Point of order:
Representative Radtke rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 299 [relating to various changes in the campaign finance law] was required to be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance under section 13.093 of the Wisconsin Statutes because of the adoption of senate amendment 3 by the senate.
[Note:] S.Amdt.3 proposed to increase, from $1 to $2, the permissible income tax liability check-off for the Wisconsin election campaign fund.
While there are frequent questions concerning the need for Joint Finance referral of proposals acquiring a fiscal effect by amendment, in this instance the question was premature.
Following the ruling, all 97 members of the Assembly present voted to nonconcur in the S.Amdt.3. The bill went to conference, and the Senate receded from its position on the amendment as part of the conference report.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely because final action on senate amendment 3 had not been taken by the legislature.
Assembly Journal of October 29, 1987 .......... Page: 514
[The question was "shall senate amdt.1 to AB 462 be concurred in?"]:
Representative Walling moved that Assembly Bill 462 [relating to the Wisconsin retirement system, allowing retired public employes to purchase state group health insurance coverage, fixed retirement investment trusts, transferring funds and making an appropriation] be referred to the committee on Rules.
54 [Note:] Only proposals (bills, joint resolutions, resolutions) are referred to committee; see A.Rules 42 and 45.
Amendments or substitutes offered in the house of origin while the proposal is still in committee are forwarded to the committee for filing with the proposal.
Although Mason's Manual (sec. 766.3, 1989 ed.) says that "it is proper for a house, upon receiving an amended bill with a request to concur, to refer the message with the bill to a committee for consideration and a report upon concurrence", Wisconsin practice is to refer the amended proposal directly to calendar.
In the Senate, S.Rule 41 (2) clearly addresses the issue: .... "Questions of .... concurrence in amendments of the other house .... may be placed on the table but shall in no case be referred to any committee."
In the Assembly, A.Rule 31 (6) serves the same purpose by providing for an order of business reserved for "consideration of senate action on proposals approved by the assembly".
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that the motion to refer to committee was not in order when the question before the assembly was consideration of senate amendments.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1986 .......... Page: 994
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson moved reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 23 to Senate Bill 120 [relating to campaign financing, providing a penalty and making an appropriation] was laid on the table. Entered.
Representative Prosser moved nonconcurrence in senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 23 to Senate Bill 120.
The question was: Shall senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 23 to Senate Bill 120 be nonconcurred in? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-48, noes-50.] Motion failed.
Representative R. Travis rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 120 was required to be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance under section 13.093 (1) of the Wisconsin Statutes.
[Note:] For a bill requiring referral to the joint fiance committee, the point of order would be timely in conjunction with the vote on passage or concurrence. The statutory rule requires only one referral between the 2 houses.
The history of SB 120 shows that the bill was referred to joint finance (dipped) in the senate (Sen.Jour. 6/13/85, p. 232).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not timely.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 18, 1983 .......... Page: 439
Point of order:
55 Representative Plewa rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 26 [relating to liability for nonmoving traffic violations with rented or leased vehicles] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 26 which was previously considered by the assembly.
[Note:] This was a misapplication of A.Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided]. The assembly had adopted A.Sub.3, A.Jour. 5/24/83, p. 226.
Once rejected, an "amendment as it affects a proposal" stays adversely disposed of for the biennial session; see A.Rule 49.
The substance of an assembly amendment to a senate amendment or substitute must be germane to the senate document, but A.Rule 54 (3) (c) does not prevent the assembly from adhering to its prior position on the issue.
The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of October 18, 1983 .......... Page: 442
Representative Rogers asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 26 be withdrawn and returned to the author. Granted.
Assembly Journal of June 23, 1983 .......... Page: 283
[Division of question: under unanimous consent, division of senate amendment to assembly amendment to senate bill was allowed notwithstanding A.Rules 52 and 80]
[Note:] The prohibition against amendments in the 3rd degree applies only to the amending process within the Assembly, and "simple amendment" means an Assembly amendment:
A.Rule 52 (2) (intro.) Amendments to amendments may be offered but amendments in the 3rd degree shall not be accepted.
A.Rule 80 (2) If it is the opinion of the chair that the proposed division of a simple amendment is unduly complex or the purpose of the division can be more clearly or simply accomplished by amendment, or that a call for a division is being used as a substitute for a series of amendments, the question shall not be divided.
[Note:] Because senate amendments to assembly proposals or amendments are to be treated like proposals for the purpose of further amending, division is inappropriate:
A.Rule 52 (2) (b) Senate amendments presented to the assembly for concurrence are proposals for purposes of this rule and, therefore, an amendment to a simple amendment to a senate amendment is in order.
