The chair [Rep. Rogers] ruled the motion out of order.
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that Representative Andrea could not combine the motion to arise with a recommendation for a report to the assembly.
The chair [Rep. Rogers] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Representative Norquist appealed the ruling of the chair. The chair [Rep. Rogers] ruled the appeal out of order because it would require a roll call which was not allowed under Assembly Rule 8 (1).
Representative Miller asked unanimous consent that Representative Andrea's motion be amended so that the suspension of Representative Hauke's office allowance be lifted immediately and that Representative Hauke make arrangements within 60 days to reimburse the assembly $549.70. Granted.
The question was: Shall the assembly arise and report to the assembly the following recommendation: that the suspension of Representative Hauke's office allowance be lifted immediately and that Representative Hauke make arrangements within 60 days to reimburse the assembly $549.70? Motion carried.
51Compensation: no increase after service rendered (art. IV, sec. 26)
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 1, 1982 .......... Page: 3228
Point of order:
Representative Duren rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 418 [to authorize and direct release of a sum sufficient from moneys appropriated to the university of Wisconsin system for payment of a claim against the state made by John C. Weaver] was not properly before the assembly under Article IV, Section 26, of the Wisconsin Constitution.
Assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 418 offered by Representative Jackamonis.
[Note:] Although the Weaver claim had been recommended by the Claims Board, the Retirement Systems jt. surv. com. report raised constitutional questions. Attorney General La Follette ruled (12/24/81; 70 OAG 266) that, while the Board of Regents had lacked the legal authority to contract for deferred compensation, Pres. Weaver had subsequently worked believing in the agreement and, on equitable if not legal principles, the Legislature could honor the Weaver claim. A.Amdt.1, offered on 4/1/82, briefly reiterated the holding of the attorney general's opinion.
The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] ruled the point of order not timely because amendment 1 was offered.
Representative Roberts moved rejection of assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 418.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 418 be rejected?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-64, noes-29.] Motion carried.
Representative Duren renewed her point of order on Senate Bill 418. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of April 1, 1982 .......... Page: 3234
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order raised by Representative Duren on Senate Bill 418 not well taken because a statement of legislative findings, stating that 1) the payment of the claim was based on equitable principles rather than a legally enforceable contract, and 2) the salary was earned, was not required in the bill.
Concurrence in amendment by other house: permitted procedures
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1992 .......... Page: 931
Point of order:
52 Representative Fortis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 [relating to limits on wrongful death actions for loss of society and companionship] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e) and (g).
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Krug under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 was not substantially similar to a previously adopted assembly amendment.
The chair ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Fortis under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (g) because it is appropriate to consider an assembly amendment to a senate amendment to an Assembly Bill already passed by the assembly.
The chair ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Fortis under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e), because, had the assembly not considered an amendment when Assembly Bill 388 was originally in the assembly to limit the awards of wrongful death actions, an assembly amendment modifying the senate action would be in order. However, because the assembly previously took a position on limitations, the assembly must either accept the senate amendment to modify the assembly position, or adhere to the assembly position and nonconcur in the senate amendment.
53 [Note:] The reference to A.Rule 54 (3) (g) was inappropriate. That rule, speaking to bills for which amendments are prohibited by law, may be obsolete. Amendments to amendments are covered by A.Rule 52 (2).
When the assembly amended 1991 AB 388 before passage, A.Amdt-2, which raised the wrongful death award ceiling from $50,000 to $100,000, was ruled a nongermane expansion of the proposal because it included under the new ceiling the amount of any medical malpractice award. The assembly then adopted A.Amdt-1 (as aff. by Am-1 to Am-1), raising the ceiling on wrongful death awards from $50,000 to $250,000.
The ruling had removed A.Amdt-2 from consideration and vote by the assembly. Consequently, although the new A.Amdt-1 to S.Amdt-1 had some of the same ingredients as the earlier A.Amdt-2, it was not an amendment substantially similar to an amendment "already acted upon" by the assembly [nongermane under A.Rule 54 (3) (c)].
In adopting A.Amdt-1 to AB 388 as affected by Am-1 to A.Amdt-1, the assembly had rejected a $100,000 ceiling on wrongful death awards, and had passed a $250,000 ceiling. The senate, by S.Amdt-1 to AB 388, had lowered the proposed ceiling to $150,000.
Considering concurrence in S.Amdt-1, the assembly could: 1) adhere to its earlier position ($250,000, nonconcur in the senate amendment); 2) accept the senate position ($150,000, concur in the senate amendment); or 3) propose a compromise between the 2 positions by an amendment that would be germane not only to S.Amdt-1 but also to AB 388 as passed by the assembly [A.Rule 54 (5)].
Any assembly amendment for a dollar figure lower than the amount proposed by the senate and also lower than the amount earlier agreed to by the
assembly negated the effect of the assembly's earlier action and was therefore nongermane under A.Rule 54 (3) (e). Both of the assembly amendments to S.Smdt-1 proposed to lower the ceiling to $100,000 (as indexed for inflation).
In addition, A.Amdt-1 to S.Amdt-1 again proposed to bring medical malpractice awards under the dollar ceiling for wrongful death awards, which was a nongermane expansion of the senate amendment under A.Rules 54 (3) (f) and (5).
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1992 .......... Page: 931
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e).
The chair ruled the point of order well taken for the same reasons stated in the previous ruling. The assembly already acted on a similar assembly amendment when the bill originally was before the assembly and [A.Amdt-2 to S.Amdt-1] is not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e).
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 17, 1988 .......... Page: 676
Point of order:
Representative Radtke rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 299 [relating to various changes in the campaign finance law] was required to be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance under section 13.093 of the Wisconsin Statutes because of the adoption of senate amendment 3 by the senate.
[Note:] S.Amdt.3 proposed to increase, from $1 to $2, the permissible income tax liability check-off for the Wisconsin election campaign fund.
While there are frequent questions concerning the need for Joint Finance referral of proposals acquiring a fiscal effect by amendment, in this instance the question was premature.
Following the ruling, all 97 members of the Assembly present voted to nonconcur in the S.Amdt.3. The bill went to conference, and the Senate receded from its position on the amendment as part of the conference report.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely because final action on senate amendment 3 had not been taken by the legislature.
Assembly Journal of October 29, 1987 .......... Page: 514
[The question was "shall senate amdt.1 to AB 462 be concurred in?"]:
Representative Walling moved 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 referred to the committee on Rules.
54 [Note:] Only proposals (bills, joint resolutions, resolutions) are referred to committee; see A.Rules 42 and 45.
Amendments or substitutes offered in the house of origin while the proposal is still in committee are forwarded to the committee for filing with the proposal.
Although Mason's Manual (sec. 766.3, 1989 ed.) says that "it is proper for a house, upon receiving an amended bill with a request to concur, to refer the message with the bill to a committee for consideration and a report upon concurrence", Wisconsin practice is to refer the amended proposal directly to calendar.
In the Senate, S.Rule 41 (2) clearly addresses the issue: .... "Questions of .... concurrence in amendments of the other house .... may be placed on the table but shall in no case be referred to any committee."
In the Assembly, A.Rule 31 (6) serves the same purpose by providing for an order of business reserved for "consideration of senate action on proposals approved by the assembly".
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that the motion to refer to committee was not in order when the question before the assembly was consideration of senate amendments.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1986 .......... Page: 994
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson moved reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 23 to Senate Bill 120 [relating to campaign financing, providing a penalty and making an appropriation] was laid on the table. Entered.
Representative Prosser moved nonconcurrence in senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 23 to Senate Bill 120.
The question was: Shall senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 23 to Senate Bill 120 be nonconcurred in? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-48, noes-50.] Motion failed.
Representative R. Travis rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 120 was required to be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance under section 13.093 (1) of the Wisconsin Statutes.
[Note:] For a bill requiring referral to the joint fiance committee, the point of order would be timely in conjunction with the vote on passage or concurrence. The statutory rule requires only one referral between the 2 houses.
The history of SB 120 shows that the bill was referred to joint finance (dipped) in the senate (Sen.Jour. 6/13/85, p. 232).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not timely.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 18, 1983 .......... Page: 439
Point of order:
55 Representative Plewa rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 26 [relating to liability for nonmoving traffic violations with rented or leased vehicles] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 26 which was previously considered by the assembly.
[Note:] This was a misapplication of A.Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided]. The assembly had adopted A.Sub.3, A.Jour. 5/24/83, p. 226.
Once rejected, an "amendment as it affects a proposal" stays adversely disposed of for the biennial session; see A.Rule 49.
The substance of an assembly amendment to a senate amendment or substitute must be germane to the senate document, but A.Rule 54 (3) (c) does not prevent the assembly from adhering to its prior position on the issue.
The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of October 18, 1983 .......... Page: 442
Representative Rogers asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 26 be withdrawn and returned to the author. Granted.
Assembly Journal of June 23, 1983 .......... Page: 283
[Division of question: under unanimous consent, division of senate amendment to assembly amendment to senate bill was allowed notwithstanding A.Rules 52 and 80]
[Note:] The prohibition against amendments in the 3rd degree applies only to the amending process within the Assembly, and "simple amendment" means an Assembly amendment:
A.Rule 52 (2) (intro.) Amendments to amendments may be offered but amendments in the 3rd degree shall not be accepted.
A.Rule 80 (2) If it is the opinion of the chair that the proposed division of a simple amendment is unduly complex or the purpose of the division can be more clearly or simply accomplished by amendment, or that a call for a division is being used as a substitute for a series of amendments, the question shall not be divided.
[Note:] Because senate amendments to assembly proposals or amendments are to be treated like proposals for the purpose of further amending, division is inappropriate:
A.Rule 52 (2) (b) Senate amendments presented to the assembly for concurrence are proposals for purposes of this rule and, therefore, an amendment to a simple amendment to a senate amendment is in order.
A.Rule 80 (4) Bills, joint resolutions, resolutions and substitute amendments may not be divided.
Representative T. Thompson asked unanimous consent for the following division of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1983 legislature, and making appropriations]. Granted.
56 Part 1: Campaign Financing
page 4, lines 6 through 29.
Part 2: Shared Revenue
page 11, lines 6 through 22.
Part 3: WISPTR
page 11, lines 23 through 37.
page 12, lines 1 through 31.
Part 4: Reapportionment
page 1, line 2.
page 4, line 5.
page 9, lines 36 and 37.
Part 5: Judicial Commission/Ethics Board
page 4, line 30.
Part 6: Balance of the amendment.
Representative Goodrich moved nonconcurrence in part 1 of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83.
The question was: Shall part 1 of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 be nonconcurred in? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-44, noes-51.] Motion failed.
The question was: Shall part 1 of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 be concurred in? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-52, noes-44.] Motion carried.
Representative T. Thompson moved nonconcurrence in part 2 of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83.
Point of order:
Representative Hauke rose to the point of order that a division of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 was not proper under Assembly Rule 80.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 23, 1983 .......... Page: 268
