[Note:] A.Amdt.3 proposed, until 1/1/86, a minimum markup on dairy products.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 27, 1983 .......... Page: 550
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 10 to Assembly Bill 7, October 1983 Special Session, was not germane under Assembly Rule 93 (1) [in special session, amendment must fit within call].
[Note:] A.Amdt.10 proposed to exempt "real property used as a cherry or apple orchard" from the property tax.
Representative Johnson withdrew his point of order.
Assembly Journal of October 27, 1983 .......... Page: 542
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 3, October 1983 Special Session [relating to limiting this state's jurisdiction to tax foreign corporations], was not germane under Assembly Rules 93 (1) [in special session, amendment must fit within call] and 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
Representative T. Thompson also rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 3, October 1983 Special Session was not properly before the assembly under Assembly Rule 55 (1) (a) [sequence of considering amendments].
[Note:] The bill was limited to tax nexus for Wisconsin activities by foreign corporations.
A.Sub.1 did not address the area covered by the bill but, rather, proposed cutting the corporate income tax rate from 7.9% to 7.82% for all payers.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the amendment not germane to the special session call and out of order under Assembly Rule 93 (1).
Assembly Journal of October 27, 1983 .......... Page: 542
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 3, October 1983 Special Session [relating to limiting this state's jurisdiction to tax foreign corporations], was not germane under Assembly Rule 93 (1) [in special session, amendment must fit within call].
[Note:] A.Amdt.1 dealt with taxation of the combined income of any interrelated corporations doing business in this state.
574 The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 28, 1982 .......... Page: 3534
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Resolution 1, May 1982 Special Session [requesting the governor to expand the call of the May 1982 special session of the legislature to include proposals relating to restriction of abortions in public hospitals] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) [nature of proposal changed].
[Note:] A.Amdt.1 proposed to change the resolution from a request for expanding the special session to a request for an extraordinary session to be called by the organization committees of the 2 houses.
While the amendment did relate to the operation of the assembly, it did not relate to the "organization of the legislature during the special session" as required by A.Rule 93 (1).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken and the amendment not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) and Assembly Rule 93 (1) [germaneness to special session call].
Representative Thompson appealed the decision of the chair. Representative Thompson asked unanimous consent to withdraw his appeal. Granted.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 25, 1980 .......... Page: 3649
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the language on page 1, lines 18 and 19 of the conference committee report on Assembly Joint Resolution 2, June 1980 Special Session [relating to revising the right to bail and authorizing the legislature to permit circuit courts to deny release on bail for a limited period to certain accused persons (first consideration)] was not germane to the special session call as required by Assembly Rule 93 (1).
575 [Note:] June 1980 AJR 2 had been introduced by the "committee on Assembly Organization, by request of Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus" under paragraph (1) of the governor's proclamation of May 22, 1980, which read:
"(1) Amending Section 8 of Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution to authorize the Legislature by statute to permit circuit courts to deny release on bail for a limited period to certain accused persons."
On June 26, 1980, the governor issued a supplementary call to amend paragraph (1) to read:
"(1) Amending Section 8 of Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution, relating to revising the right to and conditions of bail and authorizing the Legislature, by law, to permit circuit courts to deny release on bail for a limited period to certain accused persons."
The supplementary call permitted introduction of Assembly Joint Resolution 9, June 1980 Special Session, which passed both houses.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken because the language in the conference committee report related to the regulation of bail and was self-executing.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 17, 1976 .......... Page: 2419
[Point of order:]
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 [to senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 2, special session] was not germane to the call by the Governor as stated in his proclamation. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of June 17, 1976 .......... Page: 2420
As it relates to senate amendment 4 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 2, special session, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken. It is not within the jurisdiction of the chair to try and determine whether or not a specific amendment lies within the boundaries of the special call by the Governor.
Substitute amendment: questions of germaneness
1 9 9 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 8, 1994 .......... Page: 735
Point of order:
Representative Kunicki rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 1160 [relating to: the purchase of health care coverage by private employers through a program offered by the group insurance board and requiring the governor to submit legislation to the legislature regarding a universal health care plan; health insurance market reform; and granting rule-making authority] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
576 [Note:] A.Sub-2 substituted changes in the existing health insurance structure for the bill's broad-based approach to health insurance market reform.
Exchanging one group of individual propositions for a different group of individual propositions is, probably, not germane under A.Rule 54 (3) (a).
A.Amdt-15 to A.Sub-1 (below) expanded the scope of the proposal by adding tax-exempt individual employe medical savings accounts as an alternative approach to comprehensive health care financing.
A.Amdt-16 to A.Sub-1 tried to incorporate another unrelated individual proposition, "limiting medical malpractice noneconomic damage awards".
A.Amdt-20 to A.Sub-1 deleted most of the substitute amendment's content and attempted to replace the bill's approach to universal health care under private and group insurance with a basic health insurance plan incorporating medical assistance and general relief.
