48 1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 13, 1980 .......... Page: 2684
[Suspension of anti-smoking rule:]
Absence from daily session: leave required 2Representative DeLong asked unanimous consent that Assembly Rule 27 (5) [no smoking on assembly floor] be suspended for the balance of today's session. Representative Duren objected.
Representative Pabst moved that Assembly Rule 27 (5) [no smoking on assembly floor] be suspended for the balance of today's session.
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-56, noes-38.] Motion failed.
Assembly Journal of March 13, 1980 .......... Page: 2690
Representative Hauke asked unanimous consent that Assembly Rule 27 (5) [no smoking on assembly floor] be suspended. Granted. [Intervening text omitted.]
Assembly Journal of March 13, 1980 .......... Page: 2691
Representative Duren asked unanimous consent that Assembly Rule 27 (5) [no smoking on assembly floor] be re-instated. Representative Murray objected.
Assembly Journal of March 14, 1980 .......... Page: 2776
Representative Andrea asked unanimous consent that Assembly Rule 27 (5) [no smoking on assembly floor] be suspended for the balance of today's session. Representative Wood objected.
Representative Andrea moved that Assembly Rule 27 (5) [no smoking on assembly floor] be suspended for the balance of today's session.
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-65, noes-30.] Motion carried.
Citations by the legislature
NOTE: The 1977 revision of the joint rules (1977 Assembly Joint Resolution 23) created a new rule which ended the frequent controversies over the appropriateness of proposed citations: "Citations may not be used for matters of a controversial or partisan political nature."
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 6, 1974 .......... Page: 2114
[Background (p. 2112):]
The State of Wisconsin * * * Citation by the Senate Know you by these presents:
Whereas, Governor Patrick J. Lucey has recently become concerned because he thinks many Wisconsin drivers are exceeding the new 55 m.p.h. state speed limit as they pass him while he is riding in his brand new gas guzzling 1974 Chevrolet Caprice; and
49 Whereas, the Governor has considered ordering his Wisconsin State Patrol driver to halt such drivers from time to time and issue them speeding tickets with the Governor as a
witness despite the very obvious fact that the Governor's new car is not equipped with the statutorily required symbol for a slow-moving vehicle and may in fact be obstructing traffic because of its speed, thereby causing many motorists to pass the Governor's car and causing Governor Lucey to be mistaken in his evaluation of their speed; and
Whereas, such dedication to law enforcement is nevertheless to be commended; now, therefore, The Members of the Wisconsin Senate, on the motion of Senator LaFave, under Joint Rule 26, do hereby commend Governor Patrick J. Lucey for his interest in issuing speeding tickets to Wisconsin drivers, but urge him to do so through the regular procedures of the State Patrol, whose drivers will not be misled by the Governor's slow-moving vehicle in their evaluation of the speed of passing motorists; and furthermore,
Do hereby designate Governor Patrick J. Lucey as an honorary member of the Wisconsin State Patrol because of his desire to personally aid the law enforcement efforts of the State Patrol.
Read and adopted. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senator Risser asked unanimous consent that the citation commending the Governor be reread. Senator LaFave objected.
Senator Risser moved that the rules be suspended and the Governor's citation be reread. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-13, noes-12.] Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative the motion did not prevail.
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that citations under Joint Rule 26 must be of a noncontroversial nature. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senator Flynn moved reconsideration of the vote by which the Governor's citation was adopted.
[Ruling of the chair:]
As it relates to the point of order raised on Joint Rule 26 citations, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that the senate rules made no provisions as to nature of content; therefore, the point of order was not well taken.
Senator Risser moved that the motion for reconsideration be laid on the table. The motion prevailed.
Senate Journal of February 6, 1973 .......... Page: 330
[Point of order:]
Two Joint Rule 26's, relating to the life and well being of the wives and families of the prisoners of war and missing inaction.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that these were not the proper subjects for motions under Joint Rule 26.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
By request of Senator Roseleip, with unanimous consent, the motions under Joint Rule 26 were withdrawn and returned to the author.
50Committee of the whole: procedures
relating to
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 7, 1979 .......... Page: 739
[Point of order in committee of the whole:]
Representative Hauke moved that the assembly resolve itself into a committee of the whole to discuss the suspension of his office allowance by the committee on Assembly Organization.
The question was: Shall the assembly resolve itself into a committee of the whole to discuss the suspension of his office allowance by the committee on Assembly Organization?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-68, noes-28.] Motion carried.
[Election of chair omitted.] Representative Rogers in the chair.
Representative Andrea moved that the suspension of Representative Hauke's office allowance be lifted and that $549.70 be deducted from Representative Hauke's 1979 session office allowance.
The chair [Rep. Rogers] ruled the motion out of order under Assembly Rule 8 (1). [Intervening text omitted.]
Assembly Journal of June 7, 1979 .......... Page: 746
[Point of order in committee of the whole:]
Representative Andrea moved that the committee of the whole arise and report to the assembly a recommendation that the suspension of Representative Hauke's office allowance be lifted and that $549.70 be deducted from Representative Hauke's 1979 session office allowance.
Representative Loftus moved that the committee of the whole arise.
The chair [Rep. Rogers] ruled the motion out of order.
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that Representative Andrea could not combine the motion to arise with a recommendation for a report to the assembly.
