[Note:] A.Amdt.4 was the super-amendment brought in by the assembly majority party caucus. It had passed the assembly. Interhouse comity requires that the actions of one house be given full faith and credit by the other house [see Jeff.Man. 3-p and 17-s].
The germaneness of an amendment can be challenged only in the house of introduction [see S.Rule 50 (3)] because, under the state constitution, each house determines its own rules [Art. IV, Sec. 11].
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Point of order:]
Senator Opitz raised the point of order that assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 was not properly before the senate.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Opitz 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-13.] So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 30, 1981 .......... Page: 1681
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 818 [compiled multi-issue "budget trailer" bill] was not properly before the assembly because Chapter 27, Laws of 1981 abolished the budget review process.
The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 1981 .......... Page: 1703
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled as follows on the point of order raised by Representative Loftus that Assembly Bill 818 was not properly before the assembly.
"Earlier today, the gentleman from the 46th rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 818 was not properly before the Assembly because it was a budget review bill, within the meaning of s. 16.475, Wis. Stats. 1979, and that the authority to bring a budget review bill before the Assembly had been repealed by Chapter 27, Laws of 1981.
39 Under s. 16.475, Laws of 1979, if the governor determines that the fiscal condition of the state or implementation of budget priorities requires adjustments in state expenditures or revenues, he or she must submit recommendations for the adjustments to the legislature in bill form by the end of the 2nd week of the legislative session in the even-numbered year.
The law also provided that such bills were exempt from certain procedural requirements, such as referral to relevant joint survey committees. Section 16.475 was repealed by Ch. 27, Laws of 1981.
It is apparent to the Chair that Assembly Bill 818 is a bill, which prior to the enactment of Ch. 27, Laws of 1981, would be considered to be a budget review bill. It makes adjustments to state expenditures and revenues in light of changes recently made to federal laws and other factors.
However, the provision in s. 16.475, prior to its repeal, did not limit the authority of the legislature to consider bills proposed by the governor which related to changing revenues and expenditures because of changing conditions. What the provision did primarily was to exempt such bills from certain procedural requirements.
The Chair notes that under s. 16.475, prior to its repeal, such bills were exempt from the requirement of s. 13.52, Wis. Stats. that bills creating tax exemptions must be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions. In the case of 1981 AB 818, the bill creates a tax exemption, and was referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions for a report, a requirement to which it would have been exempt prior to the enactment of Chapter 27.
Section 16.475, created a special class of bills to deal with fiscal matters. It did not, however, in the opinion of the Chair, create an exclusive procedure for dealing with such bills. It was that exclusive procedure, and only that procedure, which was repealed by Chapter 27.
Accordingly, the Chair finds the point of order not well taken."
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of July 8, 1981 .......... Page: 667
[Background: Senator Chilsen asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 66, (relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1981 legislature, and making appropriations) be returned to the Assembly.]
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 66 be returned to the Assembly? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-11, noes-22.] Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative the motion did not prevail.
Point of order:
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that both the majority and minority parties agreed Assembly Bill 66 was unconstitutionally before the senate.
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, the record will show that the majority party does not concede that Assembly Bill 66 is unconstitutionally before the senate.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
40 Senator Chilsen appealed 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: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-12.] So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 13, 1977 .......... Page: 1403
Point of order:
Representative Wahner rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 11 to assembly amendment 262 to Senate Bill 77 [budget bill] was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (f).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 3, 1977 .......... Page: 1284
Point of order:
Representative Wahner rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 125 [new crime: child pornography] to Senate Bill 77 [budget bill] was not germane under Assembly Rule 50.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Shabaz appealed the ruling of the chair. Representative Olson asked unanimous consent that all members of the assembly be made co-authors of assembly amendment 125 to Senate Bill 77.
Representative Bear objected. [Representatives Dorff, Menos, Duren and Ward] asked unanimous consent to be made a co-author of assembly amendment 125 to Senate Bill 77. Granted.
Representative Olson asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 125 to Senate Bill 77 be withdrawn and returned to the authors. Granted.
Representative Wahner asked unanimous consent to withdraw his point of order. Granted.
Budget out of balance
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 16, 1991 .......... Page: 574
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that to override item veto C-30 of Assembly Bill 91 would violate s. 20.003 (4) [required general fund balance] of the Wisconsin Statutes. He cited as precedents the point of order on 1985 Assembly Bill 447 raised on January 28, 1986.
41 [Note:] The 1986 precedent concerned a proposed new expenditure at a time when the state's revenue projections indicated that the general fund balance was likely to dip below the minimum.
Section 10 (2) (b) of article V of the constitution directs the legislature to reconsider partial vetoes of appropriation bills and, having decided to attempt the override of a specific partial veto, a statutory rule cannot prevent the legislature from acting under the constitution.
Until the legislature adjourns sine die without providing the balanced budget required by section 5 of article VIII [annual tax levy to equal expenses], it cannot be said that an anticipated negative budget balance resulting from a veto override violates the state constitution. Even if the legislature so adjourns, the conflict between the 2 provisions of the constitution will have to be decided in the courts.
The presiding officer cannot determine the constitutionality of a proposition.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of January 28, 1986 .......... Page: 603
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 447 [to authorize and direct expenditure of $25,000 from the general fund for payment of a claim against the state made by Robert L. Borum] could not be considered for action at this time under section 20.003 (4) of the Wisconsin Statutes. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] In January 1986, the state was faced with a revenue shortfall likely to reduce the balance in the treasury below the minimum (1% of biennial GPR appropriations) mandated by s. 20.003 (4), stats.
1985 WisAct 120 adjusted state expenditures to anticipated revenues. The Borum claim bill was taken up, failed to pass 43 to 54, and reconsideration failed 49 to 50 (A.Jour. 2/13/86, p. 683).
Assembly Journal of February 11, 1986 .......... Page: 663
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Loftus ruled that the point of order raised by Representative Prosser on Assembly Bill 447 on January 28, 1986, was moot with the enactment of Senate Bill 1, January 1986 Spec. Sess. (1985 Wisconsin Act 120).
Call of this house: business continues except on the specific question
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 7, 1978 .......... Page: 3392
Point of order:
42 Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the assembly should proceed to the next amendment to Assembly Bill 321 instead of proceeding to the next order of business while under call.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken and cited as precedent a ruling made on May 10, 1973 (1973 Assembly Journal page 1320).
Assembly Journal of March 7, 1978 .......... Page: 3394
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the assembly should proceed to the next amendment to Assembly Bill 321 instead of proceeding to the next order of business while the point of order on senate amendment 1 is under advisement.
The speaker ruled that the assembly would proceed to the next amendment in this particular instance without establishing a precedent.
[Note:] In 1978, A.Rule 89 (1) provided: "While the assembly is under call, business may be transacted as though there were no call except that no further proceedings may be taken with reference to the matter concerning which
the call was ordered." Speaker Anderson, on 5/10/73 (p. 1320) had "held that 'matter' .... meant the specific question involved and not consideration of the entire bill."
The issue was clarified in the 1979 rules adoption (A.Res. 7) so that consideration of other specific questions concerning the same proposal may continue while the assembly is under call on the original "specific question":
"Business may be transacted is if there were no call except that no further action may be taken on the specific question under consideration when the call was ordered."
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 27, 1974 .......... Page: 2601
[Call re suspension of rules:]
Senator Bidwell moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 837 be considered for action at this time. [Intervening text omitted.]
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 837 [relating to cancellation of franchises] be considered for action at this time?
Senator Steinhilber moved a call of the senate. [Display of roll call omitted; present-22, absent-10, with leave-1.]
Senate Journal of March 28, 1974 .......... Page: 2637
[Point of order:]
All members being present, the question was: Shall Assembly Bill 837 [relating to cancellation of franchises] be considered for action at this time.
Senator J. D. Swan raised the point of order that this required a suspension of the rules.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of October 24, 1973 .......... Page: 1837
[Background:]
43 Senator Parys moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 354 was placed on the calendar of January 30, 1974.
Senator Parys moved a call of the senate. [Display of roll call omitted; present-29, absent-1, with leave-3; intervening text omitted.]
By request of Senator Johnson, with unanimous consent, the call was raised.
By request of Senator Johnson, with unanimous consent, the senate recessed until 2:00 P.M. [Recess, 12:15 to 2:00 p.m.; intervening business]
Senate Journal of October 24, 1973 .......... Page: 1844
[Point of order:]
Senator Parys raised the point of order that since the call was raised at the recess Assembly Bill 354 was before the senate.
