Bills that may not be amended
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1992 .......... Page: 931
Point of order:
Representative Fortis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 [relating to limits on wrongful death actions for loss of society and companionship] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e) and (g).
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Krug under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 was not substantially similar to a previously adopted assembly amendment.
The chair ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Fortis under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (g) because it is appropriate to consider an assembly amendment to a senate amendment to an Assembly Bill already passed by the assembly.
33 The chair ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Fortis under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e), because, had the assembly not considered an amendment when Assembly Bill 388 was originally in the assembly to limit the awards of wrongful death actions, an assembly amendment modifying the senate action would be in order. However, because the assembly previously took a position on limitations, the assembly must either accept the senate amendment to modify the assembly position, or adhere to the assembly position and nonconcur in the senate amendment.
[Note:] The reference to A.Rule 54 (3) (g) was inappropriate. That rule, speaking to bills for which amendments are prohibited by law, may be obsolete. Amendments to amendments are covered by A.Rule 52 (2).
When the assembly amended 1991 AB 388 before passage, A.Amdt-2, which raised the wrongful death award ceiling from $50,000 to $100,000, was ruled a nongermane expansion of the proposal because it included under the new ceiling the amount of any medical malpractice award. The assembly then adopted A.Amdt-1 (as aff. by Am-1 to Am-1), raising the ceiling on wrongful death awards from $50,000 to $250,000.
The ruling had removed A.Amdt-2 from consideration and vote by the assembly. Consequently, although the new A.Amdt-1 to S.Amdt-1 had some of the same ingredients as the earlier A.Amdt-2, it was not an amendment substantially similar to an amendment "already acted upon" by the assembly [nongermane under A.Rule 54 (3) (c)].
In adopting A.Amdt-1 to AB 388 as affected by Am-1 to A.Amdt-1, the assembly had rejected a $100,000 ceiling on wrongful death awards, and had passed a $250,000 ceiling. The senate, by S.Amdt-1 to AB 388, had lowered the proposed ceiling to $150,000.
Considering concurrence in S.Amdt-1, the assembly could: 1) adhere to its earlier position ($250,000, nonconcur in the senate amendment); 2) accept the senate position ($150,000, concur in the senate amendment); or 3) propose a compromise between the 2 positions by an amendment that would be germane not only to S.Amdt-1 but also to AB 388 as passed by the assembly [A.Rule 54 (5)].
Any assembly amendment for a dollar figure lower than the amount proposed by the senate and also lower than the amount earlier agreed to by the assembly negated the effect of the assembly's earlier action and was therefore nongermane under A.Rule 54 (3) (e). Both of the assembly amendments to S.Smdt-1 proposed to lower the ceiling to $100,000 (as indexed for inflation).
In addition, A.Amdt-1 to S.Amdt-1 again proposed to bring medical malpractice awards under the dollar ceiling for wrongful death awards, which was a nongermane expansion of the senate amendment under A.Rules 54 (3) (f) and (5).
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1992 .......... Page: 931
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e).
34 The chair ruled the point of order well taken for the same reasons stated in the previous ruling. The assembly already acted on a similar assembly amendment when the bill originally was before the assembly and [A.Amdt-2 to S.Amdt-1] is not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e).
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 9, 1981 .......... Page: 629
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 359 [relating to demerit points for traffic convictions] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] A bill introduced by JCRAR "to support the objection" to promulgation of a proposed administrative rule must be very narrowly drafted so as not to interfere with administrative rule-making generally.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the amendment not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) and the point of order well taken. The speaker stated that amendments which might otherwise be germane to the bill, are not germane in this case because of the limited scope of Senate Bill 359. The bill was introduced pursuant to section 227.018 (5) (e) of the Wisconsin Statutes to fulfill the statutory purpose of ratifying the action of the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules.
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of September 5, 1979 .......... Page: 668
[Point of order:]
Senate amendments 1 and 2 offered by Senator Berger. The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 1? Senator Murphy moved rejection of senate amendment 1. The question was: Rejection of senate amendment 1?
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 5, (September 1979) Special Session [relating to salary adjustments for elected state officials in the 1979-81 biennium, and authorizing an expenditure of funds] is not amendable as stated in the statutes.