The chair [Rep. Rogers] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Representative Norquist appealed the ruling of the chair. The chair [Rep. Rogers] ruled the appeal out of order because it would require a roll call which was not allowed under Assembly Rule 8 (1).
Representative Miller asked unanimous consent that Representative Andrea's motion be amended so that the suspension of Representative Hauke's office allowance be lifted immediately and that Representative Hauke make arrangements within 60 days to reimburse the assembly $549.70. Granted.
The question was: Shall the assembly arise and report to the assembly the following recommendation: that the suspension of Representative Hauke's office allowance be lifted immediately and that Representative Hauke make arrangements within 60 days to reimburse the assembly $549.70? Motion carried.
51Compensation: no increase after service rendered (art. IV, sec. 26)
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 1, 1982 .......... Page: 3228
Point of order:
Representative Duren rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 418 [to authorize and direct release of a sum sufficient from moneys appropriated to the university of Wisconsin system for payment of a claim against the state made by John C. Weaver] was not properly before the assembly under Article IV, Section 26, of the Wisconsin Constitution.
Assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 418 offered by Representative Jackamonis.
[Note:] Although the Weaver claim had been recommended by the Claims Board, the Retirement Systems jt. surv. com. report raised constitutional questions. Attorney General La Follette ruled (12/24/81; 70 OAG 266) that, while the Board of Regents had lacked the legal authority to contract for deferred compensation, Pres. Weaver had subsequently worked believing in the agreement and, on equitable if not legal principles, the Legislature could honor the Weaver claim. A.Amdt.1, offered on 4/1/82, briefly reiterated the holding of the attorney general's opinion.
The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] ruled the point of order not timely because amendment 1 was offered.
Representative Roberts moved rejection of assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 418.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 418 be rejected?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-64, noes-29.] Motion carried.
Representative Duren renewed her point of order on Senate Bill 418. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of April 1, 1982 .......... Page: 3234
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order raised by Representative Duren on Senate Bill 418 not well taken because a statement of legislative findings, stating that 1) the payment of the claim was based on equitable principles rather than a legally enforceable contract, and 2) the salary was earned, was not required in the bill.
Concurrence in amendment by other house: permitted procedures
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1992 .......... Page: 931
Point of order:
52 Representative Fortis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 [relating to limits on wrongful death actions for loss of society and companionship] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e) and (g).
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Krug under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 was not substantially similar to a previously adopted assembly amendment.
The chair ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Fortis under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (g) because it is appropriate to consider an assembly amendment to a senate amendment to an Assembly Bill already passed by the assembly.
The chair ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Fortis under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e), because, had the assembly not considered an amendment when Assembly Bill 388 was originally in the assembly to limit the awards of wrongful death actions, an assembly amendment modifying the senate action would be in order. However, because the assembly previously took a position on limitations, the assembly must either accept the senate amendment to modify the assembly position, or adhere to the assembly position and nonconcur in the senate amendment.
53 [Note:] The reference to A.Rule 54 (3) (g) was inappropriate. That rule, speaking to bills for which amendments are prohibited by law, may be obsolete. Amendments to amendments are covered by A.Rule 52 (2).
When the assembly amended 1991 AB 388 before passage, A.Amdt-2, which raised the wrongful death award ceiling from $50,000 to $100,000, was ruled a nongermane expansion of the proposal because it included under the new ceiling the amount of any medical malpractice award. The assembly then adopted A.Amdt-1 (as aff. by Am-1 to Am-1), raising the ceiling on wrongful death awards from $50,000 to $250,000.
The ruling had removed A.Amdt-2 from consideration and vote by the assembly. Consequently, although the new A.Amdt-1 to S.Amdt-1 had some of the same ingredients as the earlier A.Amdt-2, it was not an amendment substantially similar to an amendment "already acted upon" by the assembly [nongermane under A.Rule 54 (3) (c)].
In adopting A.Amdt-1 to AB 388 as affected by Am-1 to A.Amdt-1, the assembly had rejected a $100,000 ceiling on wrongful death awards, and had passed a $250,000 ceiling. The senate, by S.Amdt-1 to AB 388, had lowered the proposed ceiling to $150,000.
Considering concurrence in S.Amdt-1, the assembly could: 1) adhere to its earlier position ($250,000, nonconcur in the senate amendment); 2) accept the senate position ($150,000, concur in the senate amendment); or 3) propose a compromise between the 2 positions by an amendment that would be germane not only to S.Amdt-1 but also to AB 388 as passed by the assembly [A.Rule 54 (5)].
Any assembly amendment for a dollar figure lower than the amount proposed by the senate and also lower than the amount earlier agreed to by the
assembly negated the effect of the assembly's earlier action and was therefore nongermane under A.Rule 54 (3) (e). Both of the assembly amendments to S.Smdt-1 proposed to lower the ceiling to $100,000 (as indexed for inflation).
In addition, A.Amdt-1 to S.Amdt-1 again proposed to bring medical malpractice awards under the dollar ceiling for wrongful death awards, which was a nongermane expansion of the senate amendment under A.Rules 54 (3) (f) and (5).
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1992 .......... Page: 931
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 388 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e).
The chair ruled the point of order well taken for the same reasons stated in the previous ruling. The assembly already acted on a similar assembly amendment when the bill originally was before the assembly and [A.Amdt-2 to S.Amdt-1] is not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e).
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 17, 1988 .......... Page: 676
Point of order:
