In addition, the substitute amendment is germane under the provision of Assembly Rule 54 (4) (b), as an amendment which accomplishes the same purpose as the original proposal in a different manner. The purpose of SB 70 is to specify provisions which must be included in public works contracts. As was pointed out by Rep. Plewa in discussion concerning the point of order, SB 70 establishes (1) a =_maximum percentage of each periodic payment which the public body =_may retain and (2) establishes a =_maximum length of time within which the public body must make payment. However, under the original proposal the state or municipality retains a considerable amount of flexibility and may elect not to retain anything out of each periodic payment or may retain less than 5% of each payment as the work progresses. In addition, the contract may provide for partial payment as the work progresses. In addition, the contract may provide for partial payments within any time period shorter than 30 days and may provide for final payment within any time period less than 60 days. Thus, under the main proposal, the discretion of the state or municipality to specify such provisions in the public works contracts is maintained although limited.
404 Similarly, Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 to SB 70 authorizes municipalities to include provisions within their public works contracts which govern periodic payments. It
details the type of provisions which may be included, while removing the limitations contained in SB 70. It therefore accomplishes the same purpose as the original, however in a different fashion.
While Representative Loftus also raised the point that Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 expanded the scope of the main proposal because it newly amended secs. 59.96 (6) (m) and 62.15 (10), I would note that the senate version also addresses these sections in making cross-reference changes under sec. 4 of that bill. The changes which Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 makes in those sections of the statutes are really unnecessary to accomplish the intent of the substitute and were only technical modifications made by the drafter similar to the cross-reference changes of SB 70. Provisions contained in a contract under Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 relating to periodic payments would continue to
apply to contracts under 59.96 (6) (m) and 62.15 (10) in the same fashion as would the provisions established by SB 70. This is merely a particularized detail contained in the amendment which under Rule 54 (4) (e) would not cause the amendment to be nongermane.
In sum, I believe that Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 to SB 70 is germane under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (b) as an amendment which accomplishes the same purpose as the original proposal although in a different manner and the different provisions of the two proposals are nothing more than particularized details acceptable under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (e). As a result, the assembly should not be precluded by Assembly Rule 54 (1) from considering it.
Assembly Journal of October 21, 1981 .......... Page: 1376
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 411 [relating to extending the existence of the fertilizer research council] not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (d) 1 [amending a repealer]. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] In Chap. 418, Laws of 1977, which was a budget review act, SECTION 930 (3) gave a 3-year delayed effect to SECTION 20n, repeal of the Fertilizer Research Council [s. 15.137 (5)], and SECTION 583k, repeal of the program responsibility of that council [s. 94.64 (8m) (b)]. The 1981 bill, by repealing the three 1977 session laws, attempted to reinstate the 2 statutes.
It is well settled that no statute repealed by an act of the legislature is revived or affected by the repeal of the repealing act; see s. 990.03, stats. The original bill could not accomplish its intended purpose; the amendment, by (again) creating ss. 15.137 (5) and 94.64 (8m) (b), reached the intended result and was enacted.
Assembly Journal of October 21, 1981 .......... Page: 1387
The chair ruled that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 411 was germane under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (b) [same purpose accomplished in different manner] and the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 20, 1981 .......... Page: 1336
Point of order:
405 Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 590 [relating to excepting food product donors from civil liability] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope]. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of October 21, 1981 .......... Page: 1364
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 590 was germane under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (b) [same purpose accomplished in different manner] and (e) [particularized detail] and the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of May 12, 1981 .......... Page: 497
Point of order:
Representative Crawford rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 112 [relating to declaring agricultural uses not to be nuisances] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] Without defining "agricultural", the original bill exempted all agricultural activities from court-ordered abatement.
A.Sub.1, "relating to nuisance actions against agricultural uses or practices", limited the scope of the proposal and, for all its apparent difference, could be considered an amendment accomplishing the same purpose in a different manner.
The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of May 19, 1981 .......... Page: 535
Representative Crawford asked unanimous consent to withdraw the point of order which he raised on assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 112 on Tuesday, May 12. Granted. [A.Sub.1 was adopted and passed; A.Jour, p. 540].
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 9, 1982 .......... Page: 1659
Point of order:
Senator Offner raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 to Senate Bill 407 was not germane.
[Note:] In its central provision, the original bill provided for a homeownership mortgage loan program, to be administred by the department of development.
S.Sub.2 served the same purpose, but placed administration into the Wisconsin housing finance authority.
Under S.Rule 50 (9), "new material added which does not affect the subject or purpose" of the proposal is a matter of detail and is germane.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
406 1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 27, 1979 .......... Page: 215
Point of order:
Representative Lallensack rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 46 [relating to increasing the ceiling on the public debt for veterans' mortgage loans and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 because the constitutional amendment providing for public debt for veterans' housing which was approved by the people in April 1975 (Wis. Constitution Article VIII, Sections 3 and 7) provided for general obligation bonding and not revenue bonding as contained in the substitute amendment.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because amendments to bills are not required to be germane to the constitution. He also ruled: 1) the substitution of revenue bonding for general obligation bonding was a matter of particularized details and not one individual proposition amending another, 2) the substitute was intended to accomplish the same purpose in a different manner, and 3) the scope of the proposal was not expanded by changing the amount of the appropriation.
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 19, 1980 .......... Page: 1618
[Point of order:]
Senator Berger raised the point of order that senate amendment 15 [to Assembly Bill 603, relating to campaign financing, granting rule-making authority and providing penalties] was not germane.
[Note:] S.Amdt.15 proposed to change the method of collecting revenue for the Wisconsin election campaign fund from a "check off", reducing income tax liability by $1, to an "add on" (increasing the liability by $1).
