Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that there was no order of business that provided for messaging bills to the governor. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1980 .......... Page: 2956
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Shabaz.
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Joint Rule 34 and Enrolled Joint Resolution 1 required the "chief clerk" to present bills to the governor but this motion would allow the "assembly" to present the bill to the governor; therefore, the motion required a suspension of the rules.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that the motion was proper and did not require a suspension of the rules.
Motions: maker's right to withdraw
1 9 8 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 22, 1988 .......... Page: 748
[Point of order:]
426 Senator Risser raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 351, relating to emergency detention, involuntary civil commitment, guardianship, protective services, transfer and discharge of involuntarily committed persons, recommitment evaluations, incompetency to refuse medication, emergency protective placement, training in emergency detention and emergency protective placement procedures for law enforcement officers, a presumption of good faith of individuals initiating emergency detentions, codifying a standard of performance for guardians of the
person, requiring health insurance coverage of services provided under a court order, requiring the department of health and social services to study the implementation of crisis intervention services, other mental health requirements and granting rule-making authority] is not germane.
Senator Engeleiter asked unanimous consent that senate substitute amendment 1 be returned to the author. Senator Risser objected. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 23, 1988 .......... Page: 775
Ruling of the chair:
On Tuesday, March 22, 1988, the Senator from the 26th, Senator Risser raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 351 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Bill 351 is a comprehensive bill relating to mental health commitment standards and processes, and alternatives thereto. The bill sets standards for commitment, amends current law relating to guardianship and court-ordered protective services, emergency detention, training in emergency procedures, crisis intervention services and coverage of court-ordered services under medical plans.
Senate substitute amendment 1 relates solely to commitment and emergency detention of persons based on specific circumstances. The substitute amendment eliminates many of the provisions of the original bill.
Senate Rule 50 (7) reads as follows: "A substitute or amendment relating to a specific subject or to a general class is not germane to a bill relating to a different specific subject, but an amendment limiting the scope of the proposal is germane."
Mason's Manual Section 402 (4) reads as follows: An entirely new proposal may be substituted by amendment so long as it is germane to the main purpose of the original proposal.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the main purpose of the original bill was to set standards for commitment. Therefore, in accordance with Senate Rule 50 (7) and Mason's Manual Section 402 (4), the amendment is germane, and the point of order is not well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 26, 1980 .......... Page: 2368
[Repetitive motion to table:]
Representative Loftus asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 937 [relating to the prohibition of the sale, distribution or use of 2, 4, 5-T and silvex and providing penalties] be laid on the table. Representative Shabaz objected.
Representative Loftus moved that Assembly Bill 937 be laid on the table.
Point of order:
Representative Norquist rose to the point of order that the motion to table was not in order because there had been no intervening business.
Representative Loftus asked unanimous consent to withdraw his motion. Granted.
Senate Journal of November 1, 1979 .......... Page: 983
[Motion: right to withdraw]
Senator Harnisch asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 205 be withdrawn from committee on Education and Revenue and be taken up at this time. Senator Bablitch objected.
Senator Harnisch moved that the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 205 be withdrawn from committee on Education and Revenue and be taken up at this time.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 205 be withdrawn from committee on Education and Revenue and be taken up at this time? [Intervening text omitted.]
Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 205 from committee on Education and Revenue and take up at this time be withdrawn. Senator Hanaway objected.
Senator Harnisch asked unanimous consent that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 205 from committee on Education and Revenue and take up at this time be withdrawn. Senator Murphy objected.
Senator Bablitch moved a call of the senate. [Display of roll call omitted; present-32, absent-1, with leave-0.]
[Point of order:]
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that a member making a motion could withdraw it without unanimous consent. The chair took the point of order under advisement. [No ruling given?]
Motions: priority of considering
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1988 .......... Page: 987
[Background:] After Rep. Hauke (majority leader) moved that the assembly stand adjourned, Rep. Welch "moved that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 300 be withdrawn from the committee on Rules and taken up at this time". The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the motion out of order because a motion to adjourn was pending.
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion was proper under Assembly Rule 90 (3).
428 [Note:] Assembly Rule 90 (3) A unanimous consent request or a motion to suspend the rules may be made at any time under any order of business by a member who obtains the floor, but not while the assembly is voting.
Technically, Rep. Welch may have been correct; see also Assembly Rules 65 (1) (a) and (c) which provide that a motion to suspend the rules outranks a motion to adjourn.
However, this was the last day of the final general business floorperiod; it was Friday night, the time was almost 11:30 p.m., and the session would end at midnight. It was not likely that the Senate could establish its position on the annual budget (AB 850) by that time, and return the bill to the Assembly for concurrence in amendments.
