1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 26, 1991 .......... Page: 330
[Motion not timely:]
Representative Hauke moved that Part 2 of assembly amendment 10 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 91 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget act of the 1991 legislature, and making appropriations] be taken from the table and taken up at this time. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-38, noes-60.] Motion failed.
22 Representative Hauke moved reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 11 [to AB 91] failed to be adopted.
[Note:] The motion to reconsider assembly action on an amendment may be entered immediately following final assembly action on the amendment, but if not then made it can only be entered following the conclusion of the amending stage (engrossment) in the proposal's consideration after entering a motion to reconsider engrossment.
A motion to reconsider the assembly's action on an amendment is taken up only if the motion to reconsider engrossment of the proposal is successful; A.Rule 73 (4) (c).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the motion not timely.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 10, 1985 .......... Page: 415
Point of order:
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 141 [relating to interstate banking, the powers of banks, regulating control of certain deposit-taking institutions and granting rule-making authority] be adopted? Motion carried.
Representative Shoemaker rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 be adopted? Motion carried. [Intervening text omitted]
[Note:] A point of order may be raised only while the question it concerns is before the house and not yet decided; A.Rule 62 (4).
When the pending question is action on a 2nd degree amendment to an amendment, a point of order questioning the germaneness of the first degree amendment is not proper under the rules, but was here allowed by unanimous consent to save time.
The bill was an annotated proposal, introduced by the legislative council, to adjust Wisconsin law on interstate banking and the powers of banks to the federal "Douglas" amendment to the bank holding company act, 12 U.S.C. sec. 1842(d). The Douglas amendment applies exclusively to financial institutions chartered as "banks".
A.Amdt.6 tried to expand the scope to include credit unions and savings and loan associations. When the point of order was raised, there were 4 amendments to A.Amdt.6 pending.
Representative T. Thompson asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that the speaker rule on the germaneness of assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 prior to the consideration of the amendments to assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 14. Granted.
23 Representative Shoemaker rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Representative Becker asked unanimous consent that the assembly stand recessed for ten minutes. Granted. [Intervening text omitted]
The speaker [Loftus] ruled well taken the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 23, 1984 .......... Page: 771
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 283, [relating to annual reports by and involuntary dissolution of nonstock corporations] which was just introduced, should be considered prior to consideration of the remainder of the simple amendments to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 283.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that Assembly Rule 55 (1) [sequence of considering amendments] required the assembly to complete action on assembly substitute amendment 1, and its simple amendments, prior to consideration of assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 283.
[Note:] Flowing from the condition "if no other substitute amendment has been adopted", the text of A.Rule 55 (1) (b) leads to 2 different results depending on the specific fact situation:
(1) If the substitute amendment just offered is the only substitute before the assembly - either because it is the first substitute offered or because any other substitutes had already been adversely disposed of - the assembly goes to the new substitute which must be considered before the proposal can be "ordered engrossed and read the 3rd time".
(2) If the new substitute is offered while the assembly is considering another substitute, the assembly continues on the substitute currently before it, and any other pending substitutes in the sequence required by A.Rule 55 (1) (a) and (b), and reaches the new substitute only "if no other substitute amendment has been adopted".
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 27, 1983 .......... Page: 542
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 3, October 1983 Special Session [relating to limiting this state's jurisdiction to tax foreign corporations], was not germane under Assembly Rules 93 (1) [in special session, amendment must fit within call] and 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
24 Representative T. Thompson also rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 3, October 1983 Special Session was not properly before the assembly under Assembly Rule 55 (1) (a) [sequence of considering amendments].
[Note:] The bill was limited to tax nexus for Wisconsin activities by foreign corporations.
A.Sub.1 did not address the area covered by the bill but, rather, proposed cutting the corporate income tax rate from 7.9% to 7.82% for all payers.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the amendment not germane to the special session call and out of order under Assembly Rule 93 (1).
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 9, 1982 .......... Page: 2567
Point of order:
Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 22 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 250 should be before the assembly.
[Note:] A.Amdt.22, first assigned a different placement, was moved after A.Amdt.21. Subsequently, 21 was moved after 24, and then 22 was moved after 24. This did not keep 22 after 21; rather, the sequence was now 24-22-21 and 22 was up immediately after action on 24 was completed.
The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 29, 1980 .......... Page: 1740
[Point of order:]
Senator Bablitch moved that senate amendment 96 [to Assembly Bill 1180, relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the 1980 budget review bill, and making appropriations] be considered before senate amendment 70.
The question was: Shall senate amendment 96 be considered before senate amendment 70?
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the rules must be suspended to consider senate amendment 96 before senate amendment 70.
[Note:] S.Rule 47 (4), which sets forth the sequence of considering amendments, concludes "unless the senate by majority vote otherwise orders".
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 1, 1977 .......... Page: 1180
[Background: 1977 Senate Bill 77 was the budget bill. Assembly substitute amendment 1, by Rep. Shabaz and others, was offered on May 26.]
Representative Wahner moved rejection of assembly amendment 39 to Senate Bill 77. Representative Kedrowski rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 77 was before the assembly pursuant to Assembly Rule 51 [sequence of considering amendments].
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 10, 1975 .......... Page: 487
Point of order:
Representative Hanson moved that the rules be suspended and that assembly amendments 5 to 41 [to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 48; relating to regulation of buying clubs or plans and providing penalties] be laid on the table.
Representative Ferrall rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order under Assembly Rule 72.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Appointment by governor: senate advice and consent
1 9 8 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 15, 1990 .......... Page: 1005
[Committee report on appointments, unanimous consent:]
Senator Rude, with unanimous consent, asked that the appointment of Ken Machten be withdrawn from the committee on Education, Economic Development, Financial Institutions and Fiscal Policies and taken up. Senator Strohl objected.
Senator Ellis raised the point of order that, according to Senate Rule 22, a committee will make a report of its findings on appointments to the body.
[Note:] Sen. Rude's unanimous consent request implied the suspension of S.Rule 22.
The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point not well taken.
1 9 7 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 31, 1978 .......... Page: 2250
[Point of order:]
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, all appointments were considered en masse with the exception of Catherine Conroy and Steven Pavich. [Intervening business; appointment of Catherine Conroy read.]
26 Senator Lorge raised the point of order that the appointment of Catherine Conroy was not properly before us.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 14, 1975 .......... Page: 698
[Point of order re qualification for appointment:]
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that, pursuant to section 15.34 of the state statutes, John Brogan was not eligible to serve on the DNR board because of his holdings in Midwest Gas Transmission Co.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken as section 15.34 relates to permit holders on the Natural Resources Board and Midwest Gas Transmission Co. holds no DNR permits.
Senate Journal of April 29, 1975 .......... Page: 621
[Point of order:]
Senator Whittow asked unanimous consent that the appointment of Holden be referred to committee on Senate Organization. Senator LaFave objected.
Senator Risser moved that the appointment of Holden be laid on the table.
Senator Whittow raised the point of order that the appointment could not be laid on the table. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of May 1, 1975 .......... Page: 645
By request of Senator Whittow, with unanimous consent, his point of order raised on the appointment of Matthew Holden, Jr. on Wednesday was withdrawn.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 7, 1973 .......... Page: 1202
[Tabling: motion may be applied to appointment]
By request of Senator Johnson, with unanimous consent, the appointment of Roland B. Day was taken from the committee on Health, Education and Welfare and considered for action at this time.
DAY, ROLAND B., of Madison, as a member of the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents, to succeed David Carley, for the remainder of the unexpired term ending May 1, 1974.
