The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order raised by Senator Kleczka well taken. By request of Senator Goyke, with unanimous consent, senate amendment 4 to senate substitute amendment 1 was returned to the author.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 14, 1980 .......... Page: 2784
  Point of order:
  Representative Barczak rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 9 to Assembly Bill 1228 [relating to industrial revenue bonds and projects] was not in proper form.
  The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of January 23, 1980 .......... Page: 1889
[Amendment offered from the floor not in proper form:]
  Assembly amendment 8 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 749 [relating to revising conditions of bail] offered by Representative Lee.
  [Note:] On 2nd reading, "floor amendments may be drafted by members on printed forms with multiple copies provided by the chief clerk for such purpose".

  Instead of using the proper form, A.Amdt.8 was handwritten on a form used in the reference bureau to submit manuscript copy for editing and typing.
  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the amendment not in proper form.
Assembly Journal of October 31, 1979 .......... Page: 1666
[Amendment offered from the floor not in proper form:]
  Assembly amendment 9 to assembly amendment 3 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 777 [relating to creating various alternative energy incentives, making appropriations and granting rule-making authority] offered by Representatives Hephner, Kedrowski and Rooney.
  Representative Johnson moved rejection .... The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that assembly amendment 9 to assembly amendment 3 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 777 was not in proper form. [Intervening text omitted.]
20   [Note:] AA-9 to AA-3 to A.Sub.1, and AA-12 to A.Sub.1, consisted of copies of other amendments attached to floor amendment blanks. They were offered from the floor to amend documents which they were not designed to amend; consequently, the page and line number references did not fit. In both cases, the minimum qualifying investment for tax-incentive eligibility was reduced from $600 to $450. Except for the minimum investment:

  AA-9 to AA-3 to A.Sub.1 was a copy of AA-8 to AA-3 to A.Sub.1: the floor amendment made an incomplete attempt to reconcile its substance with the earlier adoption of AA-6 to AA-3 to A.Sub.1.

  AA-12 to A.Sub.1 was a copy of AA-7 to AA-3 to A.Sub.1: the floor amendment failed to remove the 2nd stage action phrases pertaining to the amending of AA-3 to A.Sub.1.
  Assembly amendment 12 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 777 offered by Representatives Hephner, Kedrowski and Rooney.
  The speaker ruled that assembly amendment 12 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 777 was not in proper form.
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 15, 1979 .......... Page: 146
[Point of order:]
  Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 to senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 1, relating to increasing the amount of the 1978 special property tax credit, modifying the standard deduction, excluding from taxation a portion of the gain from the sale of a principal residence by certain persons, modifying and indexing for inflation the individual income tax rates and brackets, increasing personal exemptions, expanding the homestead tax credit, increasing the inheritance tax exemption for interspousal transfers and exempting home heating fuels from sales and use taxes] was not in proper form.
  [Note:] S.Amdt.4 was a floor amendment, partly handwritten and partly predrafted by LRB with blanks to be filled in at the time of submission.

  The copy of the floor amendment contained in the drafting record shows that the blanks had not been filled.

  Prior to sending the amendment to the printer, the senate chief clerk submitted the floor amendment version to the LRB for redrafting. The printed amendment was complete.
  The chair [Lt.Gov. R. Olson] ruled the point of order well taken and that senate amendment 4 to senate substitute amendment 1 was not before the senate.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of November 10, 1977 .......... Page: 2552
  Point of order:
  Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 31 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 2, November 1977 Special Session was not in proper form. Representative Clarenbach asked unanimous consent that the chief clerk be instructed to make corrections in assembly amendment 31 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 2, November 1977 Special Session. Representative Shabaz objected.
  Representative Clarenbach moved that the rules be suspended to make corrections in assembly amendment 31 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 2, November 1977 Special Session.
21   Representative Clarenbach asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 31 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 2, November 1977 Special Session be withdrawn and returned to the author. Granted.
Assembly Journal of June 13, 1977 .......... Page: 1405
  Point of order:
  Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 262 to Senate Bill 77 was not in proper form [as distributed on the floor] because it did not state the authors of the amendment and it did not state that it was an amendment to senate substitute amendment 2 to Senate Bill 77.
  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 3, 1977 .......... Page: 1364
  Point of order:
  Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 232 to Senate Bill 77 was not in proper form. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of June 3, 1977 .......... Page: 1367
  The chair ruled the point of order not well taken on assembly amendment 232 to Senate Bill 77 because the amendment was now in proper form.
Assembly Journal of April 28, 1977 .......... Page: 791
  Point of order:
  Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 11 to Assembly Bill 353 was not in proper form.
  Representative Shabaz asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 11 to Assembly Bill 353 be laid on the table. Representative Wahner objected.
  Representative Wahner asked unanimous consent that the chief clerk be instructed to correct assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 11 to Assembly Bill 353. Granted.
  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order moot.
Amendments: sequence of considering
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 26, 1991 .......... Page: 330
[Motion not timely:]
  Representative Hauke moved that Part 2 of assembly amendment 10 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 91 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget act of the 1991 legislature, and making appropriations] be taken from the table and taken up at this time. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-38, noes-60.] Motion failed.
22   Representative Hauke moved reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 11 [to AB 91] failed to be adopted.
  [Note:] The motion to reconsider assembly action on an amendment may be entered immediately following final assembly action on the amendment, but if not then made it can only be entered following the conclusion of the amending stage (engrossment) in the proposal's consideration after entering a motion to reconsider engrossment.

