1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 11, 1982 .......... Page: 2663
Point of order:
Representative Clarenbach rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 34 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 615 [relating to employes' right to know regarding toxic substances and infectious agents, providing a penalty and making an appropriation] was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
[Note:] The amendment read: "Toxic substance does not mean lutefisk".
Lutefisk is considered a Norwegian delicacy, prepared by soaking Whitefish in lye. Rumor has it that the amendment was ruled proper in the following words: "This amendment may be 'lutefisk', but it was not offered for the purpose of delay".
A.Amdt.34 was adopted and enacted; see s. 101.58 (2) (j) 2.f, stats.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 1981 .......... Page: 1680
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Representative D. Travis and Representative Crawford were engaging in a dilatory procedure which was prohibited under Assembly Rule 69 (1). The chair took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Shabaz that Representatives D. Travis and Crawford were engaged in a dilatory procedure prohibited by Assembly Rule 69 (1).
98Assembly Journal of October 13, 1981 .......... Page: 1215
[Repetitive motion: motion to reject 1981 AJR 70, "memorializing Congress and the President to seek the dismissal of the Secretary of the Interior, James G. Watt", failed (p. 1212); A.Amdt.13 adopted (p. 1213); call of the assembly (p. 1214); call lifted.]
Representative Shabaz moved rejection of Assembly Joint Resolution 70.
[Note:] Adoption of a substantive amendment usually constitutes the "significant business" required to permit repetition of a motion.
When no significant business has intervened, 2 consecutive identical motions may be ruled "dilatory"; i.e., used for the purpose of delay.
As affected by the adoption of A.Amdt.12, the joint resolution already required the chief clerk to append to the transmittal "a list of those who voted in favor" of the resolution. A.Amdt.13 merely added the words: "and of those who opposed".
Speaker Jackamonis ruled the motion out of order under Assembly Rule 69.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 25, 1980 .......... Page: 3640
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that Representative Barczak was using "a procedure" which is dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
[Note:] The journal does not mention the nature of the procedure used by Representative Barczak, nor the bill affected by that procedure.
Asked about the incident 4 years later, Speaker Jackamonis believed that the dilatory procedure was "slow reading of lengthy public documents."
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that Representative Barczak's procedure was dilatory because he had publicly stated that his intention was to delay a vote on the bill.
Assembly Journal of January 24, 1980 .......... Page: 1906
[Background:] Representative D. Travis moved that Assembly Bill 1065 [relating to injury by improper use of a noxious substance and providing a penalty] be referred to the committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety.
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 1065 be referred to the committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-42, noes-52.] Motion failed.
Representative D. Travis moved that Assembly Bill 1065 be referred to the committee on Veterans and Military Affairs.
Point of order:
Representative Donoghue rose to the point of order that the motion was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
The chair [Rep. Kirby] ruled the point of order not well taken.
99 The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 1065 be referred to the committee on Veterans and Military Affairs?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-37, noes-59.] Motion failed.
Representative Ferrall moved that Assembly Bill 1065 be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance.
Point of order:
Representative Donoghue rose to the point of order that the motion was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
The chair [Rep. Kirby] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 1065 be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-37, noes-58.] Motion failed.
Assembly Journal of November 1, 1979 .......... Page: 1713
[Motion to take from table:]
Representative Shabaz moved that assembly amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 169 be taken from the table.
Representative McClain rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order under Assembly Rule 69 (1) [dilatory motion] and Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided].
[Note:] On page 1705, the assembly had refused (49 to 50) Rep. Hauke's motion to place A.Amdt.5 after A.Amdt.6, and then approved (50 to 49) Rep. McClain's motion to place A.Amdt.5 on the table.
The express purpose of the motion to table, as stated in A.Rule 74, is to dispose of a matter only "temporarily". The motion does not decide an issue with finality.
Rather, "a tabled matter may be taken from the table at any time by order of the assembly".
The chair [Rep. Gerlach] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 25, 1979 .......... Page: 1581
[Repetitive motion: Representative Prosser moved that Assembly Bill 744, relating to strip searches and providing a penalty, be referred to the committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety. Motion failed; other intervening business.]
Representative Prosser moved that Assembly Bill 744 be referred to the committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the motion out of order because that motion had previously been made.
Representative Shabaz moved that Assembly Bill 744 be referred to the committee on State Affairs.
Point of order:
100 Representative Ferrall rose to the point of order that the motion was out of order under Assembly Rule 69 (1).
[Note:] The prohibition against repetitive referral motions is imposed under A.Rule 72, but applies only to repetitive motions for referral to "a specific standing or special committee .... on the same day at the same stage in the consideration" of the proposal.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 9, 1979 .......... Page: 1251
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for rejection of assembly amendment 9 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 293 was not in order because the motion had previously been voted on.
[Note:] Following a motion to reject, which failed 47 to 51 earlier on the same day, the A.Amdt.9 had been tabled; A.Jour. p. 1235.
A.Rule 72 prohibits repetition of the motion to "postpone indefinitely" on the same day at the same stage. Under another rule [1979 A.Rule 50 (1) (a) to (c)], "adverse and final disposition" includes indefinite postponement, rejection, and nonconcurrence.
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of April 24, 1979 .......... Page: 419
[Repetitive tabling motions:]
Representative Dorff moved that Assembly Bill 16 be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 16 be laid on the table?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-42, noes-53.] Motion failed.
Representative Barczak moved that Assembly Bill 16 be laid on the table.
Representative Shabaz asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 16 be referred to the committee on Local Affairs. Representative Rutkowski objected.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled Representative Barczak's motion for tabling out of order under Assembly Rule 69 (2).
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of September 23, 1977 .......... Page: 2227
[Background]:
Representative McClain moved that Assembly Bill 991 [relating to the standard deduction and filing requirements under the personal income tax] be made a special order of business at 3:01 P.M. on Monday, September 26. The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 991 be made a special order of business at 3:01 P.M. on Monday, September 26?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-41, noes-55.] Motion failed.
Representative Shabaz moved that Assembly Bill 991 be made a special order of business at 2:00 P.M. on Monday, September 26. [Call of the assembly.]
Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that the motion to make Assembly Bill 991 a special order of business at 2:00 P.M. on Monday, September 26 was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of May 19, 1977 .......... Page: 1050
Point of order:
Representative Duren asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 495 [relating to personalized license plates] be placed at the foot of the calendar
of Thursday, May 19. Representative Kirby objected. Representative Shabaz moved that Assembly Bill 495 be placed at the foot of the calendar of Thursday, May 19.
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 495 be placed at the foot of the calendar of Thursday, May 19?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-46, noes-48.] Motion failed. [Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Shabaz moved that Assembly Bill 495 be placed after Assembly Bill 385 on the calendar of Thursday, May 19.
Representative Hanson rose to the point of order that the motion was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 16, 1976 .......... Page: 3334
Point of order:
Representative Thompson moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 577 [relating to a limitation upon the rate of increase in real property equalized valuation] be withdrawn from the committee on Taxation and made a special order of business at 10:01 A.M. on Thursday, March 18. [Similar motions had been made and lost on 2/3/76 (ayes-40, noes-54), 2/10/76 (38 to 58), 2/24/76 (40 to 55), and 3/9/76 (38 to 56)].
Representative Hanson rose to the point of order that the motion was dilatory because it had been made several times previously.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken. [Motion lost, ayes-41, noes-54; no further action on bill.]
