Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion to introduce and take up a joint resolution was not properly before the assembly, because copies of the joint resolution were not distributed to the members under Assembly Rule 35 (1).
[Note:] Assembly rule 35 (1) requires that proposals, except resolutions for special orders of business or dealing with the members, procedures or organization of the assembly, be available for 24 hours before they are considered.
In this case, however, Mr. Baldus had first asked for unanimous consent and then moved to suspend the rule. Both procedures are permitted. The journal does not record the nature of the resolution that Mr. Baldus attempted to introduce and take up.
On 2/23/93, Mr. Baldus introduced Assembly Joint Resolution 23, providing for an advisory referendum on the question of phasing out most authorized gambling in this state.
606 The chair (Speaker pro tempore Carpenter) ruled the point of order not well taken because the joint resolution was not yet before the assembly, and the motion to suspend that rule in order to introduce and take up a joint resolution was proper.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended to introduce and take up a joint resolution? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-54, noes-45.] Motion failed.
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 19, 1988 .......... Page: 1007
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 115 [relating to retroactive exemption of 1987 Assembly Bill 850 and 1987 Assembly Bill 1016 from adverse disposal] was not properly before the assembly under Joint Rule 96 (2) because the committee on Rules had voted to introduce the joint resolution less than twenty-four hours ago.
[Note:] Joint Rule 96 (2) "Any proposal to rescind or change a joint rule shall be introduced as a joint resolution stating the proposed change. Except as authorized by unanimous consent or by vote of two-thirds of the members present, the joint resolution shall not be acted upon in either house until copies of the joint resolution have been made available to the members for 24 hours."
The rule does not require a 24-hour delay after introduction.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that, although the committee on Rules had voted to introduce the joint resolution less than twenty-four hours ago, the point of order was not well taken because copies of the joint resolution were sent to the members last week.
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1988 .......... Page: 987
[Background:] After Rep. Hauke (majority leader) moved that the assembly stand adjourned, Rep. Welch "moved that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 300 be withdrawn from the committee on Rules and taken up at this time". The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the motion out of order because a motion to adjourn was pending.
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion was proper under Assembly Rule 90 (3).
607 [Note:] Assembly Rule 90 (3) A unanimous consent request or a motion to suspend the rules may be made at any time under any order of business by a member who obtains the floor, but not while the assembly is voting.
Technically, Rep. Welch may have been correct; see also Assembly Rules 65 (1) (a) and (c) which provide that a motion to suspend the rules outranks a motion to adjourn.
However, this was the last day of the final general business floorperiod; it was Friday night, the time was almost 11:30 p.m., and the session would end at midnight. It was not likely that the Senate could establish its position on the annual budget (AB 850) by that time, and return the bill to the Assembly for concurrence in amendments.
Speaker pro tem. Clarenbach probably based his ruling on Assembly Rule 90 (4), which says that "motions to suspend the rules shall not be permitted for .... clearly dilatory purposes".
As shown be the subsequent action, the Assembly wanted to go home:
Representative Loftus moved that the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1.
The question was: Shall the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-54, noes-42.] Motion carried. The assembly stood adjourned.
Assembly Journal of February 2, 1988 .......... Page: 602
Point of order:
Representative Fergus rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 273 [relating to forced viewing of sexual activity and providing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule (54) (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
Representative Welch moved that Assembly Rule 54 be suspended.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the motion out of order because a point of order was pending. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] A.Amdt-4, in its item 3: 1) created a new Class A misdemeanor; and 2) redefined 2 existing Class D felonies.
The creation of the new Class A misdemeanor of failure to summon law enforcement when knowing that a child is forced to view something obscene expanded the scope of AB 273. An amendment "which substantially expands the scope of the proposal" is declared not germane by A.Rule 54 (3) (f).
The redefining of the existing Class D felony under s. 944.21 (1), stats., and the redefining of the existing Class D felony under s. 944.21 (2), stats., also expanded the scope of 1987 AB 273.
Assembly Journal of February 2, 1988 .......... Page: 605
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled that assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 273 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 and that the point of order raised by Representative Fergus was well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 22, 1987 .......... Page: 459
[Motion out of order:]
Representative Prosser moved that Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) be suspended to allow consideration of assembly amendment 6 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 24 [relating to employment relations for members of the university of Wisconsin system academic staff].
608 [Note:] A.Rule 90 (4) says that "motions to suspend the rules shall not be permitted for frivolous, indecorous or clearly dilatory purposes".
That rule fails to mention a more prosaic reason: no rule should ever be suspended when the end sought to be achieved by the suspension can be achieved under a regular procedure provided in the rules. The proper way to overcome a ruling of nongermaneness is to appeal the ruling of the chair.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the motion out of order.
1 9 8 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 23, 1988 .......... Page: 792
[Background:] Senator Strohl moved that Assembly Bill 991 [relating to obscenity, defining obscene material and obscene performance and providing penalties] be taken up at this time. The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 991 be taken up at this time?
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 991 cannot be before the body without being available for viewing.
[Note:] Beginning at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March 23, 1988, the Senate recessed (rather than adjourned) from evening to morning so as to stay on the 3/23/88 legislative day without ever reaching the 14th order of business, "motions may be offered".
The first recess was from 5:33 p.m. on Wednesday to 10:10 a.m. on Thursday (3/24/88, S.Journ. p. 771). The 2nd such recess was from 11:15 p.m. on Thursday to 8:25 a.m. on Friday (3/25/88, S.Journ. p. 783). Adjournment of the legislative Wednesday finally came at 1:16 a.m. Saturday morning (S.Journ. p. 793).
Although Sen. Chilsen's point of order is shown in the "Wednesday" journal, its display on page 792 makes it clear that the incident happened sometime between 9:47 p.m. and 11:35 p.m. on Friday, 3/25/88.
The Assembly adopted A.SubAmdt.1 to AB 991, and messaged AB 991 to the Senate, on Thursday, March 24, 1988, sometime between 7:25 p.m. and 9:35 p.m
(A.Journ. pp. 970-971). At the time of Sen. Chilsen's point of order, AB 991 had been "available for viewing" in the Senate for at least 24 hours.
However, the majority leader, Sen. Strohl, had moved a suspension of the rules so as to take up the bill. Even if a rule could be found requiring 24-hour availability of bills received for concurrence, that rule would have been superseded by the motion to suspend.
The Chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1984 .......... Page: 982
[Motion to suspend germaneness rule:]
609 Representative Merkt moved that Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope] be suspended to allow consideration of assembly amendment 8 to Senate Bill 663 [relating to the individual and corporate surtaxes, the homestead credit, the required general fund balance, reducing the bonding authority for highway projects, income tax exemptions, income and franchise tax deductions for intercorporate dividends and for insurers' loss carry-backs, property tax statements, the definition of the internal revenue code for purposes of the income, franchise, inheritance and minimum taxes, required health insurance coverage, income tax exemptions, utility taxes on telephone companies, decreasing the primary guaranteed valuation, providing penalties and making an appropriation].
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the motion out of order.
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
Representative Merkt moved that Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) be suspended to allow consideration of assembly amendment 8 to Senate Bill 663.
The speaker ruled the motion out of order. The speaker took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Merkt moved that Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) be suspended to allow consideration of assembly amendment 8 to Senate Bill 663.
The speaker ruled the motion out of order. [Intervening text omitted.]
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1984 .......... Page: 983
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
[Motion to suspend germaneness rule:]
Representative R. Travis moved that Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) be suspended to allow consideration of assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 663.
The speaker ruled the motion out of order.
Point of order:
Representative R. Travis rose to the point of order that the motion to suspend Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) was proper. The speaker ruled the point of order not well taken because assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 663 was not before the assembly.
Assembly Journal of February 28, 1984 .......... Page: 788
[Motion to withdraw from standing committee:]
Representative Rogers moved that Assembly Rule 15 (1) and (5) be suspended and that Assembly Bill 148 [relating to prohibiting abortions in public hospitals except to save the life of the pregnant woman and requiring the reporting of these abortions] be withdrawn from the Joint Committee on Finance and taken up at this time.
Representative Loftus moved that the motion be laid on the table.
Point of order:
610 Representative Rogers rose to the point of order that the motion to table was not in order under Assembly Rule 74 (3) because the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 148, which had
not been in the Joint Committee on Finance for 21 calendar days, required a suspension of the rules.
Representative Loftus withdrew his motion to table. [Recess to 3:15 p.m.]
The assembly reconvened. Speaker pro tempore Clarenbach in the chair.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 148 be withdrawn from the Joint Committee on Finance and taken up at this time? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-52, noes-44.] Motion failed.
Assembly Journal of October 4, 1983 .......... Page: 360
[Members to be addressed by district:]
Representative R. Travis asked unanimous consent that the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) [a member is recognized by reference to district number rather than by proper name] be suspended indefinitely. Representative Johnson objected.
Representative R. Travis asked unanimous consent that the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) be suspended for the October floorperiod. Representative Johnson objected.
Representative R. Travis moved that the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) be suspended for the October floorperiod.
The question was: Shall the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) be suspended for the October floorperiod? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-40, noes-58.] Motion failed.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 6, 1984 .......... Page: 879
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 114 [relating to use of flashing red warning lights on school busses] be withdrawn from committee on Senate Organization and be considered at this time. Senator Cullen objected.
Senator Chilsen moved that Assembly Bill 114 be withdrawn from committee on Senate Organization and be considered at this time.
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that suspension of the rules was proper at any time.
[Note:] The point of order reflected the confusion of the moment. It is true that a motion to suspend the rules can be made at any time by a senator who has the floor. However, in the present case suspension of the rules had failed because unanimous consent had been objected to; not, because the entering of a motion had been refused.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 31, 1982 .......... Page: 1914
Point of order:
611 The question was: Shall Senate Bill 806 be withdrawn from committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources and taken up at this time?
Senator Bablitch moved that the motion to withdraw Senate Bill 806 from committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources and taken up at this time be laid on the table.
Senator Goyke raised the point of order that the motion to suspend the rules is not subject to motion to table. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of April 2, 1982 .......... Page: 1972
Point of order:
Senator Opitz raised the point of order that pursuant to Senate Rule 7 (2) the chair was required to rule on the Point of Order raised March 31, 1982. The chair took the point of order under advisement. [No ruling given.]
