1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 21, 1984 .......... Page: 1003
[Reconsideration motion, time for offering:]
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 999 [relating to regulation of utility advertising practices] be ordered engrossed and read a third time? Motion carried.
503 Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 999 be given a third reading. Representative Plous objected.
Representative Johnson moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 999 be given a third reading.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 999 be given a third reading? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-71, noes-23.] Motion carried.
Representative Gilson asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "Aye" on the previous question. Granted.
Representative Plous moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 999 was ordered to a third reading.
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration was not in order at this time. The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 21, 1984 .......... Page: 1005
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 999 was ordered to a third reading was not in order when offered by Representative Plous, because it was not offered immediately after the vote on engrossment.
Assembly Journal of March 15, 1984 .......... Page: 963
[Time for considering motion for reconsideration:]
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 200 [relating to establishing a system of marital property shared by husband and wife and providing penalties] was not properly before the assembly under Assembly Rule 73, and should be on the calendar of Friday, March 16 rather than the calendar of Thursday, March 15. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
504 [Note:] On Tuesday, 3/13/84, the assembly concurred (with amendments) in Senate Substitute Amendment 1 to 1983 Assembly Bill 200. On Wednesday, 3/14/84, the lady from the 69th entered a motion for reconsideration of that vote of concurrence.
The gentleman from the 42nd raised the point of order that consideration of this motion for reconsideration should be on the calendar for Friday, 3/16/84.
Assembly Rule 73 (3) (a) reads, in part, that "consideration of any other motion for reconsideration of passage or concurrence, entered on the roll call day following the day on which the proposal was passed or concurred in, shall be laid over and placed on the calendar for the first legislative day which occurs at least 2 calendar days after the decision was made" [emphasis supplied].
When an an assembly bill has been amended in the senate and is before the assembly for concurrence in the senate amendment, the assembly's vote is a further "concurrence" bringing the proposal closer to its final passage.
This concurrence vote is no different from an assembly vote to concur in a senate proposal. It is the last step to be taken by the assembly at that stage; barring a motion for reconsideration, there is no further action to be taken by the assembly.
Any motion to reconsider the vote by which the assembly concurs in a senate amendment to a proposal or amendment originating in the assembly is a vote to reconsider "concurrence" within the meaning of Assembly Rule 73 (3) (a), and must be placed on the calendar for the first legislative day which occurs at least 2 calendar days after the decision was made.
Since the assembly's decision to concur in Senate Amendment 1 to 1983 Assembly Bill 200 was made on 3/13/84, the motion to reconsider that vote had to be placed on the calendar for Thursday, 3/15/1984.
Assembly Journal of March 15, 1984 .......... Page: 964
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that Assembly Bill 200 was properly placed on the calendar of Thursday, March 15 under Assembly Rule 73 (3) (a) because the "decision" on concurrence in senate substitute amendment 1, which in effect was concurrence in the bill, was made on Tuesday, March 13. The speaker ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 6, 1984 .......... Page: 845
[Reconsideration motion, when withdrawing permitted:]
Representative R. Thompson asked unanimous consent to withdraw his motion for reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 2 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 56 was rejected.
[Note:] Senate Bill 56 was ordered to the 3rd reading on Wednesday, 2/29/84, A.Jour. p. 813. The attempt to take up 3rd reading immediately failed and the proposal was placed on the calendar for Friday, 3/2/84, under the 11th order. Motions for reconsideration were entered on Thursday, 3/1/84, A.Jour. p. 821.
The request to withdraw one of the reconsideration motions, made on Tuesday, 3/6/84, had to be refused because the time for entering a reconsideration motion had expired.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that request out of order under Assembly Rule 73 (6).
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 5, 1981 .......... Page: 444
[Background: Assembly Bill 235, "relating to sexual activity between consenting adults and revising penalties", was indefinitely postponed on 4/28/81, A.Jour. p. 405, and Rep. Tesmer entered the motion to reconsider that vote on 4/30/81, A.Jour., p. 419. When reconsideration came up on 5/5/81, Rep. Loftus asked unanimous consent (Rep. Shabaz objected) and then moved to table the bill.]
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Rule 74 (2) prohibited a motion to table Assembly Bill 235 at this time because the reconsideration question pending before the assembly was procedural. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
505 [Note:] On 5/7/81, A.Jour. p. 466, Rep. Tesmer was given unanimous consent to withdraw her reconsideration motion on AB 235.
Unanimous consent had the effect of suspending A.Rule 73 (7), which prohibits withdrawing a motion for reconsideration when the time for making the motion has expired.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 24, 1982 .......... Page: 1816
Point of order:
Senator Moody moved reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Bill 789 [relating to return of a public utility's interest in property taken for an abandoned project] was referred to committee on Aging, Business and Financial Institutions and Transportation.
