Assembly Journal of March 20, 1990 .......... Page: 921
Representative Welch asked for the following division of assembly amendment 22 to Senate Bill 300 [relating to disposal and recycling of solid waste, granting rule-making authority, providing a penalty and making appropriations]:
Part 1: Page 9, line 27 thru Page 10, line 7 and Page 16, lines 4 thru 6.
Part 2: Remainder of amendment.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the request for division unacceptable.
[Note:] A.Rule 80 (2) appears to give the presiding officer exclusive control over questions of division: "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."
In this instance, Div-1 was the same as A.Amdt-5 to SB 300, and successive motions to table or to adopt A.Amdt-5 had failed on tie votes, 48 to 48. Using division as a means to reopen debate on A.Amdt-5 would have been dilatory.
On the other hand, A.Amdt-22 was a 16-page multi-issue amendment. Even though one or more of the issues contained in A.Amdt-22 might have been discussed earlier, their combined effect on the bill distinguished the multi-issue amendment from single-issue A.Amdt-5. Only an amendment "substantially similar to an amendment already acted upon" is by A.Rule 54 (3) (c) declared not germane.
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 22 to Senate Bill 300 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 25, 1989 .......... Page: 394
Point of order:
289 Representative Calvin Potter rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 506 [relating to providing remedial reading services to pupils] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [amendment substantially like amendment acted upon earlier].
[Note:] The bill provided remedial reading services for pupils in grades K to 4 who failed to score "above" the state's minimum performance standard. A.Amdt-2 moved that requirement into an earlier part of the bill.
Amendment 1 to A.Amdt-2 changed the passing mark, in the new language inserted by A.Amdt-2, to "at or above". Rejection of Amendment 1 failed 47 to 51 and it was tabled; A.Amdt-2 was then rejected 62 to 37.
A.Amdt-3 then proposed to insert "at or above" into the language already contained in the bill. Although the change had been discussed with Amendment 1 to A.Amdt-2, the issue had not been decided when the amendment to A.Amdt-2 was tabled.
As explained in A.Rule 49, the rule against considering the same issue again applies to "a proposal, or an amendment as it affects a proposal". Even if the issue raised by Amendment 1 to A.Amdt-2 had been decided, it had not been decided for any subsequent 2nd degree amendment to a later amendment to the proposal, or for an amendment to the proposal itself.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 22, 1990 .......... Page: 923
[Point of order:]
Senator Adelman raised the point of order that senate amendment 12 is not germane to Assembly Bill 611 [relating to revision of the lobbying regulation law and code of ethics for state public officials and employes, requests for increased appropriations to state agencies, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty].
The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point well taken.
290 [Note:] Sen. Amdt. 12 was identical to 1989 SB 184 (relating to discontinuance of interim allowances to members of the legislature for postage and clerical assistance), which was waiting for action in the senate committee on Housing, Government Operations and Cultural Affairs. Aside from introducing an unrelated subject into the lobby law and ethics code revision bill, the amendment was out of order because an amendment "identical with a proposal currently before the senate is not germane"; S.Rule 50 (6).
Sen. Amdt. 14 (below) outlawed campaign committee fund raisers in Dane county, except for a candidate after June 1 in the election year or for Dane county legislators. The bill revised the lobby law; not, the campaign finance law.
Sen. Amdt. 17, creating a code of ethics for certain local public officials, was held germane to the bill's revision of the ethics code for state public officials and employes. Though adopted by the senate, Sen. Amdt. 17 failed when the assembly nonconcurred and the senate receded.
Sen. Amdt. 19, by proposing to create a new crime of bribery involving a state or local public official, would have expanded the scope of the proposal.
There may also have been some confusion concerning the eligibility of Sen. Amdt. 19 (Berndt), which was identical to Sen. Amdt. 2 (Davis). An identical amendment to one previously rejected to the same bill is not germane; S.Rule 50 (6). However, Sen. Amdt. 2 had merely been placed "after" Sen. Amdt. 18 and remained laid aside (but not, rejected), when Sen. Amdt. 19 was offered and taken up.
[Point of order:]
Senator Adelman raised the point of order that senate amendment 14 is not germane to Assembly Bill 611. The Chair ruled the point well taken. ( Senator Adelman raised the point of order that senate amendment 17 is not germane to Assembly Bill 611. The Chair ruled the point not well taken. ( Senator Adelman raised the point of order that senate amendment 19 was not germane to Assembly Bill 611. The Chair ruled the point well taken.
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 17, 1988 .......... Page: 900
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 7 to assembly amendment 76 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 850 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the 1988 annual budget bill, and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided] because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 6 to assembly amendment 76 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 850. ( The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken because the tabling of assembly amendment 6 to assembly amendment 76 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 850 did not constitute "already acting upon".
Assembly Journal of March 3, 1988 .......... Page: 782
Point of order:
Representative Hauke rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 4 to Senate Bill 235 [relating to providing family leave and medical leave to employes in this state and providing a penalty] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided].
[Note:] The amendment was similar to A.Amdt.5 to A.SubAmdt.4, which had been rejected ayes-54, noes-42.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of May 27, 1987 .......... Page: 199
Point of order:
Representative Mark Lewis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 15 to Senate Bill 166 [relating to establishing a speed limit of 65 miles per hour for rural interstate highways] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided].
291 The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Mark Lewis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 19 to Senate Bill 166 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c). The chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] The bill increased the speed limit from 55 mph tp 65 mph.
A.Amdt.15 authorized DOT to reduce the speed limit from 65 mph to 55 mph based on accident statistics. The amendment was substantially different from A.Amdt.10, which would have permitted a similar speed limit reduction based on fuel consumption.
A.Amdt.19 retained the speed limit at 55 mph for school buses and for certain trucks over 10,000 lbs. A.Amdts.1 and 13 had dealt only with trucks.
Assembly Journal of May 27, 1987 .......... Page: 201
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that assembly amendment 19 to Senate Bill 166 was germane and the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 11, 1986 .......... Page: 685
[Point of order:]
Senator Czarnezki raised the point of order that senate amendment 2 [to Assembly Bill 303, relating to technical and minor policy changes in respect to the income and franchise taxes] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 18, 1986 .......... Page: 716
Ruling of the chair:
On March 11, 1986, the Senator from the 8th, Senator Czarnezki, raised the point of order that senate amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 303 [relating to technical and minor policy changes in respect to the income and franchise taxes] was not germane in that it was identical to Senate Bill 455. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
It is unusual that two similar points of order relating to the introduction of amendments which are identical to bills currently pending in the Senate be raised. A close reading of senate amendment 2 reveals that the content of senate amendment 2 is identical to that of Senate Bill 455.
Senate Rule 50(6) reads in part: "An identical amendment or an amendment identical in effect to one previously rejected as another amendment to the same bill or identical with a proposal currently before the Senate is not germane."
There is no doubt that senate amendment 2 is identical to Senate Bill 455. Therefore, it is the opinion of the chair [Pres. Risser] that senate amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 303 is not germane and the point of order raised by the Senator from the 8th is well taken.
Senate Journal of March 11, 1986 .......... Page: 682
[Point of order:]
Senator Davis raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 23 [to Senate Bill 120, relating to campaign financing, providing a penalty and making an appropriation] was not germane.
292 The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1986 .......... Page: 696
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
The Senator from the 11th, Senator Davis, raised a point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 23 to Senate Bill 120 [relating to campaign financing, providing a penalty and making an appropriation] was not germane as it was incorporating the language of Senate Bill 36 as an amendment. The Chair ruled the point of order not well taken. By unanimous consent the Senator from the 11th asked that the ruling be printed in the Journal. The Chair has taken the liberty to formalize the ruling by doing further research.
Senate amendment 1 in the first paragraph deletes a substantial amount of material from the original proposal which is not done in Senate Bill 36. In addition, on page 2 of the amendment, the amendment makes changes to section 11.26(12m) of the Statutes. No where in Senate Bill 36 is that section of the statutes affected.
On April 6, 1984, the Chair ruled on a similar point of order raised by the Senator from the 15th. It may be found on page 873, Journal of the Senate, April 6, 1984. It reads in part "It appears to the Chair that the Senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, is attempting to bring forth the same language as Senate Bill 114 and senate substitute amendment 1 by adding some new material to the amendment that is already current law. The Chair has serious questions about this practice; however, when the question of germaneness is close, Mason's Manual Section 401(5) states in part: "The Presiding Officer should never rule an amendment out of order unless he is certain that it is." In this case the Chair ruled the point of order not well taken and permitted the amendment to be debated. ( The Chair based the ruling of germaneness of senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 23 to Senate Bill 120 on this ruling, and therefore ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 20, 1983 .......... Page: 486
Point of order:
Representative Radtke rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 21 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 260 [relating to official identification cards, changing the legal drinking age, establishing a curfew and creating and changing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 260.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 19, 1983 .......... Page: 469
Point of order:
Representative Plous rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 27 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 200 [relating to establishing a system of marital property shared by husband and wife and providing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided].
Representative Plous withdrew her point of order.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 27 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 200 be adopted? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-50, noes-47.] Motion carried.
293Assembly Journal of October 18, 1983 .......... Page: 439
Point of order:
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 October 13, 1983 .......... Page: 420
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 10 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434 [relating to day care services and funds, granting rule-making authority and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 2 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 11 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 2 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434.
Representative T. Thompson asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 11 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434 be placed after assembly amendment 13 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434. Granted.
Assembly Journal of October 13, 1983 .......... Page: 421
[Intervening text omitted.]
Representative T. Thompson cited as precedent for his position on the germaneness of assembly amendment 11 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434 the ruling by Speaker Anderson on May 21, 1975 on assembly amendment 65 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 222.
294 [Note:] See 1975 Assembly Journal, page 929, where Speaker Anderson held that the purpose of the rule ...."is to prevent repeated unnecessary consideration of the same subject matter once a conscious determination has been made"....
When necessary to express the true will of the house, even a minor change might make an amendment sufficiently dissimilar to escape A.Rule 54 (3) (c).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order raised by Representative Johnson well taken and assembly amendment 11 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 434 not germane.
Assembly Journal of June 21, 1983 .......... Page: 274
Point of order:
