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
Point of order:
Representative Tesmer moved rejection of assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281.
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the motion for rejection was not in order under Assembly Rule 72.
[Note:] Although A.Rule 72 does not enumerate all of the "adverse disposition" methods shown in A.Rule 49 (1), the purpose of A.Rule 72 appears to include prevention of dilatory "same stage and date" repetition of all such methods [see A.Rule 69 (1)].
The chair [Speaker Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 16, 1983 .......... Page: 264
Repetitive calls dilatory:
Representative T. Thompson requested a call of the assembly. There were sufficient seconds.
The sergeant-at-arms was directed to close the doors and the chief clerk to call the roll. [Display of roll call omitted; absent with leave-0, absent without leave-1.]
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that the call of the assembly be lifted. Granted.
Representative T. Thompson moved a call of the assembly.
Speaker Loftus ruled the motion out of order under Assembly Rule 88.
[Intervening business: roll call vote to reject A.Res.13 failed.]
Representative T. Thompson requested a call of the assembly. There were sufficient seconds.
97 The sergeant-at-arms was directed to close the doors and the chief clerk to call the roll. [Display of roll call omitted; absent with leave-0, absent without leave-3.] Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that the call of the assembly be lifted. Representative T. Thompson objected.
Representative T. Thompson moved that the absent members be located.
The question was: Shall the absent members be located? Motion failed.
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that the assembly stand recessed for ten seconds.
Granted. The assembly stood recessed.
[Note:] Under A.Rule 87 (3), a call is lifted when the assembly recesses or adjourns.
The assembly reconvened. 5:48 p.m.
Representative T. Thompson moved a call of the assembly.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the motion out of order.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 11, 1982 .......... Page: 2663
Point of order:
Representative Clarenbach rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 34 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 615 [relating to employes' right to know regarding toxic substances and infectious agents, providing a penalty and making an appropriation] was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
[Note:] The amendment read: "Toxic substance does not mean lutefisk".
Lutefisk is considered a Norwegian delicacy, prepared by soaking Whitefish in lye. Rumor has it that the amendment was ruled proper in the following words: "This amendment may be 'lutefisk', but it was not offered for the purpose of delay".
A.Amdt.34 was adopted and enacted; see s. 101.58 (2) (j) 2.f, stats.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
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).
