Senator Adelman raised the point of order that Senate substitute amendment 2 [to Senate Bill 128, relating to the authority of cities, villages and counties to enact and enforce ordinances in the areas of drug paraphernalia and marijuana possession] is not germane. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of May 7, 1991 .......... Page: 232
[Ruling on the point of order:]
On Tuesday, April 30, the Senator from the 28th, Senator Adelman, raised a point of order that Senate Substitute Amendment 2 to Senate Bill 128 was not germane. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
The original bill as introduced relates to the adoption of ordinances by local units of government relating to drug paraphernalia and marijuana possession.
Senate Substitute Amendment 2 would amend current state statutes as they relate to drug paraphernalia. It is the opinion of the Chair that Senate Bill 128 relates directly to the =_authority of local units of government as it relates to the adoption of ordinances. Senate Substitute Amendment 2 is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a title essentially different and would totally alter the nature of the original proposal. This is in direct violation of Senate Rule 50.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that Senate Substitute Amendment 2 is non-germane and that the point of order raised by the Senator from the 28th, Senator Adelman is well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
Senator Ellis appealed the ruling of the Chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-14.] The decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Senate.
Senate Journal of May 7, 1991 .......... Page: 233
[Point of order:]
Senator Adelman raised the point of order that Senate substitute amendment 3 [to Senate Bill 128] was not germane.
[Note:] S.Sub.Amdt-2, held not germane above, was actually a copy of S.Sub.Amdt-3 to 1991 SB 128 which, according to its LRB number, had been drafted earlier. Except for a difference in the relating clause, the 2 substitutes were identical.
580 The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point well taken.
1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of November 10, 1989 .......... Page: 525
Point of order:
Representative Travis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 15 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 12, Oct. 1989 Spec. Sess. [relating to grants to school districts; grants to vocational, technical and adult education districts; grants for before-school, after-school and summer school programs and services; head start programs and head start day care programs; grants to limit violence and abuse of controlled substances in neighborhoods; community-based efforts to prevent drug and alcohol abuse; distribution of information with marriage licenses; foster grandparent program; grants for certain community-wide activities to combat alcohol and other drug abuse; drug abuse prevention and education program grants for American Indians; youth aids allocations; children-in-crisis program; treatment programs and other services to certain families and training of health care professionals and other social service workers; the treatment alternative program; domestic abuse shelter programs; day treatment for Hispanic persons and establishing a Spanish language center for day treatment; providing funds to counties for alcohol and other drug abuse treatment programs; imposing a tax on controlled substances and allocating the revenue; declaring a building or structure used in illegal drug manufacture or delivery a nuisance and subject to abatement and sale; expanding
the Kettle Moraine correctional institution, granting bonding authority and revising the 1989-91 state building program; establishing a challenge incarceration program; toll-free hotlines and reward programs; establishing a state crime laboratory in Wausau; establishing a home detention program; probationers and parolees; treatment programs for prisoners; payments to counties for persons held pending disposition of probation or parole revocation; community corrections treatment programs; services for women probationers and parolees; juvenile correctional institutions and youth aids; an early intervention program for high-risk youths; an intensive aftercare pilot program; drug law enforcement; grants to local law enforcement agencies; grants to cities and counties for payment of law enforcement costs; funding drug identification and interdiction; circuit court branches; granting rule-making authority; providing penalties; and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
581 [Note:] AB 12, Oct. 1989 Spec.Sess., in its relating clause listed 37 different subjects. "Community equity funding", the subject of A.Amdt-15 was not among them. Consequently, A.Amdt-15 expanded the scope of the multi-issue proposal, and was not germane.
A.Sub.Amdt-1 to Oc9-AB 12 (below) was the joint finance committee's substitute for the bill. Its relating clause listed 48 subjects.
Although a proposal's title is often helpful information in determining the germaneness of an amendment, and the change from 37 to 48 subjects easily created the suspicion that A.Sub.Amdt-1 might represent a substantial expansion of the proposal's scope. However, the final decision must be based on the content of the proposal itself.
The broad purpose of the bill was to deal with drug abuse and illegal drugs. Of the bill's 37 subjects, 6 were not referenced in the title of the joint finance substitute - generally, they reappeared in about a dozen phrases indicating that the substitute accomplished "the same purpose in a different manner [germane; A.Rule 54 (4) (b)].
Several of the new phrases in the title of the substitute dealt with a study, an audit, or even a "task force" - all intended to monitor the performance of the new programs on drug abuse and illegal drugs. Others dealt with the specifics of program administration (creating a division of narcotics and dangerous drugs; hotline for perinatal referral and information; state standards for drug abuse treatment programs) or with a consequence of illegal drugs convictions (immunity for forced testimony; selling property seized in drug arrests). Amendments "relating only to particularized details" are germane [A.Rule 54 (4) (e)].