  A motion to reconsider the assembly's action on an amendment is taken up only if the motion to reconsider engrossment of the proposal is successful; A.Rule 73 (4) (c).
  The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the motion not timely.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 10, 1985 .......... Page: 415
  Point of order:
  The question was: Shall assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 141 [relating to interstate banking, the powers of banks, regulating control of certain deposit-taking institutions and granting rule-making authority] be adopted? Motion carried.
  Representative Shoemaker rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
  The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely.
  The question was: Shall assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 be adopted? Motion carried. [Intervening text omitted]
  [Note:] A point of order may be raised only while the question it concerns is before the house and not yet decided; A.Rule 62 (4).

  When the pending question is action on a 2nd degree amendment to an amendment, a point of order questioning the germaneness of the first degree amendment is not proper under the rules, but was here allowed by unanimous consent to save time.

  The bill was an annotated proposal, introduced by the legislative council, to adjust Wisconsin law on interstate banking and the powers of banks to the federal "Douglas" amendment to the bank holding company act, 12 U.S.C. sec. 1842(d). The Douglas amendment applies exclusively to financial institutions chartered as "banks".

  A.Amdt.6 tried to expand the scope to include credit unions and savings and loan associations. When the point of order was raised, there were 4 amendments to A.Amdt.6 pending.
  Representative T. Thompson asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that the speaker rule on the germaneness of assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 prior to the consideration of the amendments to assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 14. Granted.
23   Representative Shoemaker rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
  Representative Becker asked unanimous consent that the assembly stand recessed for ten minutes. Granted. [Intervening text omitted]
  The speaker [Loftus] ruled well taken the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 23, 1984 .......... Page: 771
  Point of order:
  Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 283, [relating to annual reports by and involuntary dissolution of nonstock corporations] which was just introduced, should be considered prior to consideration of the remainder of the simple amendments to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 283.
  The speaker [Loftus] ruled that Assembly Rule 55 (1) [sequence of considering amendments] required the assembly to complete action on assembly substitute amendment 1, and its simple amendments, prior to consideration of assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 283.
  [Note:] Flowing from the condition "if no other substitute amendment has been adopted", the text of A.Rule 55 (1) (b) leads to 2 different results depending on the specific fact situation:

  (1) If the substitute amendment just offered is the only substitute before the assembly - either because it is the first substitute offered or because any other substitutes had already been adversely disposed of - the assembly goes to the new substitute which must be considered before the proposal can be "ordered engrossed and read the 3rd time".

  (2) If the new substitute is offered while the assembly is considering another substitute, the assembly continues on the substitute currently before it, and any other pending substitutes in the sequence required by A.Rule 55 (1) (a) and (b), and reaches the new substitute only "if no other substitute amendment has been adopted".
  The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 27, 1983 .......... Page: 542
  Point of order:
  Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 3, October 1983 Special Session [relating to limiting this state's jurisdiction to tax foreign corporations], was not germane under Assembly Rules 93 (1) [in special session, amendment must fit within call] and 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
24   Representative T. Thompson also rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 3, October 1983 Special Session was not properly before the assembly under Assembly Rule 55 (1) (a) [sequence of considering amendments].
  [Note:] The bill was limited to tax nexus for Wisconsin activities by foreign corporations.

    A.Sub.1 did not address the area covered by the bill but, rather, proposed cutting the corporate income tax rate from 7.9% to 7.82% for all payers.
  The speaker [Loftus] ruled the amendment not germane to the special session call and out of order under Assembly Rule 93 (1).
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 9, 1982 .......... Page: 2567
  Point of order:
  Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 22 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 250 should be before the assembly.
  [Note:] A.Amdt.22, first assigned a different placement, was moved after A.Amdt.21. Subsequently, 21 was moved after 24, and then 22 was moved after 24. This did not keep 22 after 21; rather, the sequence was now 24-22-21 and 22 was up immediately after action on 24 was completed.
  The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 29, 1980 .......... Page: 1740
[Point of order:]
  Senator Bablitch moved that senate amendment 96 [to Assembly Bill 1180, relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the 1980 budget review bill, and making appropriations] be considered before senate amendment 70.
  The question was: Shall senate amendment 96 be considered before senate amendment 70?
Loading...
Loading...