[Note:] The bill proposed to reduce, from 100 passengers to 50 passengers, the minimum size of vessels for which the department of revenue may issue alcohol beverage permits.
A.Amdt-2 proposed to move the venue, for alcohol related crimes committed on passenger vessels, from the place of occurrence to the vessel's regular place of mooring.
A.Amdt-3 (below) was considered a matter of particularized detail. It provided that if the passenger vessel's regular place of mooring was a municipality in which bartenders are licensed, then bartenders working on that vessel have to obtain bartender's licenses from the municipality.
Point of order:
376 Representative Radtke rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 95 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 15, 1990 .......... Page: 853
[Point of order:]
Senator Jauch raised the point of order the amendment [senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 609, relating to referenda on the issuance of bonds by school districts] is not germane.
[Note:] The substitute amendment dealt with situations, such as the removal of a hazardous substance or to comply with an order to abate fire hazards, in which school bonding need not be submitted in a referendum.
The amendment proposed to give a similar referendum exception to bonds exceeding $1,000,000 for school construction, remodeling or repair when the contract will be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.
Apparently there was no general requirement that all school construction contracts be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.
The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point not well taken.
Senate Journal of March 16, 1989 .......... Page: 144
[Point of order:]
Senator Adelman raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 [to Senate Bill 27, relating to reimbursement of attorneys and investigators for providing services under the state public defender program and making an appropriation] was not germane to the bill.
The Chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Davis, with unanimous consent, asked that the point of order be spread upon the journal.
Senate Journal of April 12, 1989 .......... Page: 170
Ruling of the chair:
On Thursday, March 16, the Senator from the 28th, Senator Adelman, raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 to Senate Bill 27 was not germane.
The Chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
The Senator from the 11th, Senator Davis, with unanimous consent, asked that the Chair's ruling be spread upon the journal.
Senate Bill 27 as originally introduced provided for an increased appropriation to support the hiring of private attorneys for the public defender program.
Senate amendment 4 to Senate Bill 27 created new language to establish a mandatory level of cases to be handled by staff attorneys.
377 The amendment as it relates to the original bill would have been clearly non-germane. In this instance, the Senate had adopted senate amendments 1, 2, and 3 to the bill. These
amendments created new language within the bill to affect the internal administrative functions of the Office of the Public Defender as they relate to case assignment. The proposal before the Senate now includes the material inserted by senate amendments 1, 2, and 3. In order to be germane an amendment must be relevant to and have a direct bearing on the proposal it seeks to change. Senate amendment 4 is relevant to and has a direct bearing on the proposal as amended.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that senate amendment 4 is germane to Senate Bill 27 as amended and the point of order is not well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 1, 1988 .......... Page: 761
Point of order:
Representative Tesmer rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 683 [relating to extended juvenile court jurisdiction] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (b) and (f) [substantial expansion of scope]. The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement.
378 [Note:] AB 683 removed 12- and 13-year old children adjudged delinquent from extended juvenile court jurisdiction, but retained the mandatory aspect of the extension for the remaining age groups.
Under existing law, because a 12-year old can be adjudged "delinquent", juvenile court jurisdiction was extended to age 21 for children from 12 through 17 years of age who have been convicted of the crimes enumerated in s. 48.366 (1), stats., as created by 1987 WisAct 27, and was extended to age 25 for any such delinquent child convicted of first degree murder. Extended juvenile court jurisdiction was mandatory for the affected age groups.
The purpose of 1987 AB 683 was limited to removing 12- and 13-year olds from extended juvenile court jurisdiction. The nature of the bill was limited to facilitating the proposal's purpose within the mandatory framework.
The substitute amendment set up a procedural framework of petition, notice, hearing and decision - changing the character of extended juvenile court jurisdiction from mandatory to discretionary. This would have changed the nature of the bill.
When extended juvenile court jurisdiction becomes discretionary, the persons excluded from the court's extended jurisdiction comprise not only 12- and 13-year olds adjudged delinquent, but also any 14-year old, 15-year old, 16-year old or 17-year old for whom the court determines "that it is in the best interest of the person and consistent with the protection of the public" not to extend the court's jurisdiction over the person to age 21 (or 25). This changes the purpose of the bill.
In many cases, amendments creating a procedural framework for a program proposed by a bill are held germane to the bill, under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (e), as "relating only to particularized details". The rule does not apply here.
The existing mandatory program of extended juvenile court jurisdiction did not need a procedural framework. The court retained jurisdiction to age 21 (or 25) whenever the criteria set forth in the statute applied.
The procedural framework offered in the substitute amendment was necessary only when the application of extended juvenile court jurisdiction was changed from mandatory to discretionary. Consequently, this procedural framework could not be considered germane particularized detail, but constituted a substantial expansion of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1988 .......... Page: 810
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Tesmer on Tuesday, March 1 that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 683 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Assembly Journal of May 27, 1987 .......... Page: 204
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 34 [relating to designating the ice age national scenic trail as a state scenic trail and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule (54) (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] The bill and A.Sub.Amdt.1 already provided for "ski trails" in conjunction with the ice age national scenic trail.
A.Amdt.5, by adding "bridle trails", added particularized detail rather than providing for a substantial expansion of the proposal's scope.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of May 27, 1987 .......... Page: 197
Point of order:
Representative Tregoning rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to Senate Bill 166 [relating to establishing a speed limit of 65 miles per hour for rural interstate highways] was not germane under Assembly Rule (54) (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] The bill increased the speed limit from 55 mph tp 65 mph.