Finally, each of the subjects included in the substitute amendment also had to fit, and did fit, within the special session agenda set by Gov. Tommy Thompson proclamation convening the special session (A.Jour. 10/10/89, p. 343).
Assembly Journal of November 10, 1989 .......... Page: 528
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 12, Oct. 1989 Spec. Sess., was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of November 7, 1989 .......... Page: 460
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 81 [relating to reducing, by income tax credits or by payments from state revenues, property taxes on residential property as defined by law (first consideration)] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3). The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] When originally introduced, the uniformity clause exception proposed by 1989 AJR 81 read as follows:
The legislature may reduce property taxes imposed upon residential property, as defined by law, by authorizing credits against income taxes imposed by this state or payments from state revenues.
From the discussions concerning 1989 AJR 81, it seems likely that "residential property, as defined by law", was intended to include the primary residence of every resident of this state. But, some people felt that residential property might be understood to mean housing only in residential areas, and Rep. Wineke's Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 expanded the phrase to read "residential and agricultural real property, as defined by law" so as to express that residential property, as defined by law, will qualify for property tax relief both in municipalities and on farms.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Prosser that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 81 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
Assembly Journal of November 2, 1989 .......... Page: 440
Point of order:
Representative M. Coggs rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 569 [relating to extended kindergarten and first grade programs in a 1st class city school district] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
[Note:] The bill allocated, from the school aids received by the Milwaukee school district, $192,500 for extended-day kindergarten programs for 3-, 4- and 5-year olds and an extended first grade program for 6-year olds. These were pilot programs to be provided by the Milwaukee school district.
A.Sub.Amdt-1 changed the nature of the proposal by taking $1,000,000 from Milwaukee's school aids to finance a "choice" program in which parents would designate the licensed or certified private day care center to provide the extended-day care for their child.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 25, 1989 .......... Page: 392
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 381 [relating to county ordinances that are the same as or similar to state theft, retail theft and battery laws] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3). The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] The bill authorized counties to enact ordinances restating state criminal law on battery, theft and retail theft.
A.Sub.Amdt-1 expanded the scope - nongermane under A.Rule 54 (3) (f) - by adding 2 crimes to the 3 enumerated in the proposal: damage to property and resisting or obstructing an officer.
Ruling of the chair [p. 406]:
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Krug on Wednesday, October 25 that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 381 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
Assembly Journal of October 11, 1989 .......... Page: 348
Point of order:
Representative Barrett rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 433 [relating to the recommendations made by planning councils under the special transfer program to reduce racial imbalance] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
583 The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
[Note:] 1989 AB 433 was limited to the deletion of "socioeconomic" factors from the array of factors to be considered by planning councils of Milwaukee county school districts in making recommendations to their respective school boards for pupil transfers from one attendance area to another so as to reduce racial imbalance.
A.Sub.Amdt. 1 did not affect planning council procedures. Instead, the substitute proposed a list of 8 criteria and required that any pupil transferred from one attendance area to another meet at least 3 of the criteria. The substitute was not germane because it totally altered the nature of the proposal.
A.Amdt-1 (below) attempted to add the content of A.Sub.Amdt. 1 to the original bill. Under A.Rule 54 (3) (a), an amendment to add one individual proposition to a different individual proposition is not germane.
Point of order (p. 349):
Representative Barrett rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 433 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 19, 1988 .......... Page: 1116
Point of order:
Representative Hauke rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 598 [relating to the homestead credit, farmland preservation credit, school property tax credit, vocational, technical and adult education incentive grants and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] The bill proposed to give property tax relief through changes in the school property tax credit, the farmland preservation credit and VTAE incentive grants.
A.SubAmdt.1 proposed a completely different approach to property tax relief by state assumption of teachers' salaries funded by eliminating the school property tax credit and increasing the sales tax from 5% to 6%.
A.Rule 54 (1) identifies as not germane a substitute amendment "which would totally alter the nature of the proposal".
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Paulson appealed the decision of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the decision of the assembly? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-61, noes-36] Motion carried.
Assembly Journal of March 15, 1988 .......... Page: 841
Point of order:
584 Representative Clarenbach rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 905 [relating to tuition for undergraduates at the university of Wisconsin system and granting rule-making authority] was not germane under Assembly Rule (54) (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] The bill proposed to create a new statute capping undergraduate tuition at 33% of instructional costs for Wisconsin residents, and at 105% for nonresidents.
A.SubAmdt.1 did not propose either cap. Instead, it would have appropriated one-quarter of the moneys collected by the university for Wisconsin residents in excess of 33% of instructional costs to increase the revenues available for Wisconsin higher education grants under sec. 39.435, stats.
The substitute changed the nature and purpose of the proposal, as prohibited by A.Rule 54 (1).
