Senate Journal of May 7, 1991 .......... Page: 232
[Ruling on the point of order:]
On Tuesday, April 30, the Senator from the 28th, Senator Adelman, raised a point of order that Senate Substitute Amendment 2 to Senate Bill 128 was not germane. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
The original bill as introduced relates to the adoption of ordinances by local units of government relating to drug paraphernalia and marijuana possession.
Senate Substitute Amendment 2 would amend current state statutes as they relate to drug paraphernalia. It is the opinion of the Chair that Senate Bill 128 relates directly to the =_authority of local units of government as it relates to the adoption of ordinances. Senate Substitute Amendment 2 is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a title essentially different and would totally alter the nature of the original proposal. This is in direct violation of Senate Rule 50.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that Senate Substitute Amendment 2 is non-germane and that the point of order raised by the Senator from the 28th, Senator Adelman is well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
324 Senator Ellis appealed the ruling of the Chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-14.] The decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Senate.
Senate Journal of May 7, 1991 .......... Page: 233
[Point of order:]
Senator Adelman raised the point of order that Senate substitute amendment 3 [to Senate Bill 128] was not germane.
[Note:] S.Sub.Amdt-2, held not germane above, was actually a copy of S.Sub.Amdt-3 to 1991 SB 128 which, according to its LRB number, had been drafted earlier. Except for a difference in the relating clause, the 2 substitutes were identical.
The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point well taken.
1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of November 8, 1989 .......... Page: 473
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 555 [relating to personal flotation devices on sailboards] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
[Note:] Existing law required every boat to "carry" at least one life jacket (personal flotation device) for each person on board. Statute law did not require any boater to "wear" the life jacket, regardless of the type of boat.
As introduced and passed, 1989 AB 555 exempted sailboards from the life jacket requirement. Sailboards float - as to its occupant, each sailboard can be considered a "personal flotation device".
A.Amdt-1 took away the sailboard exemption. Instead, it would have required every "person riding a sailboard to wear a personal flotation device".
As an attempt to "totally alter the nature of the proposal", the amendment violated A.Rule 54 (1) and, consequently, was not germane.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of November 2, 1989 .......... Page: 440
Point of order:
Representative M. Coggs rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 569 [relating to extended kindergarten and first grade programs in a 1st class city school district] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
325 [Note:] The bill allocated, from the school aids received by the Milwaukee school district, $192,500 for extended-day kindergarten programs for 3-, 4- and 5-year olds and an extended first grade program for 6-year olds. These were pilot programs to be provided by the Milwaukee school district.
A.Sub.Amdt-1 changed the nature of the proposal by taking $1,000,000 from Milwaukee's school aids to finance a "choice" program in which parents would designate the licensed or certified private day care center to provide the extended-day care for their child.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of November 2, 1989 .......... Page: 438
Point of order:
Representative Rutkowski rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 242 [relating to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, drugs or both and providing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
326 [Note (apparently, this research was not available to the presiding officer at the time, and he ruled the amendment not germane):]
As introduced, 1989 AB242 created general minimum penalties for OWI repeat offenses within a 5-year period. Under existing law, if the current offense was the 3rd or subsequent offense within a 5-year period, the person was to be fined not less than $600 nor more than $2,000 and imprisoned for not less than 30 days nor more than one year in the county jail. The bill increased the mandatory minimum jail sentence for certain repeat OWI offenders: if the current offense was the 4th offense in the 5-year period, the mandatory minimum jail sentence would be 60 days, and if the current offense was the 5th or subsequent offense in the 5-year period, the mandatory minimum jail sentence would be 6 months.
A.Amdt-1 retained the bill's 4th offense and 5th offense mandatory minimum jail sentences for simple OWI convictions. In addition, for the 3 most serious OWI offenses - causing the death of, great bodily harm to, or injury to another person - the amendment imposed stiffer penalties and longer periods of motor vehicle operating privilege revocation as follows:
OWI causing death. Under existing law, a person who caused death in an OWI offense could be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years or both and the person's operating privilege was revoked for 5 years. Under A.Amdt-1, if the person had a prior OWI or related violation within a 5-year period, the maximum period of imprisonment was increased to 10 years and the revocation period became not less than 5 years nor more than 10 years.
OWI causing great bodily harm. Under existing law, a person who caused great bodily harm in an OWI offense could be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 2 years or both and the person's operating privilege was revoked for 2 years. Under A.Amdt-1, if the person had a prior OWI or related violation within a 5-year period, the maximum period of imprisonment was increased to 5 years and the revocation period became not less than 5 years nor more than 10 years.
OWI causing injury. Under existing law, a person who caused injury in an OWI offense was to be fined not less than $300 nor more than $2,000 and could be imprisoned not less than 30 days nor more than one year in the county jail; also, the person's operating privilege was to be revoked for not less than one year nor more than 2 years. Under A.Amdt-1, if the person had a prior OWI or related violation within a 5-year period, the maximum fine was increased to $10,000, the maximum period of imprisonment was increased to 2 years and the revocation period became not less than 2 years nor more than 10 years.
Germaneness of amendment The general rule of germaneness is stated in Assembly Rule 54 (1). An amendment is not germane if it "relates to a different subject or is intended to accomplish a different purpose than that of the proposal to which it relates".
1989 AB242 dealt with a general proposition: penalties for OWI convictions; i.e. resulting from operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant or drugs, or both. It imposed higher fines and longer imprisonment for any person now convicted of simple OWI (without killing, maiming or injuring another person) if that person, in the past 5 years, was convicted also of any other OWI offenses including simple OWI or the 3 most serious OWI offenses.
A.Amdt-1 dealt with the same subject as 1989 AB242: operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant or drug. The amendment had the same purpose as the bill: to impose harsher penalties for OWI repeat offenses.
