Ruling of the chair [p. 823]:
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Welch that since the motion to place a bill after another bill was not specifically listed in the Assembly Rules as a proper motion it would take a suspension of the rules and a two-thirds vote.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1986 .......... Page: 1026
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the assembly was not on the calendar of Wednesday, March 26 because a printed calendar had not been printed pursuant to Assembly Rule 29 (3). The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] Two special rules affect the last week of the final general business floorperiod of each biennial session. A.Rule 24 (3) and (4) permits the
committee on rules to place any business still still held by it during the final week on any calendar for that week unless such business still needs referral to a joint survey committee. The result is that the printed calendar (if one has been distributed) may not show all the business scheduled by the rules committee for a particular day during the final week.
The other special rule concerns the motion for reconsideration. A.Rule 73 (3)(b) says that after the 7th (reconsideration of passage or concurrence) order of business on the final scheduled day of the last general business floorperiod any motion for reconsideration may be taken up at any time by majority vote.
On the adjournment of that final day, new proposals may be introduced and printed only if needed for: 1) the veto review session under Jt.Rule 82; or germane to 2) any special session called by the governor or 3) any extraordinary session called by the legislature.
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1986 .......... Page: 1037
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that a printed calendar containing all of the proposals was not required for today's session because the committee on Rules had the authority to place bills on the calendar pursuant to Assembly Rule 24 (4). The speaker ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative T. Thompson.
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1986 .......... Page: 1037
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the assembly should not be on the calendar of Wednesday, March 26 because unfinished business remained on previous calendars.
463 The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken because no proposals remained under the regular orders of business on previous calendars. Only proposals which were special orders of business were pending.
1 9 8 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 4, 1986 .......... Page: 649
[Point of order:]
By request of Senator Plewa, with unanimous consent Senate Bill 94 [to Senate Bill 94, relating to recodifying and making technical and minor substantive changes in the administrative rule-making process] was taken from the table and considered at this time.
Read.
The question was: Reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 1 was concurred in?
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the bill was not properly before the senate.
[Note:] Under S.Rule 41 (1)(c), a matter withhdrawn from a committee must, unless referred to a different committee, go to the committee on senate organization for scheduling.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
By request of Senator Cullen, with unanimous consent, Senate Bill 94 was referred to committee on Senate Organization.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 4, 1980 .......... Page: 2423
[Background:] Representative Merkt moved that Assembly Joint Resolution 32 [making an application to the Congress of the United States pursuant to article V of the constitution of the United States, for a convention proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States to protect the life of all human beings, including unborn children at every stage of their biological development] be withdrawn from the committee on Health and Social Services.
Representative Loftus moved that the motion to withdraw Assembly Joint Resolution 32 from the committee on Health and Social Services be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall the motion to withdraw Assembly Joint Resolution 32 from the committee on Health and Social Services be laid on the table? Motion carried.
[Note:] Upon completion of the 8th order (motions) of business, the first bill on the calendar of Monday, March 3, 1980, was called up: Senate Bill 62, relating to adding 2 dental hygienists to the dentistry examining board.
Returning to the 8th order from the 11th order (3rd reading of senate of proposals) for further consideration of the motion required a rules suspension.
464 Representative Shabaz moved that the motion to withdraw Assembly Joint Resolution 32 from the committee on Health and Social Services be taken from the table.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that the motion required a suspension of the rules and a two-thirds vote.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and the motion to withdraw Assembly Joint Resolution 32 from the committee on Health and Social Services be taken from the table?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-51, noes-47.] Motion failed [2/3 vote required].
Assembly Journal of March 4, 1980 .......... Page: 2424
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 32 was before the assembly because the previous motion did not require a suspension of the rules and a two-thirds vote.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because the assembly was no longer on the eighth order of business.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 31, 1978 .......... Page: 4276
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 885 may not be placed under the seventh order of business pursuant to Assembly Rule 24 (3) (d).
[Note:] In 1978, the 7th order was "messages from the senate and action thereon".
The issue was clarified in the 1979 rules adoption (A.Res. 7) by the creation of a new order of business, for the "consideration of senate action on proposals approved by the assembly".
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that it has been the practice of the committee on Rules to place Assembly Bills with senate amendments under the seventh order of business. The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 25, 1976 .......... Page: 2174
[Point of order:]
Senator Whittow moved that Senate Bill 500 be considered for action at this time.
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the motion was untimely. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that the motion to consider Senate Bill 500 was not timely as the senate had passed the seventh and eighth orders of business.
465 The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order frivolous and dilatory.
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 500 be considered for action at this time? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-11.] So the motion prevailed.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 18, 1973 .......... Page: 1801
[Proper place of proposal within regular order of business:]
By request of Senator Whittow, with unanimous consent, Senate Bill 555 was laid on the table.
Senator McKenna asked unanimous consent to take up Assembly Bill 178 at this time. Senator Chilsen objected.
[Point of order:]
Senator McKenna raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 178 should have been inserted at this point on the calendar. The chair took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that Assembly Bill 178 should have been on the calendar before Assembly Bill 219 and therefore the point of order was well taken and the bill was before the senate.
Senate Journal of January 25, 1973 .......... Page: 224
[Point of order:]
Senator Johnson raised the point of order that the Senate was still on the eleventh [2nd reading and amendment of senate bills and joint resolutions] order of business.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
By request of Senator Risser, with unanimous consent, the Senate returned to the eleventh order of business.
Pairing agreement: applicability of
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 28, 1974 .......... Page: 2335
[Applicability of "pair".]
Paired for ordering to a third reading - Senator Frank - 1.
Paired against ordering to a third reading - Senator Kendziorski - 1.
So the bill was not ordered to a third reading.
Senator Hollander moved reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Bill 341 failed to be ordered to a third reading.
Senator Hollander asked unanimous consent that the motion for reconsideration be laid over until Tuesday. Senator Lorge objected.
466 Senator Bidwell raised the point of order that the pair between Senators Frank and Kendziorski should apply on the question of reconsideration.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Point of order: appeal of ruling
1 9 9 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 23, 1994 .......... Page: 902
[Point of order:]
Senator Schultz raised the point of order that Senate amendment 5 to Senate Bill 771 [relating to representations in connection with the sale of dairy products, bovine somatotropin and granting rule-making authority] was not germane.
[Note:] The bill was limited to requiring statements concerning the use or nonuse of bovine somatotropin (also known as "rBGH", recombinant bovine growth hormone) to be truthful, prohibiting unsubstantiated claims that milk was produced by cows that had not been administered synthetic bovine somatotropin and prohibiting claims that milk from cows treated with the synthetic hormone is somehow less wholesome.
Sen.Amdt-5 attempted to change the nature of the proposal by placing restrictions on the sale and distribution of dairy products not certified as rBGH-free.
Sen.Amdt-11 (below), which proposed to allow only licensed veterinarians to sell rBGH to milk producers, was not germane as an amendment relating to a specific subject attached to a bill dealing with a different specific subject.
[Section 513 (1) of Mason's Manual expressly states that a tie vote on an appeal from a decision of the chair sustains the decision of the chair.]
The Chair ruled the point well taken.
[Point of order:]
Senator Schultz raised the point of order that Senate amendment 11 was not germane to Senate Bill 771.
The Chair ruled the point well taken. Senator Wineke 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-16, noes-16.] The decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Senate.
Senate Journal of March 23, 1994 .......... Page: 900
[Point of order:]
467 Senator George raised the point of order that Senate Bill 781 [relating to persistent serious felony offenders and providing penalties] does not have a reliable fiscal estimate pursuant to Joint Rule 43 and 49.
