for now) too, I just don't know what else will work.

Regarding the too few scenario...if it comes that, well...we can talk about that another time. (p.s. with some more self-training and experience, I would be willing to run for Aedile (only if you wanted a (well-deserved) break).

I actually hate to open-up this can of worms, but, technically the RF says that all officers will serve two year terms...what do we do about that?

Admin 13:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Coronas in the Ring

(Mari just had this beautiful image of a bunch of Mexican-beer-swilling [or is it cigar-smoking?] Romans tossing their empties [or stubs] into a grounded Hula-Hoop...)

Number of Officers:

OK, so you're saying since the Regula allows for between three and seven "officers", the Comitia can establish four fixed positions if it likes to? --Bene, I like it...but it does glance sideways in the general direction of empty-chairs, that whole unhealthy tendency we've had since the beginning to set aside more positions than we have Sodales willing to fill them.

Heck, maybe this whole rogatio has that tendency. Maybe being specific about anything has that tendency. We're saying there's gonna be a Censor, a Consul, a Tribune and an Aedile no matter what. And if somebody doesn't show up...? Sigh.

Nevertheless, I feel and have always strongly felt that those specifics do need to be filled in. We'll just need to be ready to answer the charges. Let's make an escape-hatch for the possibility of not having candidates for all four positions (the Senate puts out a draft notice, or maybe the Consul doubles up as Censor too, or...). Let's make another one for having more than four successful candidates. Maybe every candidate should have to declare for a specific Magistracy, and if two people interested in the same spot get elected, they become colleagues. The rest should (hopefully!) be able to take care of itself...

Oh, your basic approach. Yes. I would say that, if the Regula permits three to seven, then an act of the Comitia can say there'll at least be four...positions, which must be filled by at least three bodies (counting our Consul/Censor dude). Does that make sense...? (I'm home sick, so I may be rambling or contradicting or repeating myself.)

A detail: I'm pretty sure the Regula deals in odd numbers because, as the projected sole governing body of the Societas, the Curatores would want to avoid a tie vote amongst themselves on anything. But two things--one potential, one already in place--may serve to blow that theory sky-high: One, we're bringing back the Senate, with an odd number of Senators...and Two (you're gonna love this), the first-ever board of directors under the new Regula (nobis) has four officers in it. We're running that way now, so even numbers can't be as taboo as the RF wants us to think. There's precedent. Romans eat that up.

For the Duration

That two-year term: Not a can of worms. Salvation. Marius fought hard for it, and it stays...because we're trying to get away from politics and elections, and making the ones we have touch Sodales' lives as lightly as possible. Yearly elections were a pain in the ass, and I don't think a year is long enough for anyone to really accomplish much. That may be one reason the SVR magistracies always had a "king for a day" flavor to them.

If there is anything in this rogatio that contradicts the two-year term, we'll change it to favor the two-year term.

Impact

On those rare events when I have sailed into someone, they have compared it to being hit by a pregnant bomber-jet. I am tending vulture eggs for this one especially-unwelcome fellow so that there will always be birds to tear out his liver once I bind him to a suitable rock. Others are merely French-fried in sheep manure, or spun off the Forum so hard and so fast that their rear ends may be used for airplane grease.

If you have not found yourself in any comparable batch of trouble, it's a good sign that Marius is not mad at you!! <bg> -- >({|:-) 20:57, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Filling in the Holes

Tu: Let's make an escape-hatch for the possibility of not having candidates for all four positions (the Senate puts out a draft notice, or maybe the Consul doubles up as Censor too, or...). Let's make another one for having more than four successful candidates. Maybe every candidate should have to declare for a specific Magistracy, and if two people interested in the same spot get elected, they become colleagues. The rest should (hopefully!) be able to take care of itself...

I like the Consul doubling as Censor option, it is more structured, but I also think we should have the Senate option as well. I also think candidates should declare for a specific magistracy up front.

The two years clause is fine with me, we'll just have to change the rogatio language because I made it one year.

Admin 08:26, 13 March 2007 (EST)

Idea

Four Magistrates. Any leftover Electeds to be just-plain-Curatores, doing admin sorts of things like our apparitores do now, help the Magistrates and step in for one if s/he has to be unavailable for some reason. Just-plain-Curatores would not sit in the Senate unless they're serving as Magistrates pro tempore.

("What apparitores?" you may well ask. Besides the four Curatores serving now, these individuals have Curia access: Tiberius Dionysius Draco, my predecessor as Aedilis, who held my paw early on and still helps out with uploads and Spam control; Quintus Servilius Priscus, a former Censor, assisting in that capacity; Quintus Valerius Scerio, brought on board for the Forum upgrade, for which reason I have agnominated him Restitutor Fori; Quintus Pomponius Atticus, former chairman of the Concilium, who we figured might have some valuable things to say; Marcus Octavius Gracchus, our Gracious Host, who has Admin access anyway; and Conditor Gnaeus Dionysius Draco, Just Because. I told you the bulk of them were my helpers! <g>) -- >({|:-) 16:07, 15 March 2007 (EST)

Mi Severe, I've moved the discussion to the Talk:Stolen Rules Chart page for easier flipping back-and-forth between it and the actual Rogatio. Talk:Stolen Rules Chart only has the basics, but I think there's enough to capture the essence of the problem and the solutions presented thus far. (If it's not, then of course feel free to port other things over!) -- MariPere' 13:17, 16 March 2007 (EST)