As it relates to the point of order raised on Senate Bill 420, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that assembly amendments could be amended in this house, and therefore, the point of order was not well taken.
Senate Journal of September 26, 1975 .......... Page: 1449
[Point of order:]
The question was: Concurrence in assembly amendment 2 [to Senate Bill 420, relating to authorizing cities and villages to use tax incremental financing in connection with certain public improvement projects]?
Senator Bablitch moved that Senate Bill 420 be referred to joint committee on Finance.
Senator Hollander raised the point of order that the bill could not be referred to joint committee on Finance.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken pursuant to senate rule 41 (2) [1975: ...."concurrence in amendments of the other house .... shall in no case be referred to committee"].
Conference committee: procedures relating to
1 9 9 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of July 1, 1993 .......... Page: 266
Point of order:
Representative Deininger rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 70 [relating to creating a committee of conference on 1993 Senate
Bill 44] was not properly before the assembly under Joint Rule 3 and Assembly Rule 95.
66 [Note:] 1993 Senate Bill 44 was the executive budget act of the 1993 legislature.
Early in its deliberations, the Joint Committee on Finance offered senate substitute amendment 1 (based on a paper prepared by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau) from which all "nonbudget" extraneous policy issues had been removed. Senate substitute amendment 2 contained the recommendations of the joint committee on the governor's proposals.
The senate passed the budget with many changes (compiled into several super-amendments) and ordered the budget printed engrossed before it was delivered to the assembly. In the ordinary course, all further action would have to be on the printed engrossed version - which would have meant rewriting all fiscal bureau explanations and redrafting of all budget amendments in the reference bureau.
Assembly Joint Resolution 70 was an attempt, ultimately successful, to speed up the process. The joint resolution incorporated a compiled amendment (the pieces were drafted to senate substitute amendment 2) setting forth the position of the assembly majority party.
The point of order properly stated that the proposed procedure was in violation of the conference committee procedure under Jt.Rule 3 and related definitions under A.Rule 95. However, the point overlooked that the adoption of the joint resolution by both houses would constitute a suspension of the regular procedure.
By concurring in Assembly Joint Resolution 70, the senate agreed to use the original senate substitute amendment 2, as affected by the senate amendments, as the basis for conference committee negotiations, and the original fiscal bureau documents could be used to explain the senate amendments as well as the assembly issue amendments compiled into the attachment to the joint resolution.
On July 7, both houses agreed to a senate amendment to the joint resolution increasing the membership of the conference committee to 4 members from each house. On July 16, 1993, both houses agreed to the conference report on 1993 Senate Bill 44.
The speaker [Speaker Kunicki] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 28, 1987 .......... Page: 505
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that the motion to refer the committee of conference report on Senate Bill 7 [relating to requiring motor vehicle operators and passengers to wear safety belts, granting rule-making authority, requesting a study and providing a penalty] to a committee was not proper. The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement.
67 [Note:] The conferees (Sens. Czarnezki, Risser, Weeden; Reps. Loftus, Hauke, Nelsen) brought in a report whereby the Assembly would recede from its position on Assembly Amendment 24; the Senate would recede from its position on Assembly Amendment 17; and both houses would agree to the concept of Assembly Amendment 10 as reworded, the concept of Assembly Amendment 18 at 15% subject to sunset on June 30, 1989, and a technical correction concerning farm trucks and dual-purpose farm trucks, all incorporated, together with parts of the bill previously agreed to by both houses, into Conference Substitute Amendment 1 (LRBs0411/1), which was attached to and made a part of the conference report.
Rep. Hauke (majority leader), received unanimous consent "that Senate Bill 7 be taken up at this time". Rep. Schneider (cochair, Jt. Fin. com.), asked unanimous consent to refer Senate Bill 7 to the Joint Committee on Finance, to which Rep. Nelsen (minority leader) objected. Rep. Schneider then offered a regular motion "that Senate Bill 7 be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance".
When a standing or special committee reports a bill, that bill constitutes business to be decided by the house. The committee report recommends, but does not limit, house action. "Any business to be decided by the assembly may be referred to a committee .... while under debate by the assembly"; Assembly Rules 13 (1) (b) and 65 (2) (d) and (e).
The problem was the unanimous consent "that Senate Bill 7 be taken up". A bill reported by a conference committee is no longer open to house action - the alternatives are limited to adoption or rejection of the conference report before the house. "The vote by each house to adopt the conference report constitutes final action on the proposal"; Joint Rule 3 (2).
Although the motion to refer the bill was here allowed, it was defeated, as were subsequent motions to refer the bill to a different standing committee and to reject the report of the conference committee. Both houses approved the conference report (Assembly Journal, pages 506-7, Senate Journal, page 469) and the bill, as affected by the conference report, became 1987 Wisconsin Act 132.
At the opening of the 1989 Session, the assembly adopted Assembly Rule 45 (6): "Except as incidental to calendar scheduling by the committee on rules, the report of a committee of conference may not be referred to committee."
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that the report of a committee of conference may be referred to a committee and ruled the point of order, that the motion to refer Senate Bill 7 to committee [was improper], was not well taken.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 28, 1986 .......... Page: 1130
Point of order:
Representative Becker introduced a privileged joint resolution.
Assembly Joint Resolution 2, relating to authorizing the convening of a 2nd committee of conference on Senate Bill 1 of the May 1986 special session. By Representatives Loftus, Becker and T. Thompson.
Representative Hephner rose to the point of order that a two-thirds vote was required for adoption of Assembly Joint Resolution 2, May 1986 Spec. Sess., under Joint Rule 96.
[Note:] A "parliamentary inquiry" might have informed the members as to the vote required. A "point of order" is appropriate only to obtain a decision by the presiding officer concerning an issue currently before the house. Had the resolution been adopted by a majority but less than 2/3, a point of order might have been appropriate (the actual vote was 76 to 21). Since the roll had not been called, there was no issue.
Although My6AJR 2 was adopted and concurred in, both houses subsequently agreed to the report submitted by the first conference committee.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not timely.
Senate Journal of April 6, 1984 .......... Page: 874
[Point of order:]
The question was: Adoption of the Committee of Conference Report [on Assembly Bill 706, relating to the financial assistance program for septic tank replacement and rehabilitation]?
Senator Lee raised the point of order that the Committee of Conference Report was not germane.
[Note:] When a conference committee submits its report, the proper motions are to adopt or to reject the report, including any legislation which the committee has "attached to and made a part of" the report. Under J.Rule 3 (3): "Approval of the conference report by a roll call vote in each house sufficient to constitute final passage of the proposal shall be final passage of the bill or joint resolution in the form and with the changes proposed by the report".
Since there is no separate vote on the legislation submitted with the conference report, such legislation is never directly before the house and, therefore, its germaneness cannot be challenged by a point of order.
While J.Rule 3 (1) implies that a conference committee is to make its recommendation within the limits of the disagreement between the 2 houses, it is up to the legislature to adopt or reject the report.
In adopting the report, the legislature gives its approval to the manner in which the conference committee has used its authority.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 7, 1982 .......... Page: 3305
Motion:
Representative Thompson asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 712 [relating to senate and assembly districts] be made a special order of business at 4:00 P.M. today.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the request out of order because Senate Bill 712 was in a conference committee.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 25, 1980 .......... Page: 3649
Point of order:
69 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).
[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 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 4, 1980 .......... Page: 1443
[Background: The question was: Concurrence of assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 260, relating to patient access to medical records? Senator Berger moved nonconcurrence of assembly substitute amendment 1.]
The question was: Nonconcurrence of assembly substitute amendment 1?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-22, noes-10.] So the motion prevailed.
Senator Berger asked unanimous consent that the senate appoint a Committee of Conference on Senate Bill 260. Senator Kleczka objected.
Senator Berger moved that the senate appoint a Committee of Conference on Senate Bill 260.
Senate Journal of March 4, 1980 .......... Page: 1444
[Point of order:]
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that the motion to appoint a Committee of Conference was not timely.
By request of Senator Berger, with unanimous consent, he withdrew his motion to appoint a Committee of Conference.
By request of Senator Berger, with unanimous consent, all action on Senate Bill 260 was ordered immediately messaged.
The Chair [Pres. Risser] ruled that because Senator Berger withdrew his motion to appoint a Committee of Conference the point of order raised by Senator Kleczka was moot.
70Senate Journal of February 19, 1980 .......... Page: 1365
[Background: Assembly Bill 596, relating to exempting solar energy home heating systems and electricity generating devices from the property tax. Read.]
The question was: Shall the senate adhere to its position?
Senator Flynn in the chair.
Senator Bablitch moved that the senate recede from its position.
The question was: Shall the senate recede from its position?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-14, noes-16.] So the motion did not prevail.
The question was: Shall the senate adhere to its position?
[Point of order:]
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that a tie vote on the question of adherence would have the same effect as the senate receding from its position.
The chair [Sen. Flynn] ruled the point of order untimely.
Senator Berger asked unanimous consent that the senate adhere to its position and appoint a Committee of Conference. Senator Bablitch objected.
Senator Berger moved that the senate adhere to its position and appoint a Committee of Conference.
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, the motion was divided into two parts.
The question was: Shall the senate adhere to its position?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-17, noes-13.] So the senate adheres to its position.
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, the chair will appoint members of the Committee of Conference on Senate Bill 596.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 16, 1977 .......... Page: 300
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Representative Johnson could not be appointed to the committee of conference on Senate Bill 63 pursuant to Sections 45 and 46 of Jefferson's Manual because he had voted "Aye" on receding from the assembly's position on assembly amendment 1. Representative Shabaz stated that although Representative Johnson had voted for concurrence in
Senate Bill 63, he did not support assembly amendment 1, and therefore, could not represent the position of the majority of the assembly.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that it is not necessary to have voted with the majority on consideration of amendments in order to be appointed to serve on the conference committee. Therefore, the point of order is not well taken.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of July 9, 1975 .......... Page: 1411
Point of order:
71 Representative Azim rose to the point of order that the conference committee report [on Assembly Bill 725; relating to provisions of professional liability insurance policies for health care providers] required a fiscal note pursuant to Joint Rule 24 and Wisconsin Statutes 13.10.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of July 9, 1975 .......... Page: 1411
