The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of May 4, 1977 .......... Page: 879
Point of order:
Representative Wahner rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 41 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 100 [relating to revision of laws applicable to actions affecting marriage] was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 21 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 100.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of May 4, 1977 .......... Page: 880
Point of order:
Representative Wahner rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 42 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 100 was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 21 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 100.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
Point of order:
Representative Tesmer rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 43 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 100 was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 21 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 100.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of January 12, 1977 .......... Page: 104
Point of order:
Representative Wahner rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 33 to Assembly Resolution 6 was not germane under Assembly Rule 55 because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 16 to Assembly Resolution 6.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 29, 1977 .......... Page: 937
[Point of order:]
Senator Flynn raised the point of order that senate amendment 17 [to Senate Bill 426, relating to a residential landlord and tenant act] was identical to senate amendment 4 and was therefore, not germane.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken pursuant to senate rule 50 (6).
300Senate Journal of June 23, 1977 .......... Page: 830
[Point of order:]
Senator Berger raised the point of order that senate amendment 31 [to Senate Bill 15, relating to revision of municipal employment collective bargaining impasse resolution procedures, providing for final and binding arbitration, authorizing a limited right to strike, granting rule-making authority and providing penalties] was similar to senate amendment 2 to senate amendment 2 to senate substitute amendment 6 and therefore, was not germane.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken pursuant to senate rule 50 (6).
Senate Journal of May 19, 1977 .......... Page: 619
[Point of order:]
Senator Berger raised the point of order that senate amendment 112 [to Senate Bill 77, relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1977 legislature, and making appropriations] was identical to senate amendment 20 and therefore was not germane.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that, pursuant to senate rule 50 (6), the point of order was well taken.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 23, 1976 .......... Page: 3514
Point of order:
Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 128 was not germane because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 128.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 16, 1976 .......... Page: 3366
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 10 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 605 was not germane because
it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 6 to assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 605.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1976 .......... Page: 3249
Point of order:
Representative Conta rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 1040 was not germane under Assembly Rule 55 because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 1040.
301 The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of February 17, 1976 .......... Page: 2586
Point of order:
Representative Czerwinski rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 455 [relating to revision of child abuse law] was not germane because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 455.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 27, 1975 .......... Page: 1342
Point of order:
Representative Rooney rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 9 to assembly amendment 6 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 725 [relating to provisions of professional liability insurance policies for health care providers] was not germane because it was substantially the same as assembly amendment 5 to assembly amendment 6 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 725.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of May 21, 1975 .......... Page: 929
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 65 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 222 was not germane pursuant to Assembly Rule 55 (3) (c). He cited as a precedent, the ruling of the chair
which appears on page 700 of the 1965 Assembly Journal in which assembly amendments 4 and 5 to 1965 Senate Bill 37 were ruled substantially similar.
The speaker [Anderson] made the following ruling on the point of order.
"It happens I do recall the bill that was under discussion at that time and I have examined very carefully the documents which the Gentleman from the 83rd has offered. I am persuaded that the Speaker at that time, Speaker Huber, was correct in his interpretation of the rule and that the 2 amendments were substantially the same - virtually identical. However, whether something is the same or different is a matter of judgment.
Obviously, there is a difference of opinion between the Gentleman from the 83rd and the Gentleman from the 32nd and I suspect a majority of the people in this house. It may be that the difference is modest, but in the judgment of the chair, a significant difference. In any event, sufficient to take it outside the rule and accordingly the chair rules the point of order not well taken.
302 I might further go on to say, Gentleman from the 83rd, again it is always useful to consider what the purpose of the rule is in interpreting the rule. The rule should not be used to achieve a different purpose than that for which it is originally enacted. The purpose of it is to prevent repeated unnecessary consideration of the same subject matter once a conscious determination has been made in this house. There is no member of this house that is unaware of the fact that the result of the vote last evening, at least in the case of 4 members of this house on both sides of the issue - 3 on one and 1 on the other, turned out to be a mistake and therefore the result was different than that the members intended
- at least those 4. And had they voted the way they intended to vote and tried to vote, the result would have been different.
I am persuaded that this amendment is significantly different on its own, even if that were not true, but I remind the Gentleman that the purpose for which the rule was adopted in the first place is not violated by the chair ruling even if I was wrong on the merits. For these reasons, the point of order raised by the Gentleman from the 83rd is not well taken."
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 3, 1975 .......... Page: 785
[Identical amendment:]
Senator Whittow moved that senate amendment 5 [to Assembly Bill 222, relating to state finances and appropriations constituting the executive budget bill of the 1975 legislature, and making appropriations] be placed after senate amendment 8.
[Point of order:]
Senator Lorge raised the point of order that senate amendment 8 was essentially identical to senate amendment 5 and therefore was not germane.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken as senate amendment 8 was not before the senate and therefore no ruling on germaneness could be made.
Germaneness: limiting scope of proposal (permitted)
1 9 9 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 15, 1994 .......... Page: 723
[Point of order:]
Senator Schultz raised the point of order that Senate amendment 2 to [Senate Joint Resolution 10 relating to the vote on certain tax increase laws (first consideration)] was not germane.
[Note:] The joint resolution required a two-thirds vote on passage in each house for "any law to impose a new tax or to broaden the base or increase the rate of an existing tax".
Sen.Amdt-2 proposed to limit the scope of the proposal by excluding, from the two-thirds requirement, any "law providing property tax relief".
The Chair ruled the point not well taken.
Senate Journal of October 26, 1993 .......... Page: 523
[Point of order:]
Senator Risser raised the point of order that Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 358 is not germane.
303 The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of October 26, 1993 .......... Page: 529
Ruling of the chair:
Earlier today the Senator from the 26th raised the point of order that Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 358 [relating to limitations of actions regarding professional accounting services] was not germane.
The Senator from the 26th raised the point that the bill is a limitation and the substitute is a statute of repose.
The bill as originally presented placed a 2 year limitation from the date the party bringing an action discovers or should have reasonably discovered an act or omission, or a total 5 year limitation on bringing an action from the date of the occurrence of the act or omission.
Senate substitute amendment 1 would place a 6 year limitation on when an action may be commenced from the date of the act or omission.
Both the bill and the substitute amendment relate to limiting the time to when an action may be brought, both contain the statute of repose concept or use the date of occurrence to determine the limit.
The substitute does in fact limit the scope by eliminating reference to a limitation based on a period of time from when the fault is discovered. Senate Rule 50 (7) allows for limiting the scope. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the substitute amendment is germane and the point of order is not well taken.
Brian D. Rude
President of the Senate
Senate Journal of January 26, 1993 .......... Page: 41