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
The statutes are clear and unambiguous in setting forth the manner in which salaries for constitutional officers and other elected state officials are to be set.
S. 20.923, Wisconsin statutes, has been reproduced below. Sub. (2) is the section which sets forth the salaries of constitutional officers and other elected state officials.
"The dollar value of the salary range minimum and maximum for each executive salary group shall be reviewed and established in the same manner as that provided for positions in the classified service under s.230.12 (3), except that adjustments of salaries under sub.(2) shall in addition be prepared in bill form by the joint committee on employment relations and submitted to a vote of the full legislature and shall not take effect until the bill is enacted without change."
35Budget bills (and budget review bills)
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of January 30, 1986 .......... Page: 629
Point of order:
Representative Seery rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to assembly amendment 11 to Senate Bill 1, January 1986 Spec. Sess. [multi-issue budget adjustment bill], was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] Although the means differed, both A.Amdt.11 and A.Amdt.6 thereto reduced state costs by about $20 million.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 29, 1984 .......... Page: 809
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 [to Senate Bill 663, known as the "budget surplus adjustment bill"] offered by Senators Chilsen, Hanaway, Theno, Lorman, Davis, Harsdorf and Engeleiter.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
[Note:] Although the bill itself changed the state homestead tax credit formula, it did not change the definition of "income" which is used as one part of that formula.
S.Amdt.2 attempted to exclude the first $15,000 of farmland depreciation from that "income" definition.
S.Amdt.7 (below) attempted the same change for the first $20,000.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? The ayes and
noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-14]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
Senate Journal of March 29, 1984 .......... Page: 810
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Senator Harsdorf.
36 The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
[Note:] Although 1983 SB 663 addressed a large number of issues, each was narrowly drafted and specifically reflected in the proposal's title.
S.Amdt.5 (changing the dates of property tax relief payments) and S.Amdt.4 (below; increasing the state property tax credit payment) each attempted to add new issues to the proposal.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Harsdorf appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-9]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Senate Bill 663?
[Point of order:]
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Harsdorf appealed the ruling of the chair. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-13]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Senators Chilsen and Lorge.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. Senator Chilsen asked unanimous consent that the ruling of the chair be written and printed in the senate journal. Senator Cullen objected.
The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-13]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 706
[Point of order:]
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 [to Senate Bill 663, known as the "budget surplus adjustment bill"] was not germane.
37 [Note:] 1983 SB 663 was a multi-issue bill addressing the following topics: "the individual and corporate surtaxes, the homestead credit, the required general fund balance, reducing the bonding authority for highway projects, income tax exemptions, income and franchise tax deductions for intercorporate dividends and for insurers' loss carry-backs, property tax statements, the definition of the internal revenue code for purposes of the income, franchise, inheritance and minimum taxes, required health insurance coverage, income tax exemptions, utility taxes on telephone companies, decreasing the primary guaranteed valuation, providing penalties and making an appropriation".
Despite the large number of topics, the bill had been narrowly drafted and each topic was precisely reflected in the bill title. Consequently, S.Sub.2 and the 4 amendments challenged below each related to a "different subject" - i.e. a subject not covered by the original bill - in violation of S.Rules 50 (1) and (7).
S.Sub.2 was limited to only 4 topics, and the treatment was in each case different from the original bill. The substitute dealt with: "the corporate surtax, the individual surtax, the gift tax and inheritance tax exemptions for class A distributees, and the rates for the individual income tax".
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator McCallum appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate?
By request of Senator McCallum, with unanimous consent, he withdrew his motion to appeal the ruling of the chair.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 707
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 11 [accelerated distribution of shared revenues] offered by Senators Engeleiter, Harsdorf, Chilsen, Ellis, Theno, Lorman, Davis and Lasee.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 11?
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 11 was not germane. The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 708
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 14 [exempting raffle tickets from sales tax] offered by Senators Harsdorf and Engeleiter.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 14?
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 14 was not germane. The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 709
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 19 [UW faculty salaries] offered by Senator Harsdorf.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 19?
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 19 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