A.Amdt-22 attempted to prohibit health insurance coverage of nontherapeutic abortions.
A.Amdt-31 attempted to create a new state government agency, the "council on health care fraud and abuse".
The chair (Speaker pro tempore Carpenter) ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 8, 1994 .......... Page: 740
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 15 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1160 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 16 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1160 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 8, 1994 .......... Page: 741
Point of order:
Representative Kunicki rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 20 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1160 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The chair (Speaker pro tempore Carpenter) ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 22 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1160 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The chair (Speaker pro tempore Carpenter) ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 8, 1994 .......... Page: 743
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 31 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1160 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The chair (Speaker pro tempore Carpenter) ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 9 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 16, 1994 .......... Page: 731
[Point of order:]
577 Senator Rosenzweig raised the point of order that Senate amendment 1 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 722 [relating to expanding the small employer
insurance board and renaming it the comprehensive health care board; modified community rating, fair market standards, portability,
preexisting condition exclusions and guarantee issue for individual and certain group health benefit plans; establishing a standard plan; allowing the group insurance board to contract with purchasing coalitions; and granting rule-making authority] is not germane.
[Note:] The original bill and Sen.Sub-1 attempted to provide for comprehensive health care within the existing health insurance framework.
Sen.Amdt-1 to Sen.Sub-1 changed the nature of the proposal by providing, for the present, that certain health care providers cannot refer patients to a health care entity in which the provider has a financial interest and, for the future, by requiring the group insurance board to submit proposed legislation establishing a universal health care plan.
Sen.Sub-2 (below), which provided for an immediate single-payer, publicly financed health care system without containing any of the provisions of the original bill, was not germane because it related to a different subject and was intended to achieve a different purpose than the original proposal.
The Chair ruled the point well taken.
Senate Journal of February 16, 1994 .......... Page: 733
[Point of order:]
Senator Leean raised the point of order that Senate substitute amendment 2 to Senate Bill 722 is not germane.
The Chair ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 17, 1991 .......... Page: 170
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 19 [relating to basic local exchange service offered by large telecommunications utilities] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (b) and (f).
[Note:] Although A.Rule 54 (1) states that the assembly "shall not consider" an amendment or substitute amendment which is not germane (relates to a different subject or intends to accomplish different purpose), the usual procedure is to consider pending amendments to the amendment or substitute because the adoption of an amendment might remove the objectionable parts.
Before reaching the question of adoption on A.Sub.Amdt-2 to 1991 AB 19, the assembly considered 7 amendments to that substitute.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not timely because there were simple amendments to assembly substitute amendment 2 pending. The simple amendments to the substitute amendment must be disposed of before a point of order on that substitute amendment would be in order.
Senate Journal of March 26, 1992 .......... Page: 827
[Point of order:]
Senator Feingold raised the point of order that Senate substitute amendment 2 [to Assembly Bill 180, relating to requiring consent for an unemancipated minor's abortion, informed consent of a woman to her own abortion, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty] is not germane.
[Note:] Following a long session in which the senate adopted S.Amdts 21 and 22 and S.Amdt-27 (as aff. by 4 amendments thereto) to 1991 AB 180 as received from the assembly, S.Sub.Amdt-2 was offered containing only the wording received from the assembly.
Under S.Rule 50 (5), an amendment [or substitute?] "restoring a proposal to its original form" is germane. The point of order may have been raised because the relating clause of S.Sub.Amdt-2 differed from the original bill. It was, however, worded exactly the same as the relating clause shown on the printed engrossed bill.
The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point not well taken.
Senate Journal of February 27, 1992 .......... Page: 685
[Point of order:]
Senator Farrow raised the point of order that Senate amendment 1 to Senate amendment 7 to Senate substitute amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 655, relating to establishing a group health insurance plan for employes of small employers, creating a board to oversee the plan, creating a fund for catastrophic claims and a catastrophic claims fund board, creating an individual income tax deduction for certain medical care insurance costs paid by certain self-employed persons, granting rule-making authority and making an appropriation] was not germane.
The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point well taken.
579 [Note:] As received by the senate in the form of A.Sub.Amdt-2, 1991 AB 655 contained provisions, also contained in the original bill, to create an individual income tax deduction for certain medical care costs. The provisions were not contained in S.Sub.Amdt-1 offered by the Special Select Committee on Health Care Access and Affordability.
S.Amdt-7 to S.Sub.Amdt-1 attempted to insert the income tax deduction into the substitute amendment. Although perhaps offered as "an amendment restoring a proposal to its original form" [germane under S.Rule 50 (5)], S.Amdt-7 was in reality a nongermane expansion of the scope of S.Sub.Amdt-1.
Senate Am-1 to S.Amdt-7 dealt with an entirely different subject: reducing the capital gains tax on assets held more than 3 years. It may have been offered in the mistaken assumption that an amendment to an amendment would be germane, regardless of its content, as long as it affects only the statute section, subsection and paragraph affected by the original amendment.
[Point of order:]