In relation to 1989 AB242, A.Amdt-1 was a specific proposition amending a general proposition. It retained the bill's changes concerning simple OWI and, in addition, imposed longer imprisonment and longer revocation of motor vehicle operating privileges on the person now convicted of one of the 3 most serious OWI offenses (killing, maiming or injuring another person) if that person, in the past 5 years, was convicted also of other OWI offenses including simple OWI or the 3 serious OWI offenses.
A specific proposition amending a general proposition is germane; see Assembly Rule 54 (4) (a).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 11, 1989 .......... Page: 348
Point of order:
Representative Barrett rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 433 [relating to the recommendations made by planning councils under the special transfer program to reduce racial imbalance] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
327 [Note:] 1989 AB 433 was limited to the deletion of "socioeconomic" factors from the array of factors to be considered by planning councils of Milwaukee county school districts in making recommendations to their respective school boards for pupil transfers from one attendance area to another so as to reduce racial imbalance.
A.Sub.Amdt. 1 did not affect planning council procedures. Instead, the substitute proposed a list of 8 criteria and required that any pupil transferred from one attendance area to another meet at least 3 of the criteria. The substitute was not germane because it totally altered the nature of the proposal.
A.Amdt-1 (below) attempted to add the content of A.Sub.Amdt. 1 to the original bill. Under A.Rule 54 (3) (a), an amendment to add one individual proposition to a different individual proposition is not germane.
Point of order (p. 349):
Representative Barrett rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 433 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 27, 1989 .......... Page: 255
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 15 to Senate Bill 65 [relating to the authority of a metropolitan sewerage district established by a 1st class city to recover capital costs and to expand its boundaries] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] The purpose of 1989 SB 65 was to remedy "procedural defects in the enactment of 1983 WisAct 27 and 1985 WisAct 29, and thereby validate the authority of the Milw. metropolitan sewerage district (MMSD) to recover capital costs and expand its boundaries.
A.Amdt-15 proposed to divert $22,323,900 of the moneys recovered by MMSD to provide point source pollution abatement grants to 26 cities, towns, villages, Indian tribes, town sanitary districts and metropolitan sewerage districts throughout the state.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 8, 1989 .......... Page: 214
Point of order:
Representative Coleman rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 10 to Senate Bill 7 [relating to making permanent the requirement that certain motor vehicle operators and passengers use safety belts] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
Representative Hauke asked unanimous consent that the assembly stand informal for twenty-five minutes. Granted.
328 [Note (the information appears to contradict ruling made):] The bill was limited to delaying the sunset date for mandatory seat belt use from June 30, 1989, to June 30, 1991, and providing for a November 1990 advisory referendum on making the seat belt law permanent.
A.Amdt-10 expanded the scope of the proposal by requiring that, beginning July 1, 1990, no new or used automobile could be bought, sold, leased, traded or transferred in Wisconsin unless the automobile was equipped with both lap and shoulder restraints for each seating area in the back seat.
The amendment included the appropriate addition to the bill's title: "requiring the installation and use of certain safety belts in automobiles".
Ruling of the chair:
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of May 23, 1989 .......... Page: 177
Point of order:
Representative Medinger rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 286 [relating to contributions to retailers by brewers and wholesalers of fermented malt beverages] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] Existing law prohibited, with some exceptions, brewers and wholesalers from giving things of value to retailers of fermented malt beverages. One of the exceptions was for the nonprofit corporation which, with city participation, conducts Milwaukee's "Summerfest". 1989 AB 286, in the form of a population act for all 2nd class cities with a 1986 population "of at least 49,000 but less than 50,000", proposed to create a new statute granting a similar exemption to the LaCrosse "October Fest".
Assembly substitute amendment 1, instead, proposed to amend the existing statute granting Milwaukee's exception so that it would cover every "nonprofit corporation which is conducting festivals of limited duration if the festivals are sponsored and endorsed in whole or part by a municipal corporation".
Although the substitute might have expanded the scope of the proposal, it did not "totally alter the nature of the proposal" or require a title "substantially different from the proposal's original title" - except for the statute number referenced, the 2 titles were, in fact, identical.
Ruling of the chair [p. 179]:
The speaker [Loftus] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Medinger on Tuesday, May 23 that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 286 was not germane.
1 9 8 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of December 21, 1989 .......... Page: 589
[Point of order:]
Senator Davis raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 as introduced and as amended was not germane [to Oct. 1989 Spec. Sess. Senate Bill 13, relating to funding for a 2nd-dose immunization series for measles,
mumps and rubella vaccine and making an appropriation]. [Intervening text omitted.]
Ruling of the chair:
329 Senator Davis raised a point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 as introduced and as amended was nongermane.
The amendments to senate substitute amendment 2 which have been adopted are senate amendments 1 and 2. Senate amendment 1 clarifies current law to insure the immunization program applies to Milwaukee School systems. Senate amendment 2 has changed an effective date.
Senate substitute amendment 2 amends an appropriation as does the original bill. It is true as the Senator Davis indicates the original relating clause did not contain that cite however, in the body of Oct. 1989 Spec. Sess. Senate Bill 13 the same section of the statutes is enumerated. I point this out only to remind the body that the President cannot rely on a title of a bill to determine the subject. Also, I might point out that the analysis of the original bill discusses responsibilities of governing bodies and various schools as they relate to immunization. Mason's Manual Sec. 402(2) states:
To determine whether an amendment is germane, the question to be answered is whether the question is relevant, appropriate, and in a natural and logical sequence to the subject matter of the original proposal.
The Chair is of the opinion that Oct. 1989 Spec. Sess. Senate Bill 13 as originally drafted provides increased funding