[Note:] As introduced, 1991 AB 388 removed the $50,000 ceiling on awards for loss of society and companionship in wrongful death actions under section 895.04 of the statutes. A.Amdt-1 (as aff. by Am-1 to Am-1), retained the ceiling with the amount increased to $250,000.
Fiscal estimates are required only if a bill, as introduced, makes an appropriation or increases or decreases existing appropriations or state or general local government fiscal liability or revenues.
Although an increase in the ceiling might affect jury awards in wrongful death actions in which the defendant is a state or local government employe, a proposed change in a statute providing a penalty or governing allowable damages is not meant to increase or decrease state or general local government fiscal liability.
Consequently, such bills do not require a fiscal estimate. See also Jt.Rule 41 (2) (b): a "bill containing a penalty provision is exempt from the fiscal estimate requirement if the bill contains no other provisions requiring a fiscal estimate"...
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 9 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 6, 1992 .......... Page: 618
[Point of order:]
Senator Helbach moved that Assembly Bill 388 [relating to limits on wrongful death actions for loss of society and companionship] be withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance and referred to the committee on Senate Rules.
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 388 be withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance and referred to the committee on Senate Rules?
Senator Leean raised a point of order under Joint Rule 41 and 49 (1) requesting the President to determine if AB 388 requires a fiscal estimate. The Chair took the point under advisement.
Senate Journal of February 6, 1992 .......... Page: 620
[Ruling of President Risser:]
Earlier today the Senator from the 14th, Senator Leean raised a point of order under Joint Rule 41 and 49 (1) requesting the President to determine if AB 388 requires a fiscal estimate. The Chair has reviewed the bill, looked at past precedent for a bill of this subject and reviewed the requirements of Joint Rule 41 and s. 13.093 (2) of the Statutes.
Joint Rule 41 (1) (a): "All bills making an appropriation and any bill increasing or decreasing existing appropriations or state or general local government fiscal liability or revenues shall carry a fiscal estimate."
134 Section 13.093 (2) [of the statutes] reads in part: "Any bill making an appropriation and any bill increasing or decreasing existing appropriations or state or general local government fiscal liability or revenues shall, before any vote is taken thereon by either house of the legislature if the bill is not referred to a standing committee or before any public hearing is held before any standing committee or, if no public hearing is held, before
any vote is taken by the committee, incorporate a reliable estimate of the anticipated change in appropriation authority or state or general local government fiscal liability."
A bill similar to this, has been reviewed in the past as to whether or not a bill of this nature requires a fiscal estimate. This very same bill has not been noted as requiring a fiscal estimate.
The Chair has read the bill and it relates to increasing awards in certain wrongful death actions. It does not of itself create a liability for any state or local unit or government. Nor could a "reliable" estimate be determined, as judicial review or action is required and that cannot be predicted.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair, that Assembly Bill 388 does not require a fiscal estimate.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 15, 1984 .......... Page: 966
Point of order:
Representative R. Travis rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 752 [relating to authorizing participation laws and changing the basis for determining corporation membership in credit unions and making miscellaneous other changes affecting credit unions] required a fiscal estimate from the Department of Revenue because the bill would have the effect of decreasing tax revenues.
[Note:] The bill had a 10/10/83 fiscal estimate (indicating no effect) from the office of the commissioner of credit unions.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 6, 1983 .......... Page: 385
[Point of order:]
Senator Harsdorf raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 16 [relating to repair, replacement and refund under new motor vehicle warranties] should be referred to joint committee on Finance. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of October 6, 1983 .......... Page: 389
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
Earlier today the Senator from the 10th, Senator Harsdorf, raised the point of order that Joint Rule 41 (a) required that Assembly Bill 16 have a Fiscal Estimate prepared.
135 Joint Rule 49 requires the presiding officer to determine if a fiscal estimate is required. A reading of the bill does not reveal any immediate indication of where there may be an increase or decrease in fiscal liability to local or state government. Since Joint Rule 41 (a) and Sec. 13.093 (2) (a) of the statutes require that only bills making an appropriation or increasing or decreasing existing appropriations or state or general local government fiscal liability or revenues shall have a fiscal estimate, it is the opinion of the chair that Assembly Bill 16 does not fall into this category, does not therefore require a fiscal estimate
and the point of order raised by the Senator from the 10th, Senator Harsdorf, is not well taken.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 10, 1982 .......... Page: 2115
Point of order:
Representative Stitt rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 519 [relating to the reorganization of city school districts into common or unified districts] required a local fiscal estimate from the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations pursuant to Joint Rule 42 (1) (c).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that section 13.10 (2) (a) of the Wisconsin Statutes did not require a local fiscal estimate from the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations because that Department did not administer the appropriation or collect the revenue.