A.Rule 80 (4) Bills, joint resolutions, resolutions and substitute amendments may not be divided.
Representative T. Thompson asked unanimous consent for the following division of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1983 legislature, and making appropriations]. Granted.
56 Part 1: Campaign Financing
page 4, lines 6 through 29.
Part 2: Shared Revenue
page 11, lines 6 through 22.
Part 3: WISPTR
page 11, lines 23 through 37.
page 12, lines 1 through 31.
Part 4: Reapportionment
page 1, line 2.
page 4, line 5.
page 9, lines 36 and 37.
Part 5: Judicial Commission/Ethics Board
page 4, line 30.
Part 6: Balance of the amendment.
Representative Goodrich moved nonconcurrence in part 1 of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83.
The question was: Shall part 1 of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 be nonconcurred in? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-44, noes-51.] Motion failed.
The question was: Shall part 1 of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 be concurred in? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-52, noes-44.] Motion carried.
Representative T. Thompson moved nonconcurrence in part 2 of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83.
Point of order:
Representative Hauke rose to the point of order that a division of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 was not proper under Assembly Rule 80.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 23, 1983 .......... Page: 268
[Point of order:]
The question was: Concurrence of assembly amendment 4 [to Senate Bill 83, relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1983 legislature, and making appropriations]?
Senator Opitz raised the point of order that assembly amendment 4 was not germane.
[Note:] A.Amdt.4 was the super-amendment brought in by the assembly majority party caucus. It had passed the assembly. Interhouse comity requires
that the actions of one house be given full faith and credit by the other house [see Jeff.Man. 3-p and 17-s].
The germaneness of an amendment can be challenged only in the house of introduction [see S.Rule 50 (3)] because, under the state constitution, each house determines its own rules [Art. IV, Sec. 11].
57 The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Point of order:]
Senator Opitz raised the point of order that assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 was not properly before the senate.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Opitz appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-19, noes-13.] So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 9, 1982 .......... Page: 2550
[Division of senate amendment to assembly bill not allowed:]
Representative Hopkins requested a division of the question on senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 62 [relating to renewable energy resources and increasing an appropriation].
[Note:] Division is permitted only for "simple", meaning "assembly", amendments under A.Rule 80 (1).
A.Rule 52 (2) (b) explains that senate amendments, presented to the assembly for concurrence, are to be treated as "proposals" and may be amended to the 2nd degree.
Following some intervening business, Rep. Hopkins offered A.Amdt.1 to S.Amdt.1 to AB 62.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that each senate amendment constituted a separate proposal before the assembly and, therefore, should not be divided under Assembly Rule 80 (4).
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 9, 1982 .......... Page: 1665
Point of order:
Senator Moody raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 150 [relating to changes in the regulation of motor carriers and granting rule-making authority] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 10, 1982 .......... Page: 1670
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Tuesday, March 9, 1982, Senator from the 9th, Senator Moody, raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
58 Assembly amendment 1 deals exclusively with water carriers. Senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 deals with livestock and fluid milk haulers. Senate amendment 1
to assembly amendment 1 relates to a different specific subject [than] that assembly amendment 1, therefore, pursuant to Senate Rule 50 (7), senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 is not germane and the point of order raised by the Senator from the 9th, Senator Moody, is well taken.
Senator Harsdorf appealed the ruling of the chair.
The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-20, noes-11.] So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the Senate.
Senate Journal of March 2, 1982 .......... Page: 1590
Point of order:
Senator Engeleiter raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 519, relating to the reorganization of city school districts into common or unified districts] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 4, 1982 .......... Page: 1611
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Tuesday, March 2, 1982 the senator from the 33rd, Senator Engeleiter, raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 519 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 519 clarifies the action to be taken by the Fiscal Board or Common Council in the event an action has been taken by the electorate or the School Board to reorganize the city school district.
Senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 proposes a new procedure to permit the Fiscal Board, Common Council or the electorate to retain the city school district by referendum and prohibit further action by the Fiscal Board or
Common Council. Although the proposition would be germane to the bill it does appear to accomplish a different purpose than that of assembly amendment 1, and expand the scope thereof. Therefore it is the opinion of the chair that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 is not germane and the point of order raised by the senator from the 33rd, Senator Engeleiter, is well taken.
Senate Journal of May 7, 1981 .......... Page: 402
Point of order:
