Senator Devitt raised the point of order that Senator Steinhilber still had the floor.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of March 26, 1974 .......... Page: 2573
[Adjourn, to same day is "recess":]
Senator Steinhilber moved that the senate stand adjourned until 9:00 A.M. Wednesday, March 27.
Senator Flynn moved to amend the time to 8:00 A.M.
Senator Whittow moved rejection of the amendment. The motion prevailed.
Senator M. Swan moved to amend the time to 8:00 P.M. tonight.
[Point of order:]
Senator Hollander raised the point of order that the amendment was not germane. ( The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken as an amendment to 8:00 P.M. would be a recess motion and not an adjournment motion.
9Senate Journal of March 20, 1974 .......... Page: 2507
[Adjourn: simple motion not amendable]
Senator Risser moved a call of the senate.
Senator Johnson moved that the senate adjourn.
Senator Risser moved to amend the adjournment motion.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that the motion to adjourn was not amendable.
Senator Risser appealed the ruling of the chair. Senator Knowles raised the point of order that pursuant to senate rule 68 the question was nondebatable.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
As it relates to the ruling that the motion to adjourn is nonamendable, the question was: Shall the ruling of the chair stand as the decision of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-20, noes-12.] So the ruling of the chair was sustained.
Administrative rules: legislative review of
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 9, 1981 .......... Page: 629
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 359 [relating to demerit points for traffic convictions] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] A bill introduced by JCRAR "to support the objection" to promulgation of a proposed administrative rule must be very narrowly drafted so as not to interfere with administrative rule-making generally.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the amendment not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) and the point of order well taken. The speaker stated that amendments which might otherwise be germane to the bill, are not germane in this case because of the limited scope of Senate Bill 359. The bill was introduced pursuant to section 227.018 (5) (e) of the Wisconsin Statutes to fulfill the statutory purpose of ratifying the action of the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 26, 1979 .......... Page: 457
Point of order:
10 Representative Tuczynski rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 40 [relating to restricting the pay of a public employe receiving a retirement benefit from a public employe retirement system, granting rule-making authority ....] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (b) and (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] Both the bill, and A.Sub.1, vested rule-making authority in the secretary of employe trust funds subject to the then established procedures under ch. 227, stats.
A.Amdt.3 proposed for such rules the administrative rules review and clearinghouse procedure later enacted as part of Chap. 34, Laws of 1979 (budget act).
The chair [Rep. Kirby] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Adverse disposition: defeated proposal not to start again in same house
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 6, 1986 .......... Page: 825
Point of order:
Representative Schmidt rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 628 [relating to survivorship and guardianship rights to motor fuel dealerships] was not properly before the assembly under Joint Rule 83 (3) and Assembly Rule 49 (2) because it was identical to Assembly Bill 511.
[Note:] Because AB 511 had not been listed in the save resolution (85 ARes-12) of proposals to be considered in 1986, the bill was properly deemed adversely disposed of and recorded as "failed to pass" pursuant to Jt.Rule 83 (3). Once a proposal has been adversely disposed of, a substantially similar proposal originating in the same house cannot be considered; see A.Rule 49 (2).
1985 ARes-18 (below) was designed to add AB 511 to the save list and thus remove the A.Rule 49 (2) objection to the consideration of AB 628. As a resolution relating to a procedure of the assembly, ARes-18 was privileged under A.Rule 43 (1) to be introduced under any order of business and to be "taken up immediately before all other proposals then pending, unless referred"....
Representative Loftus introduced a privileged resolution.
Assembly Resolution 18, relating to floorperiod V consideration of proposals pending in the assembly. By Representative Loftus.
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 18 was not privileged.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The question was: Shall Assembly Resolution 18 be adopted? Motion carried.
The chair ruled the point of order, raised by Representative Schmidt, not well taken because of the adoption of Assembly Resolution 18.
11 1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 26, 1980 .......... Page: 2367
Point of order:
Representative Dorff rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 937 [relating to the prohibition of the sale, distribution or use of 2, 4, 5-T and silvex and providing penalties] was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 50 (2) because it was substantially similar to Assembly Bill 245 which had previously been before the assembly.
[Note:] 1979 AB 245 had been debated on May 8, 1979, and was returned to the committee on agriculture. That committee held a new public hearing on March 24, 1980.
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken because Assembly Bill 245 had not been adversely disposed of.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 14, 1978 .......... Page: 3639
Point of order:
Representative Soucie rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 1235 [relating to declaring certain farm drainage ditches to be nonnavigable waters] was not properly before the assembly under Assembly Rule 71 (l) (h) and (2) because it was substantially similar to Assembly Bill 186 which had beenadversely disposed of when the assembly sustained the governor's veto. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 15, 1978 .......... Page: 3671
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that Assembly Bill 1235 was not substantially similar to Assembly Bill 186 because it was much more limited in scope. The point of order raised by Representative Soucie was ruled not well taken.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 10, 1976 .......... Page: 1961
[Point of order:]
Senator McKenna raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 1016 was not properly before the senate.
[Note:] The assembly passed 1975 Assembly Bill 1016, "relating to various changes in the workmen's compensation law and making appropriations", on September 26, 1975. In the special session of December 1975, both houses passed Senate Bill 2, Special Session, which became Chapter 147, Laws of 1975. That bill was identical to 1975 AB 1016.
Following the point of order, the senate concurred in 1975 AB 1016 with amendments. Returned to the assembly, the amended bill was referred to committee and died without further action.
12 The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that pursuant to senate rule 33 (2) the point of order was not well taken.
Adverse disposition: repetition of motion on same day not permitted
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.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 13, 1981 .......... Page: 1215
[Background: motion to reject 1981 AJR 70, "memorializing Congress and the President to seek the dismissal of the Secretary of the Interior, James G. Watt", failed (p. 1212); A.Amdt.13 adopted (p. 1213); call of the assembly (p. 1214); call lifted.]
Representative Shabaz moved rejection of Assembly Joint Resolution 70.
[Note:] Adoption of a substantive amendment usually constitutes the "significant business" required to permit repetition of a motion.
When no significant business has intervened, 2 consecutive identical motions may be ruled "dilatory"; i.e., used for the purpose of delay.
As affected by the adoption of A.Amdt.12, the joint resolution already required the chief clerk to append to the transmittal "a list of those who voted in favor" of the resolution. A.Amdt.13 merely added the words: "and of those who opposed".
13 Speaker Jackamonis ruled the motion out of order under Assembly Rule 69.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 9, 1979 .......... Page: 1251
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for rejection of assembly amendment 9 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 293 was not in order because the motion had previously been voted on.
[Note:] Following a motion to reject, which failed 47 to 51 earlier on the same day, the A.Amdt.9 had been tabled; A.Jour. p. 1235.
A.Rule 72 prohibits repetition of the motion to "postpone indefinitely" on the same day at the same stage. Under another rule [1979 A.Rule 50 (1) (a) to (c)], "adverse and final disposition" includes indefinite postponement, rejection, and nonconcurrence.
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 3, 1975 .......... Page: 778
[Background:]
Assembly Bill 222, relating to state finances and appropriations constituting the executive budget bill of the 1975 legislature, and making appropriations:
