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the will of the majority by permitting a motion to suspend the rules and withdraw a bill [Senate Bill 18] be withdrawn from from committee to be tabled.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
Senate Journal of February 20, 1990 .......... Page: 720
[Motion to withdraw from committee:]
Senator Lasee moved that Assembly Bill 38 [relating to requiring parental consent for an unemancipated child's abortion, informed consent of a woman to her own abortion, remedies in civil actions and providing a penalty] be withdrawn from committee on Education, Economic Development, Financial Institutions and Fiscal Policies and be referred to the calendar of Tuesday, February 27. [Intervening text omitted.]
[Point of order:]
Senator Weeden 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:
675 On Tuesday, February 20, 1990, the Senator from the 1st, Senator Lasee, moved that Assembly Bill 38 be withdrawn from the committee on Education, Economic Development, Financial Institutions and Fiscal Policies and be referred to the calendar of Tuesday,
February 27, 1990. The Senator from the 15th, Senator Weeden 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.
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 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 38 and the motion raised by the Senator from the 15th is not well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
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).
676 [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.
1 9 8 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 19, 1988 .......... Page: 887
[Background:] While the Senate acted under the 4th Order of Business (reports of committees), the Majority Leader obtained unanimous consent to act on certain bills. Senator Chilsen made a regular motion that Assembly Bill 10, November 1987 Spec. Sess. [relating to obscenity, defining obscene material and obscene performance and providing penalties] be withdrawn from committee on Judiciary and Consumer Affairs and referred to committee on Senate Rules.
[Point of order:]
Senator Strohl raised the point of order that the motion was made at an inappropriate time. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of May 19, 1988 .......... Page: 889
Ruling of the chair:
The Senator from the 21st, Senator Strohl, raised the point of order that the motion made by the Senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, to withdraw a bill was not proper under the 4th Order of Business.
On page 1708, Journal of the Senate 1977 Session the Chair ruled that motions to withdraw from committee are restricted to the 8th Order of Business: Motions may be offered. The 8th order at that time is now the 14th Order of Business. It is the opinion of the Chair that motion may be only under the 14th Order of Business. Therefore the point of order is well taken.
A subsequent point of order was raised that a motion to withdraw a bill under the 10th order of business is not proper. The Senator from the 29th also questioned the purpose of the 10th Order of Business: Consideration of Motions and Resolutions."
The Historic Parliamentary purpose of an order of business such as the Senate's 10th Order was to have a proper location to list pending motions for consideration as well as Resolutions. The Senate has frequently scheduled resolutions for 10th Order. However, it has not used the 10th Order for consideration of motions. Normal Parliamentary Practice would be for a motion to be made on the 14th Order and that motion would be considered on the next day's calendar under the 10th Order of Business.
