Assembly Journal of February 23, 1984 .......... Page: 774
Point of order:
Representative Tesmer rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 9 to Assembly Bill 571 [relating to reporting and investigating abuse or neglect of elder persons, making an appropriation and providing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
[Note:] In the simplest view, A.Amdt.9 was not germane under A.Rule 54 (1) because it had to insert the following words into the bill title to reflect the content of the amendment: "increasing the amounts allocated for adjustments to the basic community aids allocation to counties".
Any argument that the "basic community aids allocation" had to be adjusted if AB 571 was enacted into law, and that A.Amdt.9 provided this required adjustment, probably fell on 2 grounds:
(1) As shown by the fiscal estimate to AB 571 prepared by Michael Fox of the Division of Community Services on 9/14/83 (see page 2 of "assumptions"), enacting AB 571 would result in about 100 additional cases at $500/year, for a statewide cost of $50,000. That amount had little relation to the roughly $700,000/year proposed for reallocation by A.Amdt.9.
(2) A.Amdt.9 amended subd. 2 of 1983 WisAct 27, SECTION 2020 (6) (a). Subdivision 1 of that session law identified only 2 statute sections - 49.52 (1) (d) and 51.42 (8) (b) - under which such funds are reallocated. Nothing in 1983 AB 571 related to those 2 sections of the statutes.
A.Amdt.9 was not germane because it expanded the scope of the proposal in violation of A.Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken because the amendment added new appropriations to the bill.
Assembly Journal of October 20, 1983 .......... Page: 482
Point of order:
226 Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 12 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 260 [relating to official identification cards, changing the legal drinking age, establishing a curfew and creating and changing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] A.Amdt.12 prohibited carry-out sales to persons aged 19 or 20.
The chair [Rep. Gerlach] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 20, 1983 .......... Page: 479
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 260 [relating to official identification cards, changing the legal drinking age, establishing a curfew and creating and changing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) and (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] Neither the proposal as introduced, nor Sub.Amdt.1 by the Joint Committee on Finance, made any mention of the beer tax. A.Amdt.2 to the substitute, also offered by Joint Finance, proposed to increase the beer tax from $2 to $2.50 per barrel but delayed the effective date for the proposed increase by at least 6 months, and inserted the words "raising the fermented malt beverage tax" into the title of the proposal".
In discussions of germaneness, it is often alleged that amendment requiring a change of the relating clause are not germane. That notion is too broad: A.Rule 54 (1) carefully limits the title issue to amendments .... "which, if adopted and passed, would require a title for the proposal which is substantially different from the proposal's original title or which would totally alter the nature of the proposal". Adding one additional proposition to a title which already recites several related propositions would not seem to be prohibited by A.Rule 54 (1).
Newpaper accounts published a few days earlier indicated that it might have been the purpose of this amendment to offset the anticipated revenue loss - in beer tax, wine tax and sales tax - when the legal drinking age is raised from 18 to 19 years of age so as to avoid unbalancing the budget enacted by 1983 Wisconsin Act 23 (the FE by the Dept. of Revenue, dated 4/13/83, showed a loss of $606,000). If the premise was valid, then A.Rule 54 (4) (d) might be generously construed to hold the amendment germane as dealing with "appropriations necessary to fulfill the original intent of the proposal" even though it does not directly appropriate anything (beer tax revenue is GPR).
On the other hand, increasing the beer tax might be considered an "individual proposition" within the meaning of A.Rule 54 (3) (a) being added to the specific propositions already contained in the proposal, which thereby "substantially expands the scope of the proposal" within the meaning of A.Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker [Loftus] ruled assembly amendment 2 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 260 not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) and the point of order well taken.
227Assembly Journal of October 11, 1983 .......... Page: 396
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to Assembly Joint Resolution 26 [relating to excepting pari-mutuel betting on horse racing from the prohibition against legislative authorization of lotteries] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope]. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] The proposal authorized betting only on horse racing; the amendment authorized betting for both horse racing and dog racing.
[Intervening text omitted.]
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that assembly amendment 2 to Assembly Joint Resolution 26 was not germane.
Assembly Journal of May 24, 1983 .......... Page: 220
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Section 6 of assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 450 [relating to applicability of the Wisconsin environmental protection act and a schedule for the establishment of any new Milwaukee correctional institution, judicial review of related decisions and injunctive and other relief and right of first acquisition of abandoned railroad property] expanded the scope of the bill and was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
[Note:] SECTION 6 exempted from county and municipal zoning requirements any community correctional residential center to be constructed on a site designated prior to the effective date of the act.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of April 26, 1983 .......... Page: 164
Point of order:
Representative Crawford rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 138 [relating to restrictions of the sale of certain products containing phosphates and creating a penalty] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) [title, nature of proposal] and (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope] because it imposed a tax and required a study.
228 [Note:] As introduced and enacted (1983 WisAct 73), the legislation prohibited the sale of cleaning agents containing more than .5% of phosphorus; different limits applied to dishwashing (8.7%) and water conditioning (20%).
A.Sub.1 set the prohibited level at 8.7% for cleaning agents, and imposed on all water conditioners and cleaning agents containing more than .5% phosphorus a 5% sales tax, to be distributed to municipalities and sewerage districts for phosphorus removal in sewage treatment. Municipalities were authorized to prohibit, by local ordinance, the sale of cleaning agents containing more than .5% phosphorus. The fertilizer research council was directed to find a way of using as fertilizer the phosphorus removed from sewage.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 5, 1984 .......... Page: 865
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 2 [to Assembly Bill 1056, relating to increasing the amounts that can be spent for supportive home care and day care services and making an appropriation] offered by Senators Norquist and Chilsen.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 2
Senator Otte raised the point of order that senate amendment 2 was not germane.
[Note:] As received from the assembly, the bill was limited to increasing the available total funds for allocation to counties.
S.Amdt.2 tried to set criteria for distribution of day care funds to eligible parents in case a county's total allocation was insufficient for the number of applications.
A week earlier, an identical assembly amendment (AA-1 to A.Sub.1) had been held a substantial expansion of the scope of the proposal in violation of A.Rule 54 (3) (f) [see A.Jour. of 3/28/84, pp. 1083-84] and, consequently, not germane.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of April 4, 1984 .......... Page: 849
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 1027, relating to the definition of gross revenues for purposes of the license fee on utilities, technical and minor
policy changes related to taxation, trust fund loans, tax incremental districts, financial reports on transportation costs, acreage shares on forest croplands, payments of the woodland tax and providing a penalty] offered by Senators Roshell, Ellis, Kincaid, Theno, Harsdorf, Otte, Moen, Van Sistine, Lorman, Kreul and Chilsen.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 1?
Senator Norquist raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 was not germane.
[Note:] The bill dealt with "the definition of gross revenues for purposes of the license fee on utilities" and with "technical and minor policy changes" concerning state revenues.
For the utilities covered by that definition, S.Amdt.1 proposed to postpone by one year a license fee which had been enacted by the 1983 budget act. That was a substantive change in state policy - the amendment was neither "technical" nor "minor".
229 The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of April 3, 1984 .......... Page: 832
[Point of order:]
Senator Adelman raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 975, relating to the judicial commission and ethics board and making appropriations] was not germane.
[Note:] The bill was limited to undoing the merger, enacted by the 1983 budget to take effect on 7/1/84, of the ethics board and judicial commission staffs.
S.Amdt.1 proposed to implement the coverage of municipal judges by the state ethics code (also enacted by the 1983 budget).
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of March 29, 1984 .......... Page: 809
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 [to Senate Bill 663, known as the "budget surplus adjustment bill"] offered by Senators Chilsen, Hanaway, Theno, Lorman, Davis, Harsdorf and Engeleiter.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
[Note:] Although the bill itself changed the state homestead tax credit formula, it did not change the definition of "income" which is used as one part of that formula.
S.Amdt.2 attempted to exclude the first $15,000 of farmland depreciation from that "income" definition.
S.Amdt.7 (below) attempted the same change for the first $20,000.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-14]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
Senate Journal of March 29, 1984 .......... Page: 810
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Senator Harsdorf.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
230 Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
[Note:] Although 1983 SB 663 addressed a large number of issues, each was narrowly drafted and specifically reflected in the proposal's title.
S.Amdt.5 (changing the dates of property tax relief payments) and S.Amdt.4 (below; increasing the state property tax credit payment) each attempted to add new issues to the proposal.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Harsdorf appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-9]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Senate Bill 663?
[Point of order:]
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Harsdorf appealed the ruling of the chair. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-13]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Senators Chilsen and Lorge.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. Senator Chilsen asked unanimous consent that the ruling of the chair be written and printed in the senate journal. Senator Cullen objected.
The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-13]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
Senate Journal of March 28, 1984 .......... Page: 800
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 13 to senate substitute amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 595, relating to groundwater management, creating a council, granting rule-making authority, imposing penalties and making appropriations] offered by Senators Harsdorf and Kreul.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 13 to senate substitute amendment 1?
Senator Helbach moved rejection of senate amendment 13 to senate substitute amendment 1.
231 The question was: Rejection of senate amendment 13 to senate substitute amendment 1?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 13 to senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane.
[Note:] S.Amdt.13 proposed to create a new office of, and council for, agriculture public intervenor in addition to the existing "natural resources" public intervenor.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