A.Amdt.8 directed the Dept. of Transportation (DOT) to report to the legislature on the breaking and stopping capacities (of vehicles over 80,000 lbs) at speeds of 55 mph to 75 mph in one-mile increments. An amendment providing for a study of the bill's effect does not expand the scope, but adds germane "particularized detail".
The speaker ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of February 3, 1987 .......... Page: 53
Point of order:
379 Representative Schneider rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 9 to Assembly Bill 50 [relating to the council on tourism and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule (54) (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] The bill appropriated $2,000,000 to increase funding for tourism promotion. The money was to be administered by the Secretary of Development with advice from the Council on Tourism.
A.Amdt.9 proposed to earmark, of the amount appropriated, $100,000 to promote Wisconsin's historic sites, as jointly determined by the Secretary of Development and the director of the State Historical Society.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken and the amendment germane under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (e).
1 9 8 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 23, 1988 .......... Page: 770
[Point of order:]
Senator Cowles raised the point of order that senate amendment 3 [to Senate Bill 323, relating to specific information highway signs and granting rule-making authority] is not germane.
[Note:] The original bill dealt with signs on state or county highways like the familiar signs advertising specific nearby "gas, food, lodging, camping" businesses at interstate highway exits.
S.Amdt.3 permitted other "tourist-oriented directional" information on such signs. Under S.Rule 50 (9), amendments "relating only to detail" are germane.
The Chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of October 13, 1987 .......... Page: 400
[Point of order:]
Senator Helbach raised the point of order that senate amendment 6 [to Senate Bill 134, relating to the sale of farm machinery and equipment manufactured in prisons and providing a penalty] was not germane.
380 [Note:] State law prohibits most goods manufactured wholly or partly by inmates in any state, city or county penal institution from being offered for sale in the open market, but the prohibition does not apply to prison-made farm machinery and farm implements and tools.
The bill proposed to prohibit sale in Wisconsin of "any farm machinery or equipment which is manufactured in whole or in part in any penal institution inside or outside of this state".
S.Amdt.6 was a poorly drafted floor amendment adding, after "penal institution inside or outside of this state", the words "or in the Soviet Union". It is likely that the amendment was intended to prohibit not prison-made Soviet goods but, rather, farm tractors built by Soviet industry. Although the amendment was ruled germane, its adoption failed, ayes-12, noes-20.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of May 12, 1987 .......... Page: 173
[Point of order:]
Senator Roshell raised the point of order that senate amendment 7 to senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 166, relating to establishing a speed limit of 65 miles per hour for rural interstate highways] was not germane.
The chair [Sen. Helbach] ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] S.Amdt.7 to S.SubAmdt.1 provided a "June 1, 1987" delayed effective date. Amendments providing "limitations on the effective date" are germane; S.Rule 50 (9).
S.Amdt.13 to S.Sub.1 incorporated into the bill a requirement to operate motor vehicles only when driver and passengers are wearing seat belts. S.Amdt.1 to S.Amdt.13 to S.SubAmdt.1 restricted the seat belt requirement to the rural interstate highways where the higher speed limit would apply.
Senate Journal of May 12, 1987 .......... Page: 175
[Point of order:]
Senator Te Winkle raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 13 to senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Ellis 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: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-19, noes-14.] So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 20, 1986 .......... Page: 729
Point of order:
Representative Hephner rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 7 to Senate Bill 118 [relating to penalties for persons who violate the alcohol beverage laws, to dealings between brewers, wholesalers and retailers, to technical and minor policy changes in regard to alcohol beverages, and alcohol beverage, tobacco, cigarette and fuel taxes, and providing a penalty] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) [expansion of scope].
[Note:] One of the areas touched by SB 118 concerned picnic beverage licenses. A.Amdt.7 added churches to the nonprofit organizations eligible for picnic licenses.
381 The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of February 18, 1986 .......... Page: 706
Point of order:
Representative Tesmer rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 212 [relating to small claims actions, worthless checks, retail theft, dates of accounts on checks and providing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) [expansion of scope].
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] The proposal related to "small claims actions, worthless checks [and] retail theft".
Although A.Amdt.8 added "continuous garnishment of private employes" to the title, it did not expand the scope of the proposal. Rather, the amendment dealt with the particularized detail of assuring compliance with a restitution order. See A.Rule 54 (4)(e).
Representative Holperin rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 212 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(a) [unrelated individual proposition].
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of April 30, 1985 .......... Page: 128
Point of order:
Representative Tregoning rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to Assembly Bill 221 [relating to the Fox river management commission, management and operation of the Fox river locks and facilities, user fees and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f).
[Note:] The bill authorized the commission to contract with public or private organizations or businesses for the operation and management of the Fox river locks.
A.Amdt.5 provided that the commission, for the first lock on the upper Fox (at Portage) and limited to a period ending 6/30/87, would be responsible for "maintenance and rehabilitation" in addition to its responsibility for "operation and maintenance" for all locks.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the amendment germane under Assembly Rule 54 (4)(e) [particularized detail] and the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 21, 1985 .......... Page: 84
Point of order:
382 Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 3, March 1985 Spec.Sess. [relating to providing agricultural production loan guarantees and interest reductions on guaranteed agricultural loans and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f).
