Point of order:
Representative Kincaid rose to the point of order that the introduction of a resolution was in order during the veto review session. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] It appears that no ruling was given. There is no record of any resolution or joint resolution introduced by Representative Kincaid in the 1979 Session on or after May 28, 1980; however, based on the drafting record of June 1980 Special Session Senate Joint Resolution 4, it is likely that Rep. Kincaid's proposal became A.Amdt.1 to that joint resolution (to grant Wisconsin final decision-making authority on the siting of a radioactive waste-depository in this state).
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.
669 Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that consideration of the Item Vetoes [listing] presented to the Chief Clerk be considered as the order of the day. Senator Murphy objected.
Senator Bablitch moved that consideration of the Item Vetoes [listing] presented to the Chief Clerk be considered as the order of the day.
Senate Journal of October 18, 1979 .......... Page: 854
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that it would take a two-thirds vote to consider the Item Vetoes presented to the Chief Clerk as the order of the day.
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
Senate Rules are silent on the order in which partial vetoes of a bill are to be considered. However, Senate Rule 47 (4) does state that the Senate by majority vote may direct the consideration of amendments. It is the chair's opinion that partial vetoes may be treated as amendments and the Senate may by majority vote direct the order of consideration.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Bidwell appealed the ruling of the chair. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-12.] More than a majority of the Senate having voted in the affirmative the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the Senate.
The question was: Shall consideration of the Item Vetoes as presented to the Chief Clerk be considered as the order of the day? The motion prevailed.
1 9 7 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 30, 1977 .......... Page: 975
[Display of roll call (on page 962) omitted: ayes-20; noes-13. Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the senate refused to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor the vetoed part of the bill: Senate Bill 77, relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1977 legislature, and making appropriations.]
[Point of order:]
Senator Petri moved that the rules be suspended and the vote on item V-A, section 1610h be reconsidered.
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion was not proper. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] Apparently, there was no ruling on the validity of the motion to reconsider the vote on the partial veto. Reconsideration of vetoes is expressly prohibited by 1977 Senate Rule 67 (7):
.... "Action on executive vetoes .... shall in no case be subject to a motion for reconsideration".
However, in the printed history of 1977 SB 77 (p. 456), the motion was entered as a "Motion to expunge the record and reconsider the vote on Item V-A".
670Voting: member excused for cause
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 22, 1975 .......... Page: 610
Point of order:
Representative Dorff rose to the point of order that Representative Matty should excuse himself from voting [on Assembly Bill 73; relating to deer hunting party permits and providing a penalty] under Assembly Rule 77m because he is an officer of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Withdrawal motion (from committee)
1 9 8 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 6, 1990 .......... Page: 772
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the Chair is frustrating the will of the majority by permitting a motion to suspend the rules and withdraw a bill [Senate Bill 18] be withdrawn from from committee to be tabled. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 15, 1990 .......... Page: 861
Ruling of the chair:
On Tuesday, March 6, 1990, the Senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, raised the point of order that in accordance with Senate Rule 93 (5), a motion to table a motion to withdraw a bill from committee was out of order. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Rule 93(5) reads as follows: No motion shall be entertained to postpone action to a day or time certain.
The motion to table does postpone action, however, it does not postpone action until a day or time certain. The purpose of the rule is not to postpone "definitely." A motion to table or postpone "indefinitely" is in order.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order raised by the Senator from the 29th is not well taken and the motion to table is properly before the Senate.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
The question was: Shall the motion to withdraw Senate Bill 18 from the committee on Judiciary and Consumer Affairs and refer to the committee on Senate Rules be laid on the table?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: ayes, 20; noes, 13 [display of roll call vote omitted]. Tabled.
671Senate Journal of February 27, 1990 .......... Page: 745
[Point of order:]
Senator Ulichny raised the point of order as to the applicability of the provisions of Senate Rule 41 to the motion made by Senator Chilsen to withdraw Assembly Bill 38 from the committee on Education, Economic Development, Financial Institutions and Fiscal Policies and refer to the committee on Senate Rules after completion of the public hearing schedule for March 5, 1990.
The Chair took the point under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 6, 1990 .......... Page: 770
Ruling of the chair:
On Tuesday, February 27, 1990, the Senator from the 4th, Senator Ulichny, raised a point of order relating to the applicability of the provisions of Senate Rule 41(a) as it relates to the motion made by the Senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, to withdraw Assembly Bill 38 from the Committee on Education, Economic Development, Financial Institutions and Fiscal Policies and be referred to the Committee on Rules after the public hearing scheduled for March 5, 1990. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
The Senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, made the request that the Chair examine the provisions of Senate Rule 41(a) which states, "except that in no case shall a motion to withdraw from committee take effect prior to a committee hearing if such has been scheduled when the motion to withdraw is made during the week in which the bill, resolution or other matter is scheduled for a public hearing". The Senator from the 29th placed particular emphasis on the words "take effect".
An understanding of general parliamentary procedure as it relates to withdrawal of bills is necessary to interpret the provisions of Senate Rule 41(a).
The first reference manual used by the State Senate is Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure. Section 491 reads as follows: "When a legislative body wishes to give consideration to or act upon a bill or other matter which has been referred to a committee, a motion may be made to withdraw the matter from the committee, or to discharge the committee from further consideration of the matter referred to it". Also, in Section 491(5), the manual reads: "A motion to discharge a committee or withdraw a bill requires a majority vote, or the action may be taken by unanimous consent".
Jefferson's Manual does not have specific provisions permitting the withdrawing of bills from committee. The House of Representatives has derived its power to withdraw from Section 26d of Jefferson's Manual which provides for the House to order a committee to meet and report back on a bill.
Chapter 18, of Procedure in the House of Representatives, Section 1, The Discharge Rule Generally; Motion to Discharge, sets out current procedures for withdrawal of bills in the Congress. This section provides that a bill may be withdrawn from committee. The process is a lengthy one. A bill must have been in the possession of a committee for 30 legislative days before a motion to discharge may be entered. The motion must be in writing and signed by a majority of the members. The motion may then be called for by any member who had signed the motion, but only after seven (7) days have passed since the entering of the motion. A 20-minute time limit is established for debate.
672 The Chair also took the opportunity to review provisions of the rules of the State Assembly as they relate to the withdrawal of bills from committee. Assembly Rule 15 governs this process. Paragraph (1) of that rule states: "No proposal may be withdrawn from any committee until 21 calendar days have expired since the proposal was referred to
the committee. After the 21-day period, proposals may be withdrawn either by motion or by petition".
Looking at the history of Senate Rule 41(a), one finds that the provisions of this rule were embodied in what was formerly Senate Rule 46. In 1913, Senate Rule 46 was amended to add the the sentence; "A motion to recall or recommit or withdraw shall be in order, but the question shall be divisible". In a note included in the Senate Manual of 1913, it was stated; "The last sentence of this rule was adopted in 1913. Without this provision, these motions would be out of order because the bill could not be acted upon to permit withdrawal or to order reference without possession of the papers. But since the motion does not affect the text in any way, the expediting of business demanded the rule."
In 1971, Senate Resolution 13 was introduced by the Senator from the 14th. In its original form, the resolution would have added the language; "except that in no case shall a motion to recall from committee take effect prior to a committee hearing if such has been scheduled when the motion to recall is made." This leads the Chair to the conclusion that the original resolution was intended to prevent withdrawal of proposals at anytime that future action was scheduled by the committee, both public hearing and executive action and without regard to how far in the future this action was to occur.
An amendment was added at the time the resolution was adopted to insert the language, "during the week in which the bill, resolution or other matter is scheduled for a public hearing". The insertion of this language is in conflict with the original language in several areas. At first reading it would appear that this additional language was proposed solely for the purpose of establishing a time frame in which committee action must be scheduled. However, the drafters chose the language referring to making the motion within the "week", not just "prior" to, and used the term "public" hearing, not just the generic term committee hearing.
It is clear to the Chair that the Senate, in these two changes, wanted to make it possible for a bill to be withdrawn from a committee, on a majority vote, but that this should not occur during the week of a public hearing on the subject matter.
The Chair is also of the opinion that the State Senate's rule changes to permit the withdrawal of bills and the inclusion of a clause to protect the ability of a committee to conduct a public hearing and conclude its deliberations is proper. It is clear to the Chair that the motion to withdraw is to be utilized in extraordinary situations. The time limits established by the Congress and as more clearly stated in the Rules of the Assembly are an indication of how drastic a move this is and that the body should provide a reasonable amount of time for a committee to conclude its deliberations before a matter is withdrawn.
The Senate through the provisions of Senate Rule 41(a) has provided a vehicle for the majority of the Senate to be heard and demand the withdrawal of a proposal, while attempting to provide a reasonable amount of time for the committee to conclude any action scheduled at the time the motion is entered.
