The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of February 9, 1982 .......... Page: 2070
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 732 [relating to requiring local units of government to set the dog license tax on unneutered male dogs and unspayed female dogs at a higher rate than on neutered male dogs and spayed female dogs] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] The purpose of the bill was to tax reproductive dogs at a higher rate than spayed or neutered dogs. The substitute retained those provisions and, in addition, increased the kennel license (an alternative to individual dog licenses) from $25 to $40 without reference to the reproductive status of the dogs in the kennel.
The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of February 9, 1982 .......... Page: 2074
The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Thompson that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 732 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
Assembly Journal of October 28, 1981 .......... Page: 1551
Point of order:
Representative Broydrick rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 616 [relating to congressional districts] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] S.Amdt.6 was limited to a change, in the village of Shorewood, dividing CD-5 from CD-9.
A.Amdt.1 thereto would have changed CD-6 and CD-8, placing all of Waupaca county into CD-6 and all of Brown county into CD-8.
The assembly amendment not only expanded the scope of the senate amendment, but also violated A.Rule 54 (5) [amendment to amendment].
The same Brown/Waushara adjustment was subsequently introduced as 1981 AB 1133 and enacted as Chapter 155, Laws of 1981.
236 The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 9, 1981 .......... Page: 629
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 359 [relating to demerit points for traffic convictions] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] A bill introduced by JCRAR "to support the objection" to promulgation of a proposed administrative rule must be very narrowly drafted so as not to interfere with administrative rule-making generally.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the amendment not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) and the point of order well taken. The speaker stated that amendments which might otherwise be germane to the bill, are not germane in this case because of the limited scope of Senate Bill 359. The bill was introduced pursuant to section 227.018 (5) (e) of the Wisconsin Statutes to fulfill the statutory purpose of ratifying the action of the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules.
Assembly Journal of May 14, 1981 .......... Page: 519
Point of order:
Representative Hauke rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 85 [relating to the maximum recovery level for tort actions against local governmental entities and agencies] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
[Note:] 1981 AB 85 dealt with the dollar value of tort action recovery. The statutes allowed tort action recovery from local governments for highway defects or for "acts in official capacity". In both cases, the value of the tort claim was limited to $25,000. The bill proposed to increase the limit to $100,000.
A.Amdt.3 proposed to restrict the circumstances authorizing tort actions against local governments. This was not an amendment limiting the scope of the proposal; rather, it substantially expanded the scope by opening up the entire question of tort actions against local governments.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of April 30, 1981 .......... Page: 421
Point of order:
Representative Munts rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 231 [relating to municipal zoning of wetlands within shoreland areas] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] The bill was limited to wetland zoning; A.Amdt.3 proposed to limit to "navigable" streams the existing permit requirement for dredging.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
237Assembly Journal of February 12, 1981 .......... Page: 160
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Resolution 8 [relating to assembly committees] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] The resolution dealt only with the enumeration of assembly standing committees and the membership of the committee on assembly organization.
A.Amdt.6 proposed to limit the assembly staffing to FTE 215 positions and specified the staff allocation among members, leadership and committee chairs.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
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:
Senator Berger raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 5 [to Senate Bill 243, relating to limitation of state expenditure reductions, expenditure estimate procedure and state revenue shortfall procedure] was not germane.
238 [Note:] A.Amdt.5 established a trigger level (0.5% of general purpose appropriations) for notification, by the secretary of administration, of the governor and the legislature of an anticipated revenue shortfall.
S.Amd.1 to A.Amdt.5 proposed an entirely new procedure, not sanctioned by the state constitution, whereby the governor's recommendation to deal with a revenue shortfall "shall be effective" if the legislature failed to act on the fiscal imbalance within 30 days of notification.
S.Rule 50 (4), "an amendment to an amendment must be germane to the amendment as well as to the original proposal", deals with senate amendments to senate amendments.
When the senate considers an assembly amendment to a senate proposal, the business before the senate is limited to the assembly amendment; consequently, the question of germaneness of a further senate amendment falls under S.Rule 50 (1) which prohibits senate consideration of senate amendments: "intended to accomplish a different purpose .... or [which] would totally alter the nature of the original proposal".
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of February 19, 1981 .......... Page: 162
Point of order:
Senator Flynn raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 [to Senate Resolution 5, condemning racial discrimination policies of the South African government and the trade mission to that country] was not germane.
[Note:] The resolution had the limited purpose of expressing the senate's opposition to an official Wisconsin trade mission to South Africa. S.Amdt.4 proposed to condenm the Soviet Union for its violation of basic human rights by limiting emigration of Soviet Jews.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator McCallum appealed the ruling of the chair. [Intervening text omitted.]
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-13.] So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1980 .......... Page: 3176
Point of order:
Representative Tregoning rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 178 [relating to regulation of occupational therapists by the medical examining board, creating an occupational therapists examining council and granting rule-making authority] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
239 [Note:] As received from the senate, the bill required physician referral to validate patient care by occupational therapists.
A.Amdt.2 permitted referral also by chiropractors and by dentists.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1980 .......... Page: 3177
Point of order:
Representative Shoemaker rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to Senate Bill 178 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] The bill added occupational therapists to an existing statute exempting armed services or federal health service physicians from Wisconsin licensing requirements.
A.Amdt.3 tried to add podiatrists and physical therapists to the same exempting statute.
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1980 .......... Page: 3159
Point of order:
Representative Rutkowski rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Joint Resolution 125 [relating to revising the right to bail] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] A.Sub.2 permitted 10 days detention. without bail, for persons accused of murder or of the worst class of sexual assault. A.Amdt. 6 proposed to add "felony involving serious bodily harm to another person".
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 18, 1980 .......... Page: 2861
Point of order:
Representative Broydrick rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to assembly substitute amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 500 [relating to establishing a program of inspection and maintenance of certain motor vehicles in any county required by federal law to institute this program and in a county whose board of supervisors elect to participate in the program, granting rule-making authority, providing a penalty, making an appropriation and creating a tax exemption] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] Since it dealt with a motor vehicle program, A.Sub.2 suggested taking $76,600 start-up costs, for "establishment and administration" of the inspection program, from the motor vehicle fund. A.Amdt.2 proposed to take the same amount from the general fund, limited to "establishment" of the program.
240 The chair [Rep. Ferrall] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 18, 1980 .......... Page: 2880
Point of order:
Representative Broydrick rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 19 to assembly substitute amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 500 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] The original proposal and all substitutes dealt with motor vehicle inspection programs in counties where poor air quality made such inspection mandatory under federal law or where the county board requested the state to establish the program.
A.Amdt.19 to A.Sub.4 was a floor amendment which arbitrarily directed establishing a vehicle inspection program in Dane county.
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 14, 1980 .......... Page: 2776
Point of order:
Representative Ladwig rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1228 [relating to industrial revenue bonds and projects] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] For industrial revenue bond financing, the bill required a minimum floor area of 200,000 square feet for shopping centers, and of 75,000 square feet for office buildings, convention or trade centers, hotels, motels and other nonresidential facilities.
Above, A.Amdt.1 reduced the numbers to 50,000 and 20,000, respectively. AA-1 to AA-1 proposed a further reduction of the minimum square footage to 30,000 and 10,000.
A.Amdt. 13 (below) required approval of a relocation assistance plan by the department of local affairs and development for any project financed with industrial revenue bonding "which will result in the elimination of residential housing".
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 14, 1980 .......... Page: 2789
Point of order:
Representative Barczak rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 13 to Assembly Bill 1228 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f)
[substantial expansion of scope]. ( The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
