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:
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
