[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.
[Note:] Whether the senate meets in full session or in skeleton session is determined by the calendar prepared for senate consideration by the committee on senate organization under S.Rule 18 (1). Except for a special order set by the two-thirds vote of the senate, a full session cannot be set by motion.
It is interesting to note that this motion was made on 4/20/93 - the day on which the senate, resulting from the April 1993 special elections, reorganized with a Republican majority for the first time since the 1973-74 biennial session.
As part of the reorganization, the committee structure was changed and all proposals still in standing committee were rereferred within the new committee structure.
The Chair [President Rude] ruled him out of order.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1986 .......... Page: 1042
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 23 [relating to further consideration of proposals pending in the assembly] was not privileged and was in conflict with the provisions of the session schedule (Assembly Joint Resolution 1).
[Note:] On 3/26/86 the senate adjourned at 7:12 p.m., thus terminating its participation in floorperiod V under the session schedule. The assembly stayed in session.
At 11:25 p.m., Speaker Loftus offered A.Res.23 to focus assembly procedures on measures that could still be enacted, even with the senate gone. AB 229 on faculty collective bargaining was such a bill: except for a senate amendment, both houses had already agreed to it.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Resolution 23 offered by Representative Loftus.
Representative Loftus moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 229 be withdrawn from the calendar and taken up at this time. [Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Becker moved that the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-79, noes-19.] Motion carried.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 5, 1984 .......... Page: 1151
[Rules committee resolution for special order:]
554 Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that Senate Bill 600 be laid on the table. Representative T. Thompson objected.
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 600 was before the assembly.
[Note:] The Assembly Journal of Thursday, 4/5/84, at 11 a.m., recorded receipt of a Rules Committee report for special order scheduling of 1983 SB 600, "relating to establishing high school graduation standards, granting rule-making authority and making an appropriation".
By unanimous consent (A.Jour. 3/29/84, p. 1093), SB 600 was already a special order for 10:01 a.m. on Wednesday, 4/4/84.
Two amendments to A.Sub. 1, A.Sub.2, and 8 amendments to A.Sub.2, were offered on 4/4/84 (A.Jour., p. 1121) and had to be copied and distributed. This may have bee the reason why SB 600 was not reached on that day.
Whatever the earlier status of SB 600, A.Rule 33 (3) clearly states that a Rules Committee special order resolution .... "shall be taken up and acted upon immediately, ahead of all other proposals then pending".
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that Assembly Resolution 25 [relating to scheduling 1983 Senate Bill 600 as a special order of business] was before the assembly under Assembly Rule 33 (3).
Representative T. Thompson moved rejection of Assembly Resolution 25.
Representative Kunicki in the chair.
The question was: Shall Assembly Resolution 25 be rejected? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-40, noes-59]. Motion failed.
Speaker Loftus in the chair.
The question was: Shall Assembly Resolution 25 be adopted? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-60, noes-39]. Motion carried.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 4, 1982 .......... Page: 3430
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 1, Second April 1982 Special Session, [relating to establishing a special order of business for Tuesday, May 4, 1982] was not properly before the assembly because it did not comply with Assembly Rule 33 (4) and (6) [resolution for special order of business].
[Note:] A special session operates under accelerated procedures which, prior to their codification in A.Rule 93 by 1979 A.Res.7, were enacted in identical form for each special session.
A.Rule 93 (4) states that, in special session, any measure referred to a calendar may be taken up immediately.
555 The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that Assembly Resolution 1 was introduced under Assembly Rule 93 and did not need to comply with the requirements of Assembly Rule 33.
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 18, 1979 .......... Page: 853
[Point of order:]
Senate Bill 79 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1979 legislature, and making appropriations].
Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that consideration of the Item Vetoes [listing] presented to the Chief Clerk be considered the order of the day. Senator Krueger objected.
Senator Krueger asked unanimous consent that Item 2-A be placed at the foot of the calendar. Senator Bablitch objected.
Senator Krueger moved that Item 2-A be placed at the foot of the calendar.
The question was: Shall Item 2-A be placed at the foot of the calendar?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-11, noes-21.] So the motion did not prevail.
