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:
Representative Tuczynski rose to the point of order that the motion was out of order under Assembly Rule 90 (1) [rule suspension not permitted unless purpose stated].
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The question was: Shall Assembly Rule 67 be suspended for the balance of today's session?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-39, noes-57.] Motion failed.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of January 30, 1974 .......... Page: 2062
[Motion to place a call of the senate: not debatable]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that a move to place a call on a particular question was debatable.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that, pursuant to senate rule 68, a move to place a call was not debatable, and therefore the point of order was not well taken.
Senator Risser appealed the ruling of the chair. [Intervening text omitted.] By request of Senator Risser, with unanimous consent, he withdrew his appeal of the ruling of the chair.
Debate: remarks limited to question before body
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 13, 1980 .......... Page: 1549
[Debate confined to question:]
Senator Berger called the attention of the chair to the possible lack of a quorum.
The roll was called [roll call omitted; present-27, absent-4, with leave-1].
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that Senator Berger was in violation of Senate Rule 56.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 23, 1978 .......... Page: 2091
[Point of order:]
87 Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that Senator Harnisch was out of order pertaining to his debate on senate amendment 48 [to Assembly Bill 1220, an act to amend
and revise chapter 20 of the statutes, and to make diverse other changes in the statutes relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the budget review bill and making appropriations] and should abide by Senate Rule 58.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken and advised Senator Harnisch to direct his debate to senate amendment 48.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 17, 1973 .......... Page: 1074
[Point of order:]
Senator Johnson raised the point of order that Senator Dorman was not confining his remarks to the question of rejection of senate amendment 4 to Senate Joint Resolution 67.
The chair cautioned Senator Dorman and asked that he confine his remarks to the question of rejection.
Senator Johnson raised the point of order that Senator Dorman was not speaking on the question before the senate.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Debate: time limit on
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 28, 1981 .......... Page: 1546
[Background: On Wednesday, 10/28/81, the assembly debated 1981 AB 616 (relating to congressional districts) which was on the Tuesday, 10/27/81, calendar.]
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that Representative Rogers' five minutes had expired under Assembly Rule 60 (1) (a) [debate on delayed calendar] and Assembly Rule 90 [unanimous consent].
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of July 2, 1980 .......... Page: 2023
[Point of order:]
Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that pursuant to Senate Rule 76 time limits of five minutes per question per member be placed on the Senate.
Senator Berger raised the point of order that pursuant to Senate Rule 76 only the committee on Senate Organization can place time limits on the Senate.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
88Debt management: referral of proposal to joint survey committee on
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 24, 1983 .......... Page: 220
Point of order:
Representative D. Travis rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 450 [relating to applicability of the Wisconsin environmental protection act and a schedule for the establishment of any new Milwaukee correctional institution, judicial review of related decisions and injunctive and other relief and right of first acquisition of abandoned railroad property] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) and (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope] because it increases bonding authority and sets a specific site for the location of a prison.
Representative D. Travis also rose to the point of order that the bill was not properly before the assembly under section 13.49 (6) of the Wisconsin Statutes.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that the bill was properly before the assembly because section 13.49 (6) of the Wisconsin Statutes did not require the referral of substitute amendments to the Joint Survey Committee on Debt Management.
The speaker also ruled that the substitute was germane under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (d) [adding appropriations necessary to fill original intent].
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 17, 1983 .......... Page: 95
[Point of order:]