Speaker pro tem. Clarenbach probably based his ruling on Assembly Rule 90 (4), which says that "motions to suspend the rules shall not be permitted for .... clearly dilatory purposes".
As shown be the subsequent action, the Assembly wanted to go home:
Representative Loftus moved that the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1.
The question was: Shall the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-54, noes-42.] Motion carried. The assembly stood adjourned.
1 9 8 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 21, 1987 .......... Page: 422
[Precedence of appeal:]
Senator Strohl asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 462 [relating to the Wisconsin retirement system, allowing retired public employes to purchase state group health insurance coverage, fixed retirement investment trusts, transferring funds and making an appropriation] be laid on the table.
Senator Davis objected. Senator Davis appealed the ruling of the chair [given immediately preceding the unanimous consent request].
Senator Strohl moved that Assembly Bill 462 be laid on the table.
[Point of order:]
Senator Ellis raised the point of order that the motion of Senator Strohl was not timely. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of October 27, 1987 .......... Page: 453
Ruling of the chair:
On Wednesday, October 21, 1987, the senator from the 19th, Senator Ellis, raised the point of order that a motion to appeal the decision of the Chair takes precedence over the motion to table a proposal.
The senator from the 21st, Senator Strohl, had the floor after the Chair had ruled on a pending point of order in relating to Assembly Bill 462. The senator from the 21st asked unanimous consent that the bill be laid on the table. An objection was heard. The senator was then going to move to lay the bill on the table, when he yielded to the senator from the 11th, Senator Davis, who then appealed the ruling of the Chair. The senator from the 21st then moved to table the bill.
Section 230, (7) of Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure reads as follows: "When an appeal has been taken from a decision of the presiding officer, no new business is in order until the appeal has been disposed of."
The motion to appeal is an incidental question relating to the general procedural nature of the senate. Therefore, it takes precedence over any main motion relating to the matter under consideration.
429 Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the motion to appeal the decision of the Chair takes precedence over the motion to table, and the point of order raised by the senator from the 19th is well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 8, 1982 .......... Page: 3320
[Background: 1981 SB 783, a multi-issue budget adjustment bill, had been special ordered for 10 a.m. on Thursday (4/8/82) but was not called up. According to the journal, the speaker called up the special order after the majority leader moved adjournment to 10 a.m. on Tuesday, but before the adjournment motion was put to the body.]
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 783 was not properly before the assembly at this time because a motion to adjourn was pending.
[Note:] If the majority leader really intended to adjourn, he could have immediately renewed the motion.
Instead, both the majority leader and the minority leader made unanimous consent requests, concerning disposition of amendments to 1981 SB 783 and concerning reconsideration of the vote by which the bill had failed to reach 3rd reading.
When all unanimous consent requests failed, the majority leader renewed the motion to adjourn and the assembly adjourned.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 4, 1982 .......... Page: 2505
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 250 [relating to access to public records, creating an open records board, granting rule-making authority, making appropriations and providing a penalty] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) and (3) (f).
[Note:] The point of order would have to be raised when the pending question is adoption of the substitute. Instead, it was raised while the assembly was considering amendments.
Although the journal records the official offering of A.Amdt.2 after the above point of order was raised, it is likely that copies of A.Amdt.2 and many additional amendments had already been xeroxed and distributed.
The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] ruled the point of order not timely under Assembly Rule 62 (4) [timely only if raised before question is decided] and Assembly Rule 66 [incidental motions, requests and questions in order during debate] because the assembly had not completed action on amendments to the substitute.
430Assembly Journal of February 23, 1982 .......... Page: 2348
[Background: while disposition of A.Amdt.8 to A.Sub.2 to AB 452 remained undecided, Rep. Thompson (by unanimous consent) withdrew his pending motion to table AB 452 and then moved indefinite postponement of AB 452.]
Point of order:
Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order because assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 452 [relating to employment relations in higher education and making an appropriation] was pending.
[Note:] Under A.Rule 65 (2), tabling has a higher priority than amending but amending has a higher priority than indefinite postponement.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 14, 1980 .......... Page: 2737
[Background:] Representative Ferrall moved that the rules be suspended and that assembly amendments 24 through 57 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 500 [relating to energy resources, granting rule-making authority, making appropriations and providing penalties] be laid on the table.
Representative Shabaz moved that Senate Bill 500 be laid on the table.
Point of order:
Representative Ferrall rose to the point of order that the motion to table Senate Bill 500 was not in order under Assembly Rule 65 because a motion to suspend the rules was pending. ( The chair [Rep. Lee] ruled the point of order well taken.