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that the reconsideration motion was not properly before the senate. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 25, 1982 .......... Page: 1841
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Wednesday, March 24, 1982 the Senator from the 3rd, Senator Kleczka, raised the point of order that the motion to reconsider the vote by which Senate Bill 789 was referred to the committee on Aging, Business and Financial Institutions and Transportation made by the Senator from the 9th, Senator Moody, was not proper.
On page 991, Journal of the Senate June 25, 1975, the chair ruled that a motion to withdraw a matter from committee was not subject to reconsideration.
Section 390, paragraph 2, Mason's Manual reads: The motion to refer to committee may not be reconsidered but the matter referred to committee may be withdrawn.
Section 456 of Mason's Manual reads in part: Under the rules of parliamentary law, the procedural motions, such as to recess, to lay on the table and to refer to committee are not subject to reconsideration.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the chair that the motion is not proper and the point of order raised by the Senator from the 3rd, Senator Kleczka, is well taken.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 6, 1980 .......... Page: 2504
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 495 [relating to authorization to relocate a bank's principal office and to continue to operate the former principal office as a branch under certain circumstances] failed to pass could not be made a second time.
506 [Note:] 1979 AB 495, which required a 2/3 vote for passage, had failed to pass (63 to 34) on 2/28. That motion was reconsidered on 3/6 (66 to 29), indefinite postponement was refused (31 ro 65), but passage failed again (60 to 34).
1979 A.Rule 73 (6) read as follows: "The decision on any motion to reconsider is final and may not be reconsidered, but motions to reconsider subsequent decisions on the same proposal, at the same or a later stage, shall be in order if otherwise permitted under this rule".
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the motion proper under Assembly Rule 73 (6) and the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 5, 1979 .......... Page: 704
[Time for reconsideration motion:]
The question was: Shall assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 275 [relating to authorization of Wisconsin credit unions to do business in other states and of foreign credit unions to do business in Wisconsin, and granting rule-making authority] be adopted? Motion carried.
Representative Loftus moved reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 275 was rejected.
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the motion for reconsideration not timely.
Point of order:
Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 275 was timely under Assembly Rule 73.
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 1 to assembly
substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 275 was not timely under Assembly Rule 73 (2). The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of June 28, 1979 .......... Page: 1006
On June 5, 1979 (Assembly Journal, page 704) Representative Shabaz raised the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 275 was not timely under Assembly Rule 73 (2).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because Assembly Rule 73 (2) provides that motions to reconsider final actions on amendments may be entered (1) at any time after such action is taken, on the day the action is taken, while the proposal to which the amendment relates is before the assembly during the second reading stage of consideration; (2) immediately following completion of the second reading stage of the proposal to which it relates if that stage is completed on the same day; (3) during the eighth order of business on the same day the action was taken; and (4) during the eighth order of business on the first legislative day on which a roll call is taken following the day on which the action is taken.
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 2, 1980 .......... Page: 1816
[Banking legislation:]
507 Assembly Bill 495 [relating to authorization to relocate a bank's principal office and to continue to operate the former principal office as a branch under certain circumstances]. Read a third time. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: ayes, 18; noes, 14; absent or not voting, 0; as follows:
Ayes - Senators Adelman, Bablitch, Bear, Berger, Braun, Cullen, Flynn, Frank, Harnisch, Johnston, Kleczka, Lorge, Moody, Risser, Strohl, Swan, Thompson and Van Sistine - 18.
Noes - Senators Bidwell, Chilsen, Goyke, Hanaway, Kreul, Krueger, Lasee, McCallum, Maurer, Offner, Opitz, Radosevich, Roshell and Theno - 14.
Absent or not voting - None.
Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative the bill did not pass.
Senate Journal of April 2, 1980 .......... Page: 1828
[Point of order:]
Senator Lorge moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 495 failed to be concurred in.
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order the motion for reconsideration was not proper because Senator Lorge did not vote with the prevailing side.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of April 2, 1980 .......... Page: 1832
[Point of order:]
Senator Lorge moved that the record on Assembly Bill 495 be expunged.
Senator Flynn raised the point of order that the motion was not properly before the Senate.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of April 2, 1980 .......... Page: 1835
Senator Lorge moved that Assembly Bill 495 be referred to committee on Senate Organization.
The chair ruled the motion was out of order.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 23, 1978 .......... Page: 3992
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of engrossment [of Assembly Bill 1046, relating to application of civil service law to certain law enforcement and fire fighting personnel] was not properly before the assembly because the assembly had failed to consider two amendments before the bill was engrossed on Tuesday, March 21.
Representative Shabaz asked unanimous consent that the record on engrossment of Assembly Bill 1046 be expunged. Granted.
Assembly Journal of March 7, 1978 .......... Page: 3428
