[Note:] A.Amdt.2 proposed to make optional the existing mandatory highway safety instruction.
Although its sponsor may have considered the proposed change from mandatory to optional instruction a narrowing of the proprosal, the effect was to change the nature of both the proposal and the existing statute.
309 The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 31, 1982 .......... Page: 3166
Point of order:
Representative Tuczynski rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 700 [relating to authorizing banks to establish branches under certain circumstances and to acquire real estate used for remote paying and receiving facilities] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e) [negating effect of earlier amendment].
[Note:] A.Amdt.2 made special provision for a 10-block area in Milwaukee between 2nd and 4th street, south of Wright street (2500 north) and north of Brown street (2000 north). AA-4 to AA-2, a floor amendment which was adopted, had changed the southern boundary to Becher street (2100 south, 41 blocks south of Brown street).
AA-5 to AA-2, by proposing to move the southern line from Brown street to Walnut street (1700 north), did not negate the earlier amendment but, rather, reduced the difference.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach] ruled the point of order not well taken. [Both AA-5 to AA-2, and A.Amdt.2, were subsequently rejected.]
Assembly Journal of March 16, 1982 .......... Page: 2755
Point of order:
Representative Rutkowski rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 241 [relating to note taking by jurors] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] The bill authorized note taking by jurors. A.Amdt.3 gave the court an option to "not authorize" note taking, but in that case required the court to state its reasons for the record.
Since both the bill and the amendment agreed with the title, it could be argued that the amendment limited the scope of the proposal as permitted by A.Rule 54 (4) (c).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 11, 1982 .......... Page: 2652
Point of order:
310 Representative R. Travis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 31 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 615 [relating to employes' right to know regarding toxic substances and infectious agents, providing a penalty and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] A.Amdt.31 created an exception for employers "with less than 10 employes or $1.5 million in gross sales". A.Amdt.1 thereto excluded employers who "transport grain or related agricultural products" from the exception.
Both the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment, dealt with the same exception, and AA-1 to 31 reduced the scope of that exception.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 4, 1982 .......... Page: 2494
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 583 [relating to compulsory motor vehicle insurance, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) [change nature] and (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] Although the title of A.Sub.1, "relating to impoundment of motor vehicles for failure to deposit security" created that appearance, impoundment had been a part of the bill so that the substitute represented a limitation of scope, which is permitted under A.Rule 54 (4) (c).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 23, 1981 .......... Page: 1467
Point of order:
Representative Norquist rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 622 [relating to synchronizing traffic control signals on through highways in municipalities over 25,000 population] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
[Note:] A.Amdt.2, by changing "shall synchronize" to "may synchronize", affected the nature of the bill. But, mandatory or optional, the amended bill would still deal with synchronized traffic signals on through highways. The amendment did not "relate to a different subject", "accomplish a different purpose", or "require a title for the proposal which is substantially different".
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 22, 1981 .......... Page: 1409
Point of order:
Representative Barczak rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 234 [relating to prohibiting counties, cities, villages, towns and public school districts from imposing residency requirements on certain employes] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
[Note:] While 1981 AB 234 prohibited local governments from imposing any residency requirements for employment, A.Amdt.1 would have authorized reasonable travel time limits for emergency personnel.
311 The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the amendment germane under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (c) [limiting the scope of the proposal] and the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 22, 1981 .......... Page: 1413
Point of order:
Representative Dorff rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 234 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 22, 1981 .......... Page: 1414
Point of order:
Representative Barczak rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 234 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) because it was substantially similar to assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 234.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 18, 1982 .......... Page: 1529
Point of order:
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that senate amendment 6 to senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 570, relating to the definition of sexual contact] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] S.Amdt.6 was a floor amendment to the substitute as affected by the adoption of S.Amdt.5, which had also been a floor amendment.
S.Amdt.5 had inserted a semicolon to split one fact situation (sexually degrading or humiliating) into 2 situations: "sexually degrading; or humiliating". S.Amdt.6 reapplied the modifier "sexually" to the 2nd situation (or sexually humiliating).
Senate Journal of February 18, 1982 .......... Page: 1537
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order raised by Senator Bablitch not well taken.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 6 to senate substitute amendment 1? Adopted.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 26, 1980 .......... Page: 2354
Point of order:
312 Representative Munts rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1054 [relating to permitting both parents of a minor to serve as custodians of an account established under the Wisconsin uniform gift to minors act] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope]. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] Under the uniform gift to minors act, only one person could serve as the custodian for a specific gift. 1979 AB 1054 proposed to permit both parents to serve as the custodian if the gift was money.
A.Sub.1 narrowed the change by permitting either parent, independently and without the consent of the other, to exercise the power of custodian in this situation.
Assembly Journal of February 28, 1980 .......... Page: 2411
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Munts that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1054 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of January 24, 1980 .......... Page: 1166
[Point of order:]
Senator Hanaway raised the point of order that senate amendment 2 to senate amendment 62 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 500 [relating to energy resources, granting rule-making authority, making appropriations and providing penalties] was not germane.
[Note:] S.Amdt.62 deleted from S.Sub.1 a proposed statute concerning rental unit energy efficiency. The new statute included a penalty and required a certificate of energy efficiency for any rental unit sale after 1/1/84.
SA-2 to SA-62 limited the scope of the deletion to the penalty and the energy certficate, but retained creation of the new statute in the bill.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of January 31, 1978 .......... Page: 2730
Point of order:
Representative Tuczynski rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 49 [relating to protective headgear for operators of motor-driven cycles and headlamp requirements for motor-diven cycles] was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 (3) (f).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because the amendment limited the scope of the proposal and was therefore germane under Assembly Rule 50 (4) (c).
Senate Journal of January 31, 1978 .......... Page: 1592
[Point of order:]
Senator Murphy raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 [to Senate Bill 554, relating to using dogs to hunt bear, requiring bear hunters to wear a back tag and providing a penalty] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of January 31, 1978 .......... Page: 1598
Earlier today Senator Murphy raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 to senate Bill 554 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Bill 554 relates to "using dogs to hunt bear, requiring bear hunters to wear a back tag and providing a penalty." The bill would, among other things, allow licensed bear hunters to hunt bear with a dog (or dogs), but only after obtaining a permit from the Department of Natural Resources.
Only one permit may be issued per hunter which covers the use of no more than 6 dogs, as the bill was originally drafted. However no hunter or group of hunters may use more than 6 dogs while hunting bear.
Senate amendment 4, introduced by Senator Theno, seeks to entirely prohibit hunters from using dogs to hunt bear.
In this case the chair went to Mason's Manual, Section 402, paragraphs 3 and 6, which the chair believes has some application in this instance.
Paragraph 3 says: "To be germane, the amendment is required only to relate to the same subject. It may entirely change the effect of the motion or measure and still be germane to the subject."
Paragraph 6 says: "No independent new question can be introduced under cover of an amendment. But an amendment may be in conflict with the spirit of the original motion, and still be germane and, therefore, in order.
Senate amendment 4 does not relate to a different subject since it deals with dogs and bear hunting, as does the bill. Whether senate amendment 4 is intended to accomplish a different purpose or would require a title essentially different is questionable.
The question of germaneness has been described by past chairs as "at best a judgment call" ('73, 224). In this case it is the judgment of the chair that senate amendment 4 is germane.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
Germaneness: nature or purpose of proposal (not to be changed from title)
1 9 9 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 15, 1994 .......... Page: 812
Point of order:
314 Representative Roberts rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 636 [relating to recalculation of shared revenue payments for the city of Onalaska] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
[Note:] The original bill was a special act, designed to increase shared revenue payments to the city of Onalaska based on revised October 1990, 1991 and 1992 population estimates. The fiscal estimate by the department of revenue explained that the necessary funds would be obtained "by an equal reduction in total shared revenue payments to all other municipalities and counties".
A.Sub.Amdt-1, offered by the committee on ways and means, made the proposal apply to any municipality for which the federal government brought in a corrected 1990 decennial census population. "Municipality" was not defined within the pages of the substitute amendment.
A.Amdt-1 to the substitute was not related to correction of shared revenue over- or under-payments resulting from census corrections. Instead, it proposed to exclude Menominee county from the maximum limit on regular shared revenue deficiency payments.
The chair (Speaker pro tempore Carpenter) ruled the point of order well taken.
