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.
The question was: Confirmation?
Senator Parys asked unanimous consent that the appointment of Roland B. Day be laid on the table. Senator Risser objected.
[Point of order:]
Senator Parys moved that the appointment of Roland B. Day be laid on the table.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that appointments must either be confirmed or rejected and not tabled.
27 The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-6, noes-26.] So the motion did not prevail.
The question was: Confirmation?
The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-28, noes-4.] So the appointment was confirmed.
Banking bills: 2/3 vote required (obsolete April 1981)
[Note:] In the election of April 1981, the voters repealed the former requirement that "banking" legislation could be passed only with the affirmative votes of 2/3 of the members elected to each house.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 13, 1980 .......... Page: 2655
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that the adoption of assembly amendments to Assembly Bill 495 [relating to authorization to relocate a bank's principal office and to continue to operate the former principal office as a branch under certain circumstances] required a two-thirds vote but the assembly had adopted amendments on a voice vote. Representative Thompson cited the Wisconsin Supreme Court case of Loomis v. Callahan 196 Wis. 518 (1928). The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 13, 1980 .......... Page: 2656
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that the court case cited by Representative Thompson did not require a two-thirds vote on adoption of all assembly amendments to Assembly Bill 495. The point of order was ruled not well taken.
Assembly Journal of February 28, 1980 .......... Page: 2402
The question was: Assembly Bill 495 [relating to authorization to relocate a bank's principal office and to continue to operate the former principal office as a branch under certain circumstances] having been read three times, shall the bill pass?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-63, noes-34.] Motion failed.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that Assembly Bill 495 failed to pass because it required a two-thirds vote pursuant to Article XI, Section 4 of the Wisconsin Constitution.