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of June 21, 1979 .......... Page: 549
[Point of order:]
Senator Lorge raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 19 [relating to raising the drinking age to 19 and providing a penalty] was not germane.
Senator Kleczka asked unanimous consent that the bill be referred to joint committee on Finance. Senator Lorge objected.
Senator Bablitch moved that the rules be suspended and the bill be referred to joint committee on Finance.
[Point of order:]
407 Senator Lorge raised the point of order that the chair took his point of order under advisement, that the bill is in the possession of the chair and, therefore, that the motion to suspend the rules and refer the bill to the joint committee on Finance is not proper. The chair took both points of order by Senator Lorge under advisement.
[Note:] Original 1979 SB 19 was a 13-page bill to increase the drinking age from 18 to 19. S.Sub.1 (23 pages) contained several related provisions concerning alcohol abuse by minors, and contained a 10 cents per 31-gallon barrel increase in the beer tax.
Senate Journal of June 21, 1979 .......... Page: 551
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 19 is germane. With that decision the question of suspending the rules is moot and the point of order raised by Senator Lorge in reference to suspending the rules is moot.
At the time the point of order was raised there was a unanimous consent request by Senator Kleczka that the bill be referred to joint committee on Finance. Senator Lorge objected.
Senator Kleczka moved that Senate Bill 19 be referred to joint committee on Finance.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 28, 1978 .......... Page: 3255
Point of order:
Representative Opitz rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 292 was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
The chair ruled the amendment was germane under Assembly Rule 50 (4) (b) [accomplish same purpose in different manner] and the point of order not well taken.
Germaneness: special session call (must not be exceeded)
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of July 15, 1986 .......... Page: 1145
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, July 1986 Spec. Sess., [relating to making program trainee compensation an eligible cost of a labor training program and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 93 (1) [scope of session call exceeded].
[Note:] A.Amdt.1 provided for state pickup of payments to the unemployment compensation reserve fund of the amount necessary to pay unemployment compensation to any employe retrained under the state-subsidized labor training program and then discharged within 4 years.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
408Assembly Journal of May 22, 1986 .......... Page: 1102
Point of order:
Representative Mark Lewis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 3, May 1986 Spec. Sess., [relating to export loans, economic development loans and investments, authorization for increasing the total principal amount of agricultural production loans, disclosure of investment, grant or loan information, requesting an audit and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) [expansion of scope] and Assembly Rule 93 (1) [scope of session call exceeded]. The speaker took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
[Note:] A.Amdt.4 provided county reimbursement of municipalities for the costs of selling tax delinquent lands.
A.Amdt.6 (below) created a new program of guaranteed small business loans.
Representative Mark Lewis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 3, May 1986 Spec. Sess., was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) and Assembly Rule 93.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
The speaker ruled the point of order on assembly amendment 4 well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1986 .......... Page: 1014
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that that Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess. [relating to: Wisconsin housing and economic development authority agricultural production loan guarantees and interest reductions; creating a farm mediation and arbitration program for resolution of disputes with creditors, creating a farm mediation and arbitration board; the homestead exemption from executions, liens and liability for debts; the proceeds from the sale of real property the taxes on which are delinquent; the income and franchise tax effects of the food security act; authorizing county land conservation committees to develop tree planting programs; authorizing the departments of natural resources and agriculture, trade and consumer protection to grant exemptions from certain laws; training and employment services for dislocated workers, including farmers; increasing an appropriation to the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection to provide funds for the volunteer farm credit advisor program; property tax assessment and equalized valuation of agricultural land; specialty crops hearing; a motor fuel tax exemption; interest payments that may be included in calculating an income tax credit; student loans; and providing for a study, making an appropriation and granting rule-making authority], was not properly before the assembly under Assembly Rule 93 (1) [scope of session call exceeded].
409 [Note:] Governor Earl had enumerated 14 issues in his original proclamation to convene the March 1986 Special Session. The first supplementary proclamation removed one issue; another supplementary proclamation added a new issue.
In many cases, there has been a separate special session bill for each issue shown in the governor's proclamation. That is not required. In the March 1986 Special Session, only one bill was introduced. This omnibus farm problem bill addressed all the issues enumerated by the governor.
Each of the amendments challenged below attempted to deal with an issue not enumerated in the proclamation as amended: A.Amdt.9 created incentives for production of alcohol as a motor vehicle fuel; A.Amdt.11 permitted property tax assessments to deviate by 15% from full market value; A.Amdt.12 established a program of animal health and disease research; A.Amdt.13 attempted to change land assessment from full value to current use; A.Amdt.14 permitted the
department of agriculture to issue permits for the destruction of deer or bear causing crop damage; A.Amdt.15 proposed to assess agricultural land at 75% of full value; A.Amdt.16 required an "IMPORTED" label (in 1-inch type) for all food not produced in the United States; A.Amdt.22 permitted debt-ridden farmers to exclude some capital gains from the minimum tax; and A.Amdt.27 proposed to classify highway rights-of-way as wasteland for asessment purposes.
On the other hand, A.Amdt.21 was held to be within the governor's call. The amendment dealt with suspension of court action to allow for voluntary mediation or arbitration of a creditor's action against a farmer and was covered by item 3 of the original proclamation.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1986 .......... Page: 1015
Point of order:
Representative Swoboda rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 9 to Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess., was not germane to the special session call.
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1986 .......... Page: 1016
Point of order:
Representative Swoboda rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 11 to Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess., was not germane to the special session call.
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Point of order:
Representative Swoboda rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 12 to Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess., was not germane to the special session call.
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1986 .......... Page: 1017
Point of order:
