Senate Journal of October 13, 1983 .......... Page: 417
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
Earlier today the Senator from the 29th District, Senator Chilsen, raised the point of order that Senate Bill 138 required a fiscal estimate and that one had not been received.
A reading of the original bill indicates that a fiscal note would not be required. Joint Rule 41 (2) reads "Fiscal estimates are required on original bills only and not on substitute amendments or amendments."
It is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order is not well taken.
147 1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 17, 1982 .......... Page: 2236
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 363 [relating to motor vehicles used by public or nonpublic schools for driver's education and creating a penalty] required a local fiscal estimate under section 13.10 (2) (a) of the Wisconsin Statutes because it became the bill when adopted by the senate and messaged to the assembly.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because section 13.10 (2) (a) of the Wisconsin Statutes and Joint Rule 41 (2) require fiscal estimates on original bills only and not on amendments or substitute amendments.
Assembly Journal of October 21, 1981 .......... Page: 1361
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 248 [relating to a school board's obligation to provide transportation for pupils attending private school] was required to be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance under section 13.10 (1) of the Wisconsin Statutes.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because the bill did not provide for an appropriation.
Assembly Journal of October 21, 1981 .......... Page: 1362
Point of order:
Representative Flintrop rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 248 required a local fiscal estimate under section 13.10 (2) (a) of the Wisconsin Statutes.
[Note:] When the point of order was raised, the assembly had already adopted A.Sub.1 and A.Amdt.3 thereto (A.Jour., p. 1360).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because a local fiscal estimate had been prepared on the original bill and one was not required on the substitute amendment.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of September 27, 1977 .......... Page: 2291
Point of order:
Representative Snyder rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 624 required a fiscal estimate.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken since Joint Rule 41 (2) does not require fiscal estimates on substitute amendments.
Senate Journal of September 8, 1977 .......... Page: 1100
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that the fiscal estimate was not accurate on Senate Bill 139 [relating to tax counseling at senior citizen centers].
The chair [Sen. Kleczka] ruled the point of order not well taken pursuant to joint rule 49 which only requires the bill to have a fiscal note which it does.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of July 9, 1975 .......... Page: 1411
Point of order:
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.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 1, 1974 .......... Page: 25
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 2, (Spring 1974) Special Session] required a fiscal note. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of May 1, 1974 .......... Page: 32
[Ruling of the chair:]
As it relates to the point of order raised on senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 2, (Spring 1974) Special Session, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken as the amendment does not require a fiscal note.
Senate Journal of October 10, 1973 .......... Page: 1692
[Fiscal note: proper compiling of]
Senator Johnson raised the point of order that the fiscal note on the bill [Senate Bill 380, report requirements for nursing homes] was erroneous. ( The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that the point of order was not a proper point
of order for the chair to rule on. The chair could not determine by a simple ruling whether or not a fiscal note had been properly compiled.
149Fiscal estimate: revised estimate (when requested by Joint Finance)
1 9 9 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 22, 1994 .......... Page: 750
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that the bill [Senate Bill 722, relating to expanding the small employer insurance board and renaming it the comprehensive health care board; modified community rating, fair market standards, portability, preexisting condition exclusions and guarantee issue for individual and certain group health benefit plans; establishing a standard plan; allowing the group insurance board to contract with purchasing coalitions; and granting rule-making authority] had not received a reliable fiscal estimate.
[Note:] The history of SB 722 indicates that fiscal estimates had been received on February 15 and February 18, from the office of the commissioner of insurance, from the department of health and social services, and from the department of employe trust funds.
State agencies are required to furnish the legislature with reliable estimates. The presiding officer does not have the information to decide in each instance whether or not an estimate received is "reliable".
If there was a real question as to the reliability of the information received, there were several avenues to obtain additional information. The presiding officer could have taken the point of order under advisement so as to gain the time to direct the legislative reference bureau to obtain supplementary information or, following the proposal's referral to the joint committee on finance, the co-chairs of that committee could have requested additional information from the original agencies, from the department of administration or from the legislative fiscal bureau.
The the Chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
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.
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.
150 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.
[Note:] In 1975, Joint Rule 24 (11) had the wording shown below. The fiscal estimate procedure was revised in 1977; see Joint Rule 41 (3) (a).
"(11) Whenever an amendment or substitute amendment so affects a proposal that the original fiscal note ceases to be valid, the joint committee on finance may, on the basis of additional information, attach to the report on such proposal a statement of the fiscal effect of the proposal as amended, and such statement shall be spread on the journal with the report."
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.
Fiscal estimate: revised general fund summary for "major fiscal bill"
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1984 .......... Page: 973
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 1, February 1984 Special Session [relating to the rates of the individual and corporate surtaxes] was not properly before the assembly because it did not contain a proper general fund summary [as required by s. 20.004 (1) for any "major fiscal bill"].
Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, February 1984 Special Session offered by Representatives Loftus, Johnson and Munts.
The question was: Shall assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, February 1984 Special Session be adopted? Motion carried.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order raised by Representative Prosser moot because of the adoption of assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, February 1984 Special Session [which contained the required general fund summary].
Germaneness: amendment to amendment (germane to amendment and proposal)
1 9 9 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 24, 1994 .......... Page: 928
Point of order:
151 Representative Black rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 498 [relating to nonmetallic mining reclamation, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty] was not germane under Assembly Rules 54 (3) (f) and 54 (5).
[Note:] An amendment to an amendment must be germane to both the amendment and the original proposal - see A.Rule 54 (5) and Sen.Rule 50 (4). But, an amendment in the bill's house of origin cannot change an amendment from the 2nd house so as to make changes in the text originally agreed to by the house of origin.
AB 498, as passed by the assembly, contained a provision (beginning on page 15, line 24) authorizing land owners to register parcels containing nonmetallic mineral deposits with the county or counties in which each parcel is located. Sen.Amdt-1 prefaced that provision with a June 1, 1994 effective date.
A.Amdt-1 to S.Amdt-1 deleted the effective date inserted by the senate and substituted a new authorization for the governing board of the county, city, village or town in which the parcel is located to object to the registration of the nonmetallic mineral deposit.
A.Amdt-2 to S.Amdt-1 (below) deleted the effective date inserted by the senate and attempted to substitute a complete deletion of the county-registration provision from the assembly-passed bill.
The chair (Speaker pro tempore Carpenter) ruled the point of order well taken.
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 498 was not germane under Assembly Rules 54 (3) (f) and 54 (5).
The chair (Speaker pro tempore Carpenter) ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 23, 1994 .......... Page: 892
Point of order:
Representative Roberts rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 796 [relating to the uniform commercial code statewide lien system and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] As passed by the assembly and amended by the senate, the scope of the bill was limited to an appropriation under chapter 20 of the statutes and uniform commercial code provisions under chapter 409 of the statutes
A.Amdt-1 to Sen.Amdt-1 dealt with mortgage foreclosure judgments and agricultural property. That issue had not been raised in the assembly version of the bill, and was not raised by Sen.Amdt-1 which was limited to an appropriation statute.
An amendment to an amendment must be germane to both the amendment and the original proposal - see A.Rule 54 (5) and Sen.Rule 50 (4).
The chair (Speaker pro tempore Carpenter) ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Roberts that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 796 was not germane.
Assembly Journal of May 18, 1993 .......... Page: 170
Point of order:
Representative Deininger rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 324 [relating to a grant for training employes of a business that is closing and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
