Assembly Journal of March 13, 1990 .......... Page: 858
Point of order:
Representative Bock rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 699 [relating to pupils' right to freedom of expression in public schools] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3). The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] A.Amdt-1 to A.Sub-2 was a floor amendment which added, to the bill's proposed pupil right of free expression in public school publications: "The right of expression includes religious expression".
The presiding officer is limited to ruling on germaneness. Whether or not a proposition is unconstitutional is ultimately a question for the courts. In this case, after the amendment was ruled germane the assembly refused 29 to
64 to table the amendment, adopted the amendment and adopted the substitute on voice votes, advanced to 3rd reading by unanimous consent, and passed the bill to the senate 87 to 10 where it died in committee without further action.
Ruling of the chair:
The speaker [Loftus] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Bock that assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 699 was not germane.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of July 8, 1981 .......... Page: 667
[Background: Senator Chilsen asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 66, relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1981 legislature, and making appropriations, be returned to the Assembly.]
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 66 be returned to the Assembly? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-11, noes-22.] Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative the motion did not prevail.
Point of order:
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that both the majority and minority parties agreed Assembly Bill 66 was unconstitutionally before the senate.
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, the record will show that the majority party does not concede that Assembly Bill 66 is unconstitutionally before the senate.
82 The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgement of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-12.] So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
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 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 16, 1978 .......... Page: 2002
[Point of order:]
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that Senate Bill 400 is required to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 27, 1978 .......... Page: 2114
On Thursday, March 16, Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that Senate Bill 400 created a tax exemption and was therefore required to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions pursuant to s. 13.52 (6) of the statutes. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Section 13.52 (6) provides that "any proposal which .... creates any new statute relating to the exemption of any property or person from any state or local taxes or special assessments .... shall at once be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions ...." Senate Bill 400 provides, in part, that counties may provide law enforcement services to localities within the county and may charge the localities for services provided.
The bill provides that for cities and villages "such expenses shall be certified, returned and paid as are other county charges."
The bill further provides that for unincorporated areas "the county board may levy a tax upon all real and personal property in any unincorporated area .... to reimburse the county for reasonable expenses incurred in providing such services"....
83 Senator Sensenbrenner contends that because Senate Bill 400 authorizes counties to levy a direct tax on unincorporated areas but does not authorize such a tax on incorporated areas that a tax exemption has thereby been created.
It is the chair's opinion that before there can be an exemption there must first be taxation. Senate Bill 400 does not exempt incorporated areas from a county tax. Rather, it is silent on the matter with the result that incorporated areas are not subject to such a tax in the first place.
Legislation which creates a tax and applies it to a certain class of people or property cannot properly be said to have simultaneously created an exemption for all other people or property not taxed.
Therefore, Senate Bill 400 does not create a tax exemption in the sense contemplated by s. 13.52 (6) and the point of order raised by Sensenbrenner is not well taken.
Prior to raising a point of order Senator Sensenbrenner questioned whether Senate Bill 400 would meet the constitutional requirement that "The rule of taxation shall be uniform ...." It is not within the jurisdiction of the chair to rule on questions of constitutionality. Therefore the chair remains silent on the matter.
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
Cosponsors on bills, joint resolutions, citations
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 9, 1973 .......... Page: 1660
[Point of order:]
Senate Bill 601 [relating to emergency medical services programs and licensing of emergency medical technicians-advanced (paramedics), creating an examining council, granting rule-making authority and making an appropriation] Read a third time. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-29, noes-0.] So the bill passed.
By request of Senators Lorge, Murphy, Schuele, Dorman, Keppler, LaFave, and Risser they were added as coauthors of Senate Bill 601.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that to add the members as coauthors of Senate Bill 601 after the bill passed was not timely.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Debate: conduct during
1 9 8 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 25, 1989 .......... Page: 189
[Point of order:]
84 Senator Lee raised the point of order that if a Senator leaves his desk or sits down he is yielding the floor.
[Note:] To address the senate, a member must rise at the place assigned to the member, remain standing and be recognized by the presiding officer (S.Rule 56). Members may only speak from their assigned places (S.Rule 59).
Mason's Manual, Sec. 93, states: "While speaking, members should remain standing at their seats ... and when finished, should sit down. A member who is infirm or ill may be permitted to speak while seated."
The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point well taken.
Senate Journal of April 25, 1989 .......... Page: 184
[Point of order:]
Senator Adelman raised the point of order that Senate Bill 65 [relating to the authority of a metropolitan sewerage district established by a 1st class city to recover capital costs and to expand its boundaries] is not properly before the Senate.
Senator Adelman, with unanimous consent, asked that his point of order be withdrawn. Senator George objected. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling of the chair [p. 188]:
Earlier today the senator from the 28th, Senator Adelman, raised the point of order that Senate Bill 65 was not properly before the senate because it is a local law relating to the 33rd senate district which is vacant at this time and that Senate Rules 7 and 8, "order and decorum", required the district to be represented. The Chair took the point of order under advisement. The Chair has closely reviewed Senate Rules 7 and 8 and finds no language that requires a senate district to be represented when issues relating to that district are being considered for action by the senate.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order is not well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 15, 1984 .......... Page: 965
Point of order:
Representative Tesmer rose to the point of order that Representative R. Travis [by speaking more than twice on rejection of assembly amendment 2 to 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] had violated Assembly Rule 59 (2).
The chair [Rep. Kunicki] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 4, 1983 .......... Page: 360
[Members to be addressed by district:]
Representative R. Travis asked unanimous consent that the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) [a member is recognized by reference to district number rather than by proper name] be suspended indefinitely. Representative Johnson objected.
85 Representative R. Travis asked unanimous consent that the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) be suspended for the October floorperiod. Representative Johnson objected.
Representative R. Travis moved that the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) be suspended for the October floorperiod.
The question was: Shall the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) be suspended for the October floorperiod? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-40, noes-58.] Motion failed.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 30, 1981 .......... Page: 1680
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Representative D. Travis and Representative Crawford were engaging in a dilatory procedure which was prohibited under Assembly Rule 69 (1). The chair took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Shabaz that Representatives D. Travis and Crawford were engaged in a dilatory procedure prohibited by Assembly Rule 69 (1).
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 25, 1980 .......... Page: 3640
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that Representative Barczak was using "a procedure" which is dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
[Note:] The journal does not mention the nature of the procedure used by Representative Barczak, nor the bill affected by that procedure.
Asked about the incident 4 years later, Speaker Jackamonis believed that the dilatory procedure was "slow reading of lengthy public documents."
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that Representative Barczak's procedure was dilatory because he had publicly stated that his intention was to delay a vote on the bill.
Debate: questions that are not debatable
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 14, 1980 .......... Page: 2773
[Background:] Representative R. Travis asked unanimous consent that Assembly Rule 67 [certain motions nondebatable] be suspended for the balance of today's session. Representative Johnson objected.
86 Representative R. Travis moved that Assembly Rule 67 be suspended for the balance of today's session.
Point of order:
Representative Tuczynski rose to the point of order that the motion was out of order under Assembly Rule 90 (4) [rule suspension not permitted for dilatory purposes].
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Point of order:
