The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-12, noes-16.] Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative the motion did not prevail.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 9, 1974 .......... Page: 71
Senator Johnson moved that the question of merger implementation be made the first order of business on the calendar for the 1975 legislative session.
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that this legislature could not determine the business of the 1975 session.
549 The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of March 29, 1974 .......... Page: 2656
[Point of order:]
Senator McKenna raised the point of order that Senate Joint Resolution 127 [to postpone the recess date for floorperiod IV] was privileged and should be before the senate, not in committee. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 29, 1974 .......... Page: 2746
[Ruling of the chair:]
As it relates to Senate Joint Resolution 127, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that it was a privileged resolution.
Senate Journal of October 2, 1973 .......... Page: 1575
[Point of order:]
[On 10/2/73, the Senate was on the calendar for 5/11/73.] Senate Resolution 19, "to amend senate rule 7 (2), relating to the time for rendering a decision on points of order taken under advisement". Read.
Senator Keppler raised the point of order that Senate Resolution 19, pursuant to senate rule 90, was not properly taken up earlier. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of October 2, 1973 .......... Page: 1581
[Ruling of the chair:]
As it relates to the point of order raised on Senate Resolution 19, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that one week did indeed mean seven days and not seven legislative calendar days. As these bills must go somewhere, it is necessary that the chief clerk put the bill on a calendar, but after one week (seven days) the bill would be considered privileged and could be taken up by a majority of the members present.
Therefore, pursuant to senate rule 90, the chair ruled the point of order well taken.
By request of Senator Petri, with unanimous consent, Senate Resolution 19 was laid on the table.
Senate Journal of January 16, 1973 .......... Page: 69
[Adoption of senate rules at beginning of session:]
Senator Johnson moved that Senate Resolution 7 [relating to adopting the rules of the senate, as observed at the conclusion of the 1971 regular session of the senate, with the modifications indicated, as the rules of the 1973 Wisconsin senate] be made a special order of business at 10:15 A.M. January 17, 1973.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that because Resolution 7 changed the rules of the senate it would lay over. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of January 18, 1973 .......... Page: 164
[Point of order:]
Senator Johnson asked unanimous consent that Senate Resolution 7 be made a special order of business at 10:00 A.M., Tuesday, January 23.
550 Senator Risser raised the point of order that the resolution was not before the senate as the president had the resolution under advisement.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of January 23, 1973 .......... Page: 200
[Motion ruled out of order:]
Senator Johnson moved that in as much as a week having elapsed that Senate Resolution 7, which had been under advisement by the chair, was before us and should be acted on.
The chair ruled the motion out of order.
Senator Johnson moved that the question be placed before the Senate.
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that under rule 89, under the last adopted rules, this motion was out of order. The chair took this point of order under advisement.
Senator Johnson moved that this question be placed before the Senate.
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that the motion was out of order. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Point of order:]
Senator Johnson raised the point of order that the Senate was operating with no rules as the rules had not been adopted. The chair did not rule on this point of order.
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that the Senate was operating by precedent on the last adopted Senate rules adopted in 1969. The chair did not rule on this point of order.
[Point of order:]
Senator Knowles raised the point of order that according to Section 576 of Masons Manual:
When the presiding officer attempts to thwart the purpose of his office the power resides in the house to pass him by and proceed to action otherwise ....
The chair did not rule on this point of order.
By request of Senator Risser, with unanimous consent, the senate recessed until 11:55 A.M.
RECESS 11:55A.M.
The senate reconvened.
By request of Senator Johnson, with unanimous consent, he withdrew all his motions and points of order on Senate Resolution 7.
By request of Senator Risser, with unanimous consent, he withdrew all his points of order on Senate Resolution 7.
Senate Journal of January 24, 1973 .......... Page: 214
[Ruling of the chair:]
551 On Tuesday, January 16, 1973, following the calling of the senate to order at 2:00 o'clock p.m., Senate Resolution 7, consisting of 53 pages, was introduced to the Senate by Senators Johnson and Knowles. Senate Resolution 7, relating to adopting the rules of the
Senate, as observed at the conclusion of the 1971 regular session of the senate, with the modifications indicated, as the rules of the 1973 Wisconsin Senate.
Following the introduction of Senate Resolution 7 relating to rule changes, Senator Johnson moved that Senate Resolution 7 be made a special order of business at 10:15 a.m. on January 17, 1973.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that because Senate Resolution 7 changed the rules of the Senate, it should lay over. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
The analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau of Senate Resolution 7 as submitted by Senators Johnson and Knowles sets forth "the rules of the Wisconsin Senate were last adopted by the Senate in 1969. During the 1971 regular session, the Senate rules were observed and Senate Rule 41 (1) was specifically amended by 1971 Senate Resolution 13, but no formal action was taken to adopt the Senate rules. "The resolution provides for the formal adoption of the Senate rules by the 1973 Wisconsin Senate. Many rules are continued; i.e. adopted in the form in which they were observed at the conclusion of the 1971 regular session.
A few rules are new, and several others are amended based on the text observed in 1971. This analysis of the proposed rule changes as supplied by the Legislative Reference Bureau and submitted by Senators Johnson and Knowles clearly sets forth the position of the Senators as what, in fact, the situation was when no new rules were adopted for the 1971 legislative session - that situation being that the Senate would continue to operate under the "old" rules until new rules were adopted.
It is difficult to dispute the analysis of the Legislative Reference Bureau as submitted by Senators Johnson and Knowles that the 1969 rules carried over in force and effect in the 1971 session until new rules were adopted. Upon any organization of the legislative session there must and should be rules to establish method, procedure, and decorum to allow the legislative body to function. Based on precedence, then, the rules of the last legislative session would therefore be in full force and effect until new rules are created or old rules amended. Should this not be the case, and should any Senator have not thought this to be the case, he would have been heard to object to the following of the orders of business, to the introduction of legislation, to the introduction of resolutions, to the very seating of the Senate body itself.
Under each and every rule change which governs the operation of a legislative body, all members of that legislative body have a right to be fully appraised of the content and results of any general or specific rule change. It is with this basic theory that Senate Rule 89 dealing with creating, amending, or repealing, rules was adopted by the members of the 1969 Wisconsin Senate.
That rule clearly sets forth, and I quote, "(1) Senate rules may be created, amended, or repealed by resolution. Any such resolution shall set forth the precise detail of the proposed creation, amendment, or repeal. Any such resolution shall lay over one week."
The ruling of the chair, therefore, on the point of order raised by Senator Risser is well taken as there can be no dispute in the precise, clear language of Senate Rule 89 - "any such resolution shall lay over one week."
Senate Journal of January 24, 1973 .......... Page: 216
[Point of order:]
Senator McKenna raised the point of order that Senate Resolution 7 was not before the Senate as it had not laid over for 7 days.
552 The chair ruled the point of order not well taken. Senate Resolution 7 [relating to adopting the rules of the senate, as observed at the conclusion of the 1971 regular session of the senate, as the rules of the 1973 Wisconsin senate]. Read.
Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Resolution 7 Resolved by the senate, That the rules observed at the conclusion of the 1971 regular session of the senate - consisting of the senate rules adopted by 1969 Senate Resolution 16, as modified by 1969 Senate Resolution 10 and 1971 Senate Resolution 13 - be and they are hereby adopted as the rules of the 1973 Wisconsin Senate.
Offered by Senators McKenna and Peloquin.
Senator Chilsen asked unanimous consent to consider senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Resolution 7 for action at this time. Senator McKenna objected.
Senator McKenna moved that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Resolution 7 be considered for action at this time. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-17, noes-14.] Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the motion did not prevail.
Senate Journal of January 24, 1973 .......... Page: 217
[Point of order:]
Senator Johnson raised the point of order that pursuant to Senate Rule 69 Senate Resolution 7 would not lay over.
The chair did not rule on the point of order.
Separation of powers
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 25, 1982 .......... Page: 2377
[Background: Representative Ladwig moved that the committee on Assembly Organization be directed to investigate the possibility of using the Legislative Hotline to allow persons to contact the governor]
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order.
The speaker took the point of order under advisement. [It appears that no ruling was given.]
Special order: scheduling proposal as
1 9 9 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 20, 1993 .......... Page: 160
[Motion to hold session not calendared by organization committee:]
553 Senator Chvala moved that the Senate meet in full session on Thursday, April 22 at 10:00 A.M.
