Senator Keppler moved that the assembly bills to be laid on the table be voted upon en masse.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that the rules could be suspended on individual bills but not on bills en masse.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
By request of Senator Parys, with unanimous consent, he withdrew his motion to lay the assembly bills from the calendar of October 12 on the table.
Emergency statement (to pass appropriation bill before budget)
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 27, 1975 .......... Page: 1334
Point of order:
Representative Azim rose to the point of order that that Assembly Bill 937 [relating to limiting salary increases for statutory salary of elected officials to 5% in FY 1975-76 and 4% in FY 1976-77] could not be considered for passage at this time pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes 16.47 (2).
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of April 29, 1975 .......... Page: 668
Point of order:
Representative Willkom asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 213 [relating to agricultural commodity producers' payments to growers, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty] be referred to joint committee on Finance. Granted.
112 Representative Willkom asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 213 be withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance and taken up at this time. Representative Gower objected.
Representative Willkom moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 213 be withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance and taken up at this time.
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order because Wisconsin Statutes 16.47 (2) and Joint Rule 24 (2) and Joint Rule 24 (11) precluded withdrawing the bill from the joint committee on Finance and passing it at this time without an emergency statement.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken because assembly amendment 2 with its adoption became part of the bill as defined in Wisconsin Statutes 16.47 (2) and because Joint Rule 24 (11) was permissive not mandatory.
Engrossment
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 4, 1984 .......... Page: 1127
Point of order:
Representative Hephner rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 595 [relating to groundwater management, creating a council, granting rule-making authority, imposing penalties and making appropriations] was not in proper form. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of April 4, 1984 .......... Page: 1131
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that assembly amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 595 was in proper form as corrected by the chief clerk. It had been drafted before an engrossed copy of senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 595 had been prepared. The speaker ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 21, 1984 .......... Page: 1003
[Reconsideration motion, time for offering:]
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 999 [relating to regulation of utility advertising practices] be ordered engrossed and read a third time? Motion carried.
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 999 be given a third reading. Representative Plous objected.
Representative Johnson moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 999 be given a third reading.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 999 be given a third reading? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-71, noes-23.] Motion carried.
Representative Gilson asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "Aye" on the previous question. Granted.
Representative Plous moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 999 was ordered to a third reading.
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration was not in order at this time. The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 21, 1984 .......... Page: 1005
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 999 was ordered to a third reading was not in order when offered by Representative Plous, because it was not offered immediately after the vote on engrossment.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 23, 1978 .......... Page: 3992
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of engrossment [of Assembly Bill 1046, relating to application of civil service law to certain law enforcement and fire fighting personnel] was not properly before the assembly because the assembly had failed to consider two amendments before the bill was engrossed on Tuesday, March 21.
Representative Shabaz asked unanimous consent that the record on engrossment of Assembly Bill 1046 be expunged. Granted.
Enrolled bills: procedure for
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1980 .......... Page: 2953
[Background:] Representative Johnson moved that Assembly Bill 1241 [relating to vacancies in nominations of candidates for certain offices] be immediately messaged to the governor.
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion was improper.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because nothing in the rules prevented such a motion.
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that there was no order of business that provided for messaging bills to the governor. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1980 .......... Page: 2956
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Shabaz.
Point of order:
114 Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Joint Rule 34 and Enrolled Joint Resolution 1 required the "chief clerk" to present bills to the governor but this motion would allow the "assembly" to present the bill to the governor; therefore, the motion required a suspension of the rules.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that the motion was proper and did not require a suspension of the rules.
Expunction of prior action
1 9 8 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 27, 1990 .......... Page: 744
Expunge prior action:
The question was: Shall the roll call on the question of suspending the rules and 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 the committee on Education, Economic Development, Financial Institutions and Fiscal Policies and taken up be expunged?
The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: ayes, 22; noes, 10 [display of roll call vote omitted]. The roll call was expunged.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 23, 1978 .......... Page: 3992
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of engrossment [of Assembly Bill 1046, relating to application of civil service law to certain law enforcement and fire fighting personnel] was not properly before the assembly because the assembly had failed to consider two amendments before the bill was engrossed on Tuesday, March 21.
Representative Shabaz asked unanimous consent that the record on engrossment of Assembly Bill 1046 be expunged. Granted.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 11, 1976 .......... Page: 3299
Point of order:
Representative Conta moved that Senate Bill 255 [relating to mandatory coverage of chiropractic services in health, accident, sickness and casualty insurance policies, and providing a penalty] be re-referred to the joint committee on Finance.
Representative Kedrowski in the chair.
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 255 be re-referred to the joint committee on Finance?
115 The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-49, noes-45.] Motion carried.
[Note:] Was question stated wrong? Representative Wahner asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "No" on the previous question .... Dueholm - "No" .... Granted.
Representative Tregoning asked unanimous consent that the previous roll call be expunged. Representative DeLong objected.
Representative Tregoning moved that the rules be suspended and the previous roll call be expunged.
Representative Conradt asked unanimous consent that the previous roll call be expunged. Representative Conta objected.
The speaker in the chair.
Representative Hauke rose to the point of order that the previous roll call was not proper under Assembly Rules 75 [stating the question], 76 [roll call vote] and 77 [every member present to vote].
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and the previous roll call be expunged?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-65, noes-24.] Motion carried.
Representative Clarenbach asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "Aye" on the previous question .... Schneider - "Aye" ....
Representative Norquist asked unanimous consent that the previous roll call be expunged. Representative Shabaz objected.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 20, 1973 .......... Page: 1232
[Opening roll call: expunction of record]
[10:00 a.m.] Senator Lorge asked unanimous consent that the calling of the roll be dispensed with. Senator LaFollette objected.
By request of Senator Risser, with unanimous consent, the senate recessed until 10:15 A.M. [10:15 a.m.] The senate reconvened.
