It should be noted that the Joint Committee on Finance in the early 70's consisted of 9 members of the Assembly and 5 Senators. The split party control and the disproportionate representation of the Senate on the Joint Committee were a major reason for the actions taken by the Senate Finance Committee.
It is interesting to note that in the 75 Session, democrats controlled both houses of the legislature, yet the Senate, with strong bipartisan support, wanted to make it very clear, in the rules, that the Senate Finance Committee had jurisdiction and the authority to report proposals that had been referred to the Joint Committee on Finance, without restriction.
The statutes require no special action other than to include in their report to the house a recommendation that a proposal be passed and that a statement be made to the effect that they are emergency bills. It is clear that the Senate Finance Committee has the authority to report a proposal to the full Senate. The Committee has the same resources available to it as does the Joint Committee to determine the fiscal impact of proposals, and is clearly in a position to fulfill the requirements set forth in ss.
16.47(2).
The intent of the Senate Rule
20(4)(b) is clear in that it was adopted to allow the Senate to take action on any proposal that the Joint Committee on Finance has failed to report. It is also clear to the Chair that it was the intent and purpose of the Senate in the early 70's to grant full authority to act to the Senate Finance Committee. Furthermore, as stated by a previous presiding officer, to not allow the Senate Finance Committee to act would grant the authority to the Assembly Co-Chair, the authority to block the independent operation of the Senate.
In addition, as supported by case history, parliamentary manuals and as demonstrated by the ruling by the Speaker in the Assembly, the Senate has the authority to determine its own rules of procedure, even if they conflict with an existing statute, as long as they don't conflict with the Constitution or infringe on the rights of individual members.
Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure states in section 3, paragraph 2:
The house and senate may pass an internal operating rule for its own procedure that is in conflict with a statute formerly adopted.
In Section 2, paragraph 3, Mason's also states:
Rules of procedure fulfill another purpose in protecting the rights of members. Individual members, for example, are entitled to receive notices of meetings and the opportunity to attend and participate in the deliberations of the group. Minorities often require protection for unfair treatment on the part of the majority, and even the majority is entitled to protection from obstructive tactics on the part of minorities.
I am reminded of a quote from Cushing's Legislative Assemblies, "Elements of the Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies in the United States of America:
The great purpose of all rules and forms, says Cushing, is to subserve the will of the assembly rather than to restrain it; to facilitate and not to obstruct the expression of its deliberate sense.
Clearly the Senate has the authority, through its adopted rules, to authorize a committee to report a proposal in the same manner prescribed by law for a Joint Committee.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair, that Senate Rule
20(4)(b) grants to the Senate Finance Committee the full authority of the Joint Finance Committee as it relates to the reporting of proposals referred by the Senate, to include the recommending of passage of a proposal with emergency statement attached.
The Chair rules the point not well taken.
Fred a. Risser
President of the Senate
Senator Welch appeals 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: ayes, 18; noes, 15; absent or not voting, 0; as follows:
Ayes - Senators Baumgart, Breske, Burke, Chvala, Decker, Erpenbach, George, Grobschmidt, Hansen, Jauch, M. Meyer, Moen, Moore, Plache, Risser, Robson, Shibilski and Wirch - 18.
Noes - Senators Cowles, Darling, Ellis, Farrow, S. Fitzgerald, Harsdorf, Huelsman, A. Lasee, Lazich, Panzer, Roessler, Rosenzweig, Schultz, Welch and Zien - 15.
Absent or not voting - None.
Decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate.
Senator Decker, with unanimous consent, asked to be added as a coauthor of Senate Bill 1.
Senate
Bill 1
Read a third time.
The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: ayes, 20; noes, 13; absent or not voting, 0; as follows:
Ayes - Senators Baumgart, Breske, Burke, Chvala, Decker, Erpenbach, George, Grobschmidt, Hansen, Jauch, A. Lasee, M. Meyer, Moen, Moore, Plache, Risser, Robson, Schultz, Shibilski and Wirch - 20.
S75
Noes - Senators Cowles, Darling, Ellis, Farrow, S. Fitzgerald, Harsdorf, Huelsman, Lazich, Panzer, Roessler, Rosenzweig, Welch and Zien - 13.
Absent or not voting - None.
Passed.
Senate Bill 3
Relating to: the appointment of the secretary of natural resources.
