[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.
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of July 2, 1980 .......... Page: 2029
[Precedence of motions:]
Senator Van Sistine moved nonconcurrence of assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 4, Special Session and requests a Committee of Conference. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senator Bablitch moved that Senate Bill 4, Special Session be referred to committee on Aging, Business and Financial Institutions and Transportation.
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the motion to nonconcur takes precedence over the motion to refer the bill to committee.
431 [Note:] S.Rule 63 contains an inventory of "motions in order during debate". Sub. (2) provides: "These several motions shall have precedence in the order in which they stand arranged in this rule".
The motion to refer to committee outranks any motion to postpone indefinitely, to reject or to nonconcur.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of February 15, 1979 .......... Page: 149
[Point of order:]
The question was: Rejection of senate amendment 6 to senate substitute amendment 1? Senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 6 to senate substitute amendment 1 offered by Senator Harnisch.
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 6 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 out of order at this time.
[Note:] Under S.Rule 63, a motion for adverse disposition outranks a motion to amend.
The point of order was well taken.
1 9 7 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 23, 1978 .......... Page: 2093
[Point of order:]
The question was: Rejection of senate amendment 2 to senate amendment 49. ( Senator Sensenbrenner moved that senate amendment 3 to senate amendment 1 be removed from the table. ( The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that the motion to remove senate amendment 3 to senate amendment 1 from the table was not timely.
Senate Journal of February 28, 1978 .......... Page: 1839
[Background:]
Senator Risser moved reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Joint Resolution 55 was adopted. Senator Risser asked unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider the vote by which Senate Joint Resolution 55 was adopted be laid on the table. Senator Swan objected. Senator Bablitch moved that the senate recess until 4:00 P.M.
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order as to the precedence of the motions made. The chair [Sen. Kleczka] took the point of order under advisement.
[Recess, 12:15 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.] The senate reconvened.
432 The chair stated that because a motion to stand recessed for the noon hour prevailed, a point of order regarding the precedence of a motion to reconsider was no longer under
advisement of the chair and the question was reconsideration of the vote by which the Senate adopted Senate Joint Resolution 55.
Senate Journal of February 23, 1978 .......... Page: 1800
[Background:] The question was: Shall Senate Bill 324 [relating to authorizing credit unions as public depositories] be referred to committee on Commerce? Senator Braun moved reconsideration of the vote by which senate amendment 3 to Senate Bill 324 was adopted.
[Point of order:]
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion to reconsider the vote by which senate amendment 3 was adopted was not properly before the Senate. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 2, 1978 .......... Page: 1860
On Thursday, February 23, 1978, Senator Braun moved reconsideration of the vote by which senate amendment 3 to Senate Bill 324 was adopted.
At the time the reconsideration motion was made, the question before the Senate was: Shall Senate Bill 324 be referred to the committee on Commerce?
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion to refer to committee should take precedence over the motion to reconsider the amendment.
Senate Rule 67 (6) states that "reconsideration of amendments .... shall have the same priority as to order of action as to amend under rule 63."
Since a motion to refer is listed before a motion to amend under Senate Rule 63, the point of order raised by Senator Bablitch is well taken and the question before the Senate is: Shall Senate Bill 324 be referred to the committee on Commerce?
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
Motions: proper time for making
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.
Representative Hauke moved reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 11 [to AB 91] failed to be adopted.
433 [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 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 29, 1989 .......... Page: 274
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration, which was ruled untimely, was in order since he tried to be recognized immediately after the vote on concurrence in Senate Bill 65.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken because there were two representatives standing at the same time seeking recognition and the speaker has the right to recognize either one. The chair also noted that the motion for reconsideration will still be in order during the eighth order of business on the next legislative day.
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 2, 1988 .......... Page: 602
Point of order:
Representative Fergus rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 273 [relating to forced viewing of sexual activity and providing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule (54) (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
Representative Welch moved that Assembly Rule 54 be suspended.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the motion out of order because a point of order was pending. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] A.Amdt-4, in its item 3: 1) created a new Class A misdemeanor; and 2) redefined 2 existing Class D felonies.
The creation of the new Class A misdemeanor of failure to summon law enforcement when knowing that a child is forced to view something obscene expanded the scope of AB 273. An amendment "which substantially expands the scope of the proposal" is declared not germane by A.Rule 54 (3) (f).
The redefining of the existing Class D felony under s. 944.21 (1), stats., and the redefining of the existing Class D felony under s. 944.21 (2), stats., also expanded the scope of 1987 AB 273.
434Assembly Journal of February 2, 1988 .......... Page: 605
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled that assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 273 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 and that the point of order raised by Representative Fergus was well taken.
1 9 8 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 19, 1988 .......... Page: 887
[Background:] While the Senate acted under the 4th Order of Business (reports of committees), the Majority Leader obtained unanimous consent to act on certain bills. Senator Chilsen made a regular motion that Assembly Bill 10, November 1987 Spec. Sess. [relating to obscenity, defining obscene material and obscene performance and providing penalties] be withdrawn from committee on Judiciary and Consumer Affairs and referred to committee on Senate Rules.
[Point of order:]
Senator Strohl raised the point of order that the motion was made at an inappropriate time. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of May 19, 1988 .......... Page: 889
Ruling of the chair:
The Senator from the 21st, Senator Strohl, raised the point of order that the motion made by the Senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, to withdraw a bill was not proper under the 4th Order of Business.
On page 1708, Journal of the Senate 1977 Session the Chair ruled that motions to withdraw from committee are restricted to the 8th Order of Business: Motions may be offered. The 8th order at that time is now the 14th Order of Business. It is the opinion of the Chair that motion may be only under the 14th Order of Business. Therefore the point of order is well taken.
A subsequent point of order was raised that a motion to withdraw a bill under the 10th order of business is not proper. The Senator from the 29th also questioned the purpose of the 10th Order of Business: Consideration of Motions and Resolutions."
The Historic Parliamentary purpose of an order of business such as the Senate's 10th Order was to have a proper location to list pending motions for consideration as well as Resolutions. The Senate has frequently scheduled resolutions for 10th Order. However, it has not used the 10th Order for consideration of motions. Normal Parliamentary Practice would be for a motion to be made on the 14th Order and that motion would be considered on the next day's calendar under the 10th Order of Business.
However, the practice of the Senate has been to consider motions when they are presented under the 14th Order, hence the use of the 10th Order to consider motions has not been necessary.
For the reasons stated in the previous point on this same question, the point of order is well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
Senate Journal of October 21, 1987 .......... Page: 422
[Precedence of appeal:]
435 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."
