Representative Shabaz asked unanimous consent that Senate Bill 566 be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Debt Management. Granted.
Delayed calendar: sequence of completion
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1986 .......... Page: 1026
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the assembly was not on the calendar of Wednesday, March 26 because a printed calendar had not been printed pursuant to Assembly Rule 29 (3). The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] Two special rules affect the last week of the final general business floorperiod of each biennial session. A.Rule 24 (3) and (4) permits the committee on rules to place any business still still held by it during the final week on any calendar for that week unless such business still needs referral to a joint survey committee. The result is that the printed calendar (if one has been distributed) may not show all the business scheduled by the rules committee for a particular day during the final week.
The other special rule concerns the motion for reconsideration. A.Rule 73 (3)(b) says that after the 7th (reconsideration of passage or concurrence) order of business on the final scheduled day of the last general business floorperiod any motion for reconsideration may be taken up at any time by majority vote.
On the adjournment of that final day, new proposals may be introduced and printed only if needed for: 1) the veto review session under Jt.Rule 82; or germane to 2) any special session called by the governor or 3) any extraordinary session called by the legislature.
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1986 .......... Page: 1037
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that a printed calendar containing all of the proposals was not required for today's session because the committee on Rules had the authority to place bills on the calendar pursuant to Assembly Rule 24 (4). The speaker ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative T. Thompson.
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1986 .......... Page: 1037
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the assembly should not be on the calendar of Wednesday, March 26 because unfinished business remained on previous calendars.
92 The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken because no proposals remained under the regular orders of business on previous calendars. Only proposals which were special orders of business were pending.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of September 23, 1975 .......... Page: 1964
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 352 was not before the Assembly pursuant to Assembly Rule 18.
[Note:] At issue was completion of "housekeeping" orders on current calendar - including "consideration of senate action on proposals approved by the assembly" - prior to completion of regular orders on unfinished calendars.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of September 16, 1975 .......... Page: 1835
Ruling of the chair [no point of order raised]:
The speaker [Anderson] ruled that pursuant to Assembly Rule 18 (2), the Assembly must complete the first eleven orders of business of the current day's calendar before returning to complete unfinished business under the 12th and succeeding orders of business on previous calendars.
Pursuant to the ruling the speaker stated that the Assembly would proceed to consideration of the proposals under the first eleven orders of business which are on calendars of Tuesday, June 24 to the present.
[Note:] The procedure was codified in the 1977 adoption of the assembly rules (A.Res.6) which created the following rule:
"Unless otherwise ordered, after completion of the 9th order of business on the current calendar day, and prior to consideration of the 10th and succeeding orders, unfinished calendars shall be taken up and completed in the order in which they are dated."
In the 1983 rules adoption (A.Res. 12), the procedure was modified so that unfinished calendars are completed by order of business and, within each order, by date.
Representative Shabaz appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgement of the Assembly?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call omitted.] Motion carried.
Assembly Journal of September 16, 1975 .......... Page: 1837
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 93 was not properly before the assembly pursuant to Assembly Rule 18 (2) because the Assembly is on the calendar of Thursday, June 19.
93 The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of September 16, 1975 .......... Page: 1839
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 11 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 18 (2) because the Assembly was on the calendar of Thursday, June 19.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of September 16, 1975 .......... Page: 1843
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 154 was not properly before the Assembly pursuant to Assembly Rule 18 (2) because the Assembly is on the calendar of Thursday, June 19.
[Note:] At issue was completion of "housekeeping" orders on current calendar - including "consideration of senate action on proposals approved by the assembly" - prior to completion of regular orders on unfinished calendars.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Delayed calendar: time limit on debate
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1976 .......... Page: 3693
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the assembly was not behind on its calendar, therefore, the time limits under Assembly Rule 61m [debate under delayed calendar] did not apply.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Dilatory procedures
1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 24, 1989 .......... Page: 179
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion to table Assembly Bill 286 [relating to contributions to retailers by brewers and wholesalers of fermented malt beverages] was not properly before the assembly because the motion had been voted upon earlier. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Welch that the motion to table Assembly Bill 286 had been acted upon earlier and therefore was not properly before the assembly. The motion to table Assembly Bill 286 had not been before the assembly.
Point of order (p. 180):
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion to table assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 286 was not properly before the assembly under Assembly Rule 88.
[Note:] Except for a point of order on a motion to table the entire bill, the most recent action on 1989 AB 286 had been the assembly's refusal to table the substitute amendment.
Although the assembly was not under a call of the house at that time (A.Rule 88 prohibits successive calls on same question), A.Rule 69 declares that a motion or procedure used for the purpose of delay is "dilatory and out of order".
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1988 .......... Page: 987
[Background:] After Rep. Hauke (majority leader) moved that the assembly stand adjourned, Rep. Welch "moved that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 300 be withdrawn from the committee on Rules and taken up at this time". The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the motion out of order because a motion to adjourn was pending.
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion was proper under Assembly Rule 90 (3).
[Note:] Assembly Rule 90 (3) A unanimous consent request or a motion to suspend the rules may be made at any time under any order of business by a member who obtains the floor, but not while the assembly is voting.
Technically, Rep. Welch may have been correct; see also Assembly Rules 65 (1) (a) and (c) which provide that a motion to suspend the rules outranks a motion to adjourn.
However, this was the last day of the final general business floorperiod; it was Friday night, the time was almost 11:30 p.m., and the session would end at midnight. It was not likely that the Senate could establish its position on the annual budget (AB 850) by that time, and return the bill to the Assembly for concurrence in amendments.
Speaker pro tem. Clarenbach probably based his ruling on Assembly Rule 90 (4), which says that "motions to suspend the rules shall not be permitted for .... clearly dilatory purposes".
As shown be the subsequent action, the Assembly wanted to go home:
95 Representative Loftus moved that the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1.
The question was: Shall the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-54, noes-42.] Motion carried.
The assembly stood adjourned.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 31, 1985 .......... Page: 544-45
Background:
Representative Hephner moved rejection of assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec.Sess. [relating to civil and criminal liability relating to alcohol beverages and providing penalties].
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be rejected? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-40, noes-49.] Motion failed.
Representative Hephner moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be laid on the table? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-45, noes-44.] Motion carried.
Representative T. Thompson moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be taken from the table.
Speaker Loftus in the chair.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be taken from the table? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-44, noes-44.] Motion failed.
Representative T. Thompson moved that Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance.
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-9, noes-80.] Motion failed.
Representative T. Thompson moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be taken from the table.
Point of order:
Representative Clarenbach rose to the point of order that the motion to take assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., from the table was not proper under Assembly Rule 69 (2).
96 [Note:] A.Rule 69 (2) holds dilatory "two consecutive identical motions .... unless significant business has intervened between the motions.
The decision of what is "significant" business is made by the presiding officer based on the consensus of the body in the particular circumstances and time.
Repetition of the vote to take the amendment from table showed that the house was not as closely divided as the earlier vote had indicated. Immediately following (no other amendments were pending) the bill was ordered to the 3rd reading, the rules were suspended, and the bill was concurred in on a vote of 87 to 2.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be taken from the table? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-43, noes-46.] Motion failed.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1984 .......... Page: 1050
[Rejection motion, repetition at same stage and day not permitted:]
Representative Potter moved rejection of assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 be rejected? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-48, noes-49.] Motion failed. [Intervening business omitted.]
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1984 .......... Page: 1051