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 1, 1988 .......... Page: 761
Point of order:
Representative Tesmer rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 683 [relating to extended juvenile court jurisdiction] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (b) and (f) [substantial expansion of scope]. The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement.
585 [Note:] AB 683 removed 12- and 13-year old children adjudged delinquent from extended juvenile court jurisdiction, but retained the mandatory aspect of the extension for the remaining age groups.
Under existing law, because a 12-year old can be adjudged "delinquent", juvenile court jurisdiction was extended to age 21 for children from 12 through 17 years of age who have been convicted of the crimes enumerated in s. 48.366 (1), stats., as created by 1987 WisAct 27, and was extended to age 25 for any such delinquent child convicted of first degree murder. Extended juvenile court jurisdiction was mandatory for the affected age groups.
The purpose of 1987 AB 683 was limited to removing 12- and 13-year olds from extended juvenile court jurisdiction. The nature of the bill was limited to facilitating the proposal's purpose within the mandatory framework.
The substitute amendment set up a procedural framework of petition, notice, hearing and decision - changing the character of extended juvenile court jurisdiction from mandatory to discretionary. This would have changed the nature of the bill.
When extended juvenile court jurisdiction becomes discretionary, the persons excluded from the court's extended jurisdiction comprise not only 12- and 13-year olds adjudged delinquent, but also any 14-year old, 15-year old, 16-year old or 17-year old for whom the court determines "that it is in the best interest of the person and consistent with the protection of the public" not to extend the court's jurisdiction over the person to age 21 (or 25). This changes the purpose of the bill.
In many cases, amendments creating a procedural framework for a program proposed by a bill are held germane to the bill, under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (e), as "relating only to particularized details". The rule does not apply here.
The existing mandatory program of extended juvenile court jurisdiction did not need a procedural framework. The court retained jurisdiction to age 21 (or 25) whenever the criteria set forth in the statute applied.
The procedural framework offered in the substitute amendment was necessary only when the application of extended juvenile court jurisdiction was changed from mandatory to discretionary. Consequently, this procedural framework could not be considered germane particularized detail, but constituted a substantial expansion of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1988 .......... Page: 810
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Tesmer on Tuesday, March 1 that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 683 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
1 9 8 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 22, 1988 .......... Page: 748
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 351, relating to emergency detention, involuntary civil commitment, guardianship, protective services, transfer and discharge of involuntarily committed persons, recommitment evaluations, incompetency to refuse medication, emergency protective placement, training in emergency detention and emergency protective placement procedures for law enforcement officers, a presumption of good faith of individuals initiating emergency detentions, codifying a standard of performance for guardians of the person, requiring health insurance coverage of services provided under a court order, requiring the department of health and social services to study the implementation of crisis intervention services, other mental health requirements and granting rule-making authority] is not germane.
Senator Engeleiter asked unanimous consent that senate substitute amendment 1 be returned to the author. Senator Risser objected. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 23, 1988 .......... Page: 775
Ruling of the chair:
On Tuesday, March 22, 1988, the Senator from the 26th, Senator Risser raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 351 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Bill 351 is a comprehensive bill relating to mental health commitment standards and processes, and alternatives thereto. The bill sets standards for commitment, amends current law relating to guardianship and court-ordered protective services, emergency detention, training in emergency procedures, crisis intervention services and coverage of court-ordered services under medical plans.
586 Senate substitute amendment 1 relates solely to commitment and emergency detention of persons based on specific circumstances. The substitute amendment eliminates many of the provisions of the original bill.
Senate Rule 50 (7) reads as follows: "A substitute or amendment relating to a specific subject or to a general class is not germane to a bill relating to a different specific subject, but an amendment limiting the scope of the proposal is germane."
Mason's Manual Section 402 (4) reads as follows: An entirely new proposal may be substituted by amendment so long as it is germane to the main purpose of the original proposal.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the main purpose of the original bill was to set standards for commitment. Therefore, in accordance with Senate Rule 50 (7) and Mason's Manual Section 402 (4), the amendment is germane, and the point of order is not well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
Senate Journal of March 15, 1988 .......... Page: 704
[Point of order:]
Senator Feingold raised the point of order that the amendment [senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 505, relating to changing the maximum finance charge permitted in certain open-end credit plans that do not use a seller credit card] was not germane.
[Note:] The law provided an annual interest ceiling of 18% for most credit card purchases. SB 505 retained the 18% limit for store credit cards, but proposed to set the interest rate for general credit cards (Visa, Mastercard, etc.) at 7% above the interest rate applicable to 6-month U.S. treasury bills.
S.SubAmdt.1 proposed to deregulate (remove any interest ceiling) all open-ended credit cards.
The Chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of March 10, 1988 .......... Page: 692
[Point of order:]
