Senate substitute amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 58, relating to eligibility of employes affected by lockouts for unemployment compensation benefits] offered by Senator Harsdorf.
The question was: Adoption of senate substitute amendment 1?
Senator Theno raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane.
[Note:] While the bill provided unemployment compensation benefits for employes affected by lockouts (thus deciding an issue), S.Sub.1 substituted a study by the council on unemployment compensation (with a possible report one year later).
In terms of deciding the issue itself, adoption of the substitute would have had the same effect (maintaining the status quo) as defeat of the bill. Consequently, the substitute attempted to "totally alter the nature of the original proposal" in violation of S.Rule 50 (1), and in violation of the rights of the authors of the proposal to have the issue considered and decided on its merits.
The approach was a common procedural error: if the legislature requires more information to decide an issue, then it is appropriate to re-refer the proposal to a standing committee for that information, but it is not appropriate to change the nature of the proposal itself. For a joint interim study by the 2 houses, the proper vehicle is a joint resolution requesting the legislative council to study the subject matter of the proposal.
(It appears that there has not been a contrary ruling since 7/18/63 [see Sen.Jour. p. 1620]. At that time, pres. pro tem. Sen. Frank Panzer had allowed a substitute amendment replacing decision with study, but the senate then rejected the substitute.)
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
521 1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 25, 1982 .......... Page: 2370
[Background:]
Representative Paulson moved that Senate Bill 150 [relating to changes in the regulation of motor carriers and granting rule-making authority] be re-referred to the committee on Rules.
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 150 be re-referred to the committee on Rules?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-34, noes-60.] Motion failed.
Representative Kincaid moved that Senate Bill 150 be referred to the committee on Agriculture and Nutrition.
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 150 be referred to the committee on Agriculture and Nutrition?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-37, noes-58.] Motion failed.
Representative Knox moved that Senate Bill 150 be re-referred to the committee on Rules.
[A.Rule 72:] When a motion to postpone to a day or time certain, to postpone indefinitely or to refer to a specific standing or special committee has failed, it shall not be allowed again on the same day at the same stage in the consideration of that proposal.
The speaker [page 2372] ruled the motion out of order under Assembly Rule 72.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 1, 1982 .......... Page: 1954
Point of order:
Senator Chilsen moved that Senate Bill 533 be withdrawn from joint committee on Finance and referred to committee on Senate Organization.
Senator Bablitch moved to amend the motion of Senator Chilsen to refer Senate Bill 533 to committee on Aging, Business and Financial Institutions and Transportation.
Senator Flynn raised the point of order that the senator from the 29th's motion is not amendable. The chair took the point of order under advisement. [No further action.]
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]:
522 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 January 24, 1980 .......... Page: 1906
[Background:] Representative D. Travis moved that Assembly Bill 1065 [relating to injury by improper use of a noxious substance and providing a penalty] be referred to the committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety.
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 1065 be referred to the committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-42, noes-52.] Motion failed.
Representative D. Travis moved that Assembly Bill 1065 be referred to the committee on Veterans and Military Affairs.
Point of order:
Representative Donoghue rose to the point of order that the motion was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
The chair [Rep. Kirby] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 1065 be referred to the committee on Veterans and Military Affairs?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-37, noes-59.] Motion failed.
Representative Ferrall moved that Assembly Bill 1065 be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance.
Point of order:
Representative Donoghue rose to the point of order that the motion was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
The chair [Rep. Kirby] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 1065 be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-37, noes-58.] Motion failed.
Assembly Journal of October 25, 1979 .......... Page: 1581
[Background: Representative Prosser moved that Assembly Bill 744, relating to strip searches and providing a penalty, be referred to the committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety. Motion failed; other intervening business.]
523 Representative Prosser moved that Assembly Bill 744 be referred to the committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety.
[Repetitive motion:]
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the motion out of order because that motion had previously been made.
Representative Shabaz moved that Assembly Bill 744 be referred to the committee on State Affairs.
Point of order:
Representative Ferrall rose to the point of order that the motion was out of order under Assembly Rule 69 (1).
[Note:] The prohibition against repetitive referral motions is imposed under A.Rule 72, but applies only to repetitive motions for referral to "a specific standing or special committee .... on the same day at the same stage in the consideration" of the proposal.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Report of standing committee, questions concerning
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 25, 1986 .......... Page: 754
Point of order:
Representative Foti rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 32 [relating to eliminating the boards of natural resources, of agriculture, trade and consumer protection and of veterans affairs and changing the departments of natural resources, of agriculture, trade and consumer protection and of veterans affairs to a cabinet form of government headed by a secretary, changing the method of removal of state officers, and creating councils] was improperly before the assembly because it had been acted on by the committee on State Affairs in violation of Assembly Rule 12 on October 16, 1985.
[Note:] A.Rule 12 provides that, "except for conference committees, no committee may meet while the assembly is in session". Rep. Foti was a member of the committee on State Affairs.
The official committee report on the bill (A.Jour. 1/30/86, p. 620) merely shows the committee vote for concurrence (6 to 4). Neither the committee report, nor the journal for 10/16/85, give any indication that the committee on State Affairs met in violation of A.Rule 12.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 709
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that Senate Bill 663 [relating to the individual and corporate surtaxes, the homestead credit, the required general fund balance, reducing the bonding authority for highway projects, income tax exemptions, income and franchise tax deductions for intercorporate dividends and for insurers' loss carry-backs, property tax statements, the definition of the internal revenue code for purposes of the income, franchise, inheritance and minimum taxes, required health insurance coverage, income tax exemptions, utility taxes on telephone companies, decreasing the primary guaranteed valuation, providing penalties and making an appropriation] was not properly before us due to an improper report from the Joint Survey committee on Tax Exemptions.
[Note:] A like point was subsequently raised in the assembly. According to the assembly journal (p.984; 3/20/84), the challenge alleged that "the report .... was not approved by a majority of the committee".
However (see Sen.Jour. 3/13/84, p. 697), the report had been approved and signed by both cochairs of the committee.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 16, 1976 .......... Page: 2026
[Point of order:]
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that the bill [Senate Bill 301, relating to changing the property tax assessment date to January 1] was not properly before the senate as the committee report was not accurate.
[Note:] The standing committee on Governmental and Veterans Affairs of the 1975 Senate had 5 members. In the committee report (p. 2002), the entries for all other bills show that 5 members voted; for 1975 Senate Bill 301, the entry was typed: "Passage; Ayes, 3; Noes,0."
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Retirement benefits bill: 3/4 vote on passage
1 9 8 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 26, 1989 .......... Page: 198
[Point of order:]
525 Senator Stitt raised the point of order that according to Article 4, Section 26 of the Wisconsin state constitution, a 3/4 vote is required to pass Senate Bill 148 [relating to the
Wisconsin retirement system, fixed retirement investment trusts, transferring funds, and the applicability of laws governing certain public employe benefits to state employes who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement].
The Chair ruled the point not well taken and will spread its opinion upon the journal.
Senate Journal of September 27, 1989 .......... Page: 403
Ruling of the chair:
On April 26, 1989, the Senator from the 20th, Senator Stitt, raised the point of order that in accordance with Article IV, Section 26, of the Wisconsin State Constitution, Senate Bill 148 required a three-fourths majority of all members elected (25) to pass. The President of the Senate, Senator Fred A. Risser ruled that the point of order was not well taken. The Senator from the 20th with unanimous consent requested that the President publish a written decision in the Journal.