Assembly Journal of October 1, 1981 .......... Page: 1082
Point of order:
Representative Kincaid rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 394 [relating to construction of boathouses on navigable waters] required a fiscal estimate.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 24, 1979 .......... Page: 431
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 492 [relating to clearing of voting machine recorders for use in anticipated special elections to fill certain legislative vacancies in 1979] required a local fiscal estimate under section 13.10 of the Wisconsin Statutes because local government expenses would be incurred in clearing the voting machines prior to the expiration of the 60 day waiting period.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because Assembly Bill 492 was permissive legislation and would not by itself necessitate an expenditure by local governmental units.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 14, 1978 .......... Page: 3624
Point of order:
Representative Tuczynski rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 61 required a fiscal estimate.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that Wisconsin Statutes 13.10 (2) (a) is controlling and, therefore, fiscal estimates are only required on bills. The point of order was ruled not well taken.
136 1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 15, 1975 .......... Page: 531
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 75 required a state and local fiscal note under Joint Rule 24 (9) because the bill would require expenditures for promulgation of rules and enforcement by local officials.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of February 11, 1975 .......... Page: 200
Point of order:
Representative Sensenbrenner rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 17 was not properly before the assembly because a fiscal note had not been received. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of February 12, 1975 .......... Page: 217
On February 11, 1975 the Gentleman from the 10th raised a point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 17 [directing the joint legislative council to conduct a study of the structure, organization and operation of regional planning commissions and to make recommendations to the legislature as soon as possible], then pending on the calendar, was not properly before us because it did not have a fiscal note as required under Sec. 13.10 (2) and Joint Rule 24. The Chair took the Point of Order under advisement.
Sec. 13.10 (2) of the Statutes refers only to bills and does not refer to resolutions. Sec. 13.20 (1) (c) of the Statutes requires that a fiscal note be provided for the staffing patterns resolutions passed by each house. If Sec. 13.10 (2) of the Statutes required fiscal notes on Joint Resolutions, Sec. 13.20 (1) (c) would not be necessary. However, it was enacted into law because 13.10 (2) did not require fiscal notes on resolutions.
In interpreting Joint Rule 24, the language of the rule does not refer to bills or resolutions, but rather speaks of "any measure." Joint Rule 24 was enacted to set forth the procedure for complying with Sec. 13.10 (2), and must be considered as an extension of that statute.
In a case directly in point, in the 1969 session, the presiding officer of the Senate ruled that Senate Joint Resolution 96 "directing the Legislative Council to study" a certain matter, did not require a fiscal note (Senate Journal, Oct. 3, 1969). Since it is desirable to have a uniform interpretation of the joint rules in both houses, the Chair feels bound to follow the Senate precedent in this matter, and accordingly rules that the point of order raised by the Gentleman from the 10th is not well taken.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 9, 1973 .......... Page: 1675
[Local fiscal estimate:]
Senator Devitt moved that Senate Bill 528 be withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance.
[Point of order:]
Senator J. D. Swan raised the point of order that the bill did not have a local fiscal note, and therefore was not properly before the senate.
137 The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of July 26, 1973 .......... Page: 1483
[Senate Bill 185, relating to recodification of the laws pertaining to special education of children with exceptional educational needs, authorizing payment of state aids, granting rule-making authority and increasing an appropriation]
[Point of order:]
The question was: Concurrence in assembly amendment 12? Senator J. D. Swan moved nonconcurrence in assembly amendments 12 and 18.
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-3, noes-25.] So the motion did not prevail.
Senator J. D. Swan raised the point of order that Senate Bill 185 required another fiscal note to comply with Wisconsin Stat. 13.10 (2) (a). ( The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order untimely as the question was only one of concurrence in the amendments.
Senate Journal of June 27, 1973 .......... Page: 1274
[Point of order:]
Senator Parys raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 689 [relating to filling mid-term vacancies on the Milwaukee county board of supervisors] required a fiscal note. The chair took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
As it relates to Assembly Bill 689, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled a fiscal note was not required.
Senate Journal of May 24, 1973 .......... Page: 1125
[Point of order:]
Senator Hollander raised the point of order that Senate Bill 203 [relating to the right to be reimbursed under accident and health policies for chiropractic services] required a fiscal note.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Fiscal estimate: required
1 9 9 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 23, 1994 .......... Page: 900
[Point of order:]
Senator George raised the point of order that Senate Bill 781 [relating to persistent serious felony offenders and providing penalties] does not have a reliable fiscal estimate pursuant to Joint Rule 43 and 49.
138 [Note:] The history of SB 781 indicates that fiscal estimates had been received on March 8 (two) and on March 11. These had been prepared by the department of corrections, the department of administration, and the sentencing commission. Also in the files was a fiscal estimate, dated March 17, from the department of justice.
The supplementary fiscal estimate, requested on March 23, was received on March 28 (after the bill had passed both houses).
State agencies are required to furnish the legislature with reliable estimates. The presiding officer does not have the information to decide in each instance whether or not an estimate received is "reliable". In addition, section 13.093 (2) (c) expressly provides that a bill does not require a fiscal estimate when the only assumed cost of the bill derives from the cost of incarcerating convicted offenders.
[Section 513 (1) of Mason's Manual expressly states that a tie vote on an appeal from a decision of the chair sustains the decision of the chair.]