The Chair has read the rule closely and made every effort to interpret its language to be consistent with general parliamentary practice as it relates to this subject. As pointed out by the Senator from the 29th, the words "take effect" are another important factor in understanding this rule. The dictionary defines "take effect" as "to become operative". A motion becomes operative when it prevails. Therefore, the Chair must interpret this language to delay the motion from being acted upon until seven (7) days after the public hearing.
673 The Chair is going to bring an end to this confusion by using this opportunity to set out a precedent for all future motions made under this rule. The Chair is of the opinion that a motion to withdraw may be made only on the 14th of Order of Business; as has been stated
in earlier decisions and is a well established precedence of this body. Secondly, it is the opinion of the Chair that the word "week" refers to any seven (7) day period as previously stated in earlier decisions of the Chair and that the week is seven (7) days in advance of the hearing and seven (7) days following the hearing, regardless of whether or not additional hearings are scheduled. The Chair is of the opinion that the words "in no case shall a motion to withdraw from committee take effect prior to a committee hearing" mean that a motion may not be operative, therefore may not be debated or voted upon until after the seven (7) day period.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that a motion to withdraw from committee may be made on any legislative day under the 14th Order of Business. If a public committee hearing is scheduled or has concluded within seven (7) days of the motion being made, the motion will be duly entered and appear on the calendar of the first legislative day to follow the seventh day after the scheduled public hearing, regardless of whether or not additional hearings are scheduled. The motion would appear under the 10th Order of Business, "Consideration of Motions and Resolutions".
This practice, as described, would provide the majority of the Senate with an ability to withdraw proposals from committee that is more liberal than the U.S. Congress, the State Assembly and the majority of other legislative bodies.
As it relates directly to the point of order raised by the Senator from the 4th, the point is well taken and Senate Rule 41 does apply as stated. The Chair is also of the opinion that the motion by the Senator from the 29th is not a proper motion. A motion cannot be made to withdraw a proposal at a future date without suspension of the rules. A motion of this nature would remove the matter from the control of the body. The ability of the Committee to report the
bill at an earlier date and the ability of the Senate Rules Committee to schedule the matter would be removed. The Senate could not take floor action on a proposal that was not within its control. A motion of this nature, should it prevail, would place the proposal in a questionable status for that period of time between action on the motion and withdrawal.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the Senator from the 29th could make a motion under the 14th order of business to withdraw Assembly Bill 38 from committee under the provisions of Senate Rule 41(a) as stated in this ruling. If the Senator chose to do so, the Chair would indicate that Assembly Bill 38 is scheduled for a public hearing on Monday March 12, 1990. This hearing is within seven (7) days of the motion being duly made. In accordance with the procedures outlined, the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 38 from committee would be entered. The motion would appear on the Calendar of the Senate for Tuesday, March 20, under the 10th Order of Business or on a later date if the Senate does not have a session scheduled for that date, and require a majority vote to prevail. If the motion were to prevail at that time, the bill would be referred to the Senate Committee on Rules.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
Senate Journal of February 20, 1990 .......... Page: 720
[Motion to withdraw from committee:]
Senator Chilsen moved that Assembly Bill 38 be withdrawn from committee on Education, Economic Development, Financial Institutions and Fiscal Policies and be referred to committee on Senate Rules. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the motion need only a simple majority vote to succeed. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of February 27, 1990 .......... Page: 743
Ruling of the chair:
On Tuesday, February 20, 1990, the Senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, moved that Assembly 38 be withdrawn from the committee on Education, Economic Development, Financial Institutions and Fiscal Policies and be referred to the committee on Senate Rules. The senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, then raised a point of order that the motion need only a simple majority vote to succeed. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
This point of order is similar to the one raised by the Senator of the 15th. As stated in the ruling just given, on Page 2163, Journal of the Senate, dated March 25, 1976, the Senator from the 26th, Senator Risser, raised a point of order that a bill could not be withdrawn from committee when a public hearing had already been scheduled. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
On page 2165, Journal of the Senate, dated March 25, 1976, the chair, Lt. Gov. Schreiber, ruled that pursuant to Senate Rule 41,a bill could not be withdrawn from committee when a public hearing had already been scheduled. Any attempt to do so would require a suspension of the rules and a two-thirds vote.
The circumstances are identical in this situation, a hearing was scheduled for Assembly Bill 38 to be held at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 22, 1990. The Chair agrees with the conclusion reached by the previous presiding officer and also I would like to point out that this has been the procedure followed by the Senate since Senate Rule 41 was adopted.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair, that a two-thirds vote is required on the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 38 and the motion raised by the Senator from the 29th is not well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