Read a second time.
Senator Schultz, with unanimous consent, asked to be added as a coauthor of Senate Bill 3.
Senator Chvala, with unanimous consent, asked that all action be immediately messaged to the Assembly.
The question was: Adoption of Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 3?
Adopted.
Ordered to a third reading.
Senator Chvala, with unanimous consent, asked that the bill be considered for final action at this time.
Senate
Bill 3
Read a third time.
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: ayes, 20; noes, 13; absent or not voting, 0; as follows:
Ayes - Senators Baumgart, Breske, Burke, Chvala, Cowles, Decker, Erpenbach, George, Grobschmidt, Hansen, Jauch, M. Meyer, Moen, Moore, Plache, Risser, Robson, Schultz, Shibilski and Wirch - 20.
Noes - Senators Darling, Ellis, Farrow, S. Fitzgerald, Harsdorf, Huelsman, A. Lasee, Lazich, Panzer, Roessler, Rosenzweig, Welch and Zien - 13.
Absent or not voting - None.
Passed.
Senate Bill 7
Relating to: the filing of certain forms related to a tax incremental financing district.
Read a second time.
Ordered to a third reading.
Senator Moen, with unanimous consent, asked that the bill be considered for final action at this time.
Senator Decker, with unanimous consent, asked to be added as a coauthor of Senate Bill 7.
Senate
Bill 7
Read a third time and passed.
Senate Bill 37
Relating to: water quality certification for wetlands.
Read a second time.
Senate amendment 1 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 37 offered by Senator Shibilski.
Senator Cowles, with unanimous consent, asked that Senate amendment 1 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate
Bill 37 be laid on the table.
Senate amendment 2 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 37 offered by Senator Shibilski.
Senator Baumgart, with unanimous consent, asked that Senate amendment 2 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 37 be laid on the table.
Senate amendment 3 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 37 offered by Senator Shibilski.
Senator Baumgart moved that Senate amendment 3 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 37 be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall Senate amendment 3 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill
37 be laid on the table?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: ayes, 24; noes, 9; absent or not voting, 0; as follows:
Ayes - Senators Baumgart, Breske, Burke, Chvala, Cowles, Decker, Ellis, Erpenbach, S. Fitzgerald, Grobschmidt, Hansen, Harsdorf, Jauch, Lazich, M. Meyer, Moen, Moore, Plache, Risser, Robson, Roessler, Rosenzweig, Schultz and Wirch - 24.
Noes - Senators Darling, Farrow, George, Huelsman, A. Lasee, Panzer, Shibilski, Welch and Zien - 9.
Absent or not voting - None.
Tabled.
Senate amendment 4 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 37 offered by Senators Panzer, Farrow, Welch, Huelsman and Darling.
Senator Baumgart moved that Senate amendment 4 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 37 be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall Senate amendment 4 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill
37 be laid on the table?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: ayes, 25; noes, 8; absent or not voting, 0; as follows:
Ayes - Senators Baumgart, Breske, Burke, Chvala, Cowles, Decker, Ellis, Erpenbach, George, Grobschmidt, Hansen, Harsdorf, Jauch, Lazich, M. Meyer, Moen, Moore, Plache, Risser, Robson, Roessler, Rosenzweig, Schultz, Shibilski and Wirch - 25.
Noes - Senators Darling, Farrow, S. Fitzgerald, Huelsman, A. Lasee, Panzer, Welch and Zien - 8.
Absent or not voting - None.
Tabled.
The question was: Adoption of Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 37?
Adopted.
Ordered to a third reading.
Senator Chvala, with unanimous consent, asked that the bill be considered for final action at this time.
Senate
Bill 37
Read a third time.
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: ayes, 27; noes, 6; absent or not voting, 0; as follows:
Ayes - Senators Baumgart, Breske, Burke, Chvala, Cowles, Darling, Decker, Ellis, Erpenbach, George, Grobschmidt, Hansen, Harsdorf, Jauch, Lazich, M. Meyer, Moen, Moore, Plache, Risser, Robson, Roessler, Rosenzweig, Schultz, Shibilski, Wirch and Zien - 27.
Noes - Senators Farrow, S. Fitzgerald, Huelsman, A. Lasee, Panzer and Welch - 6.
Absent or not voting - None.
Passed.
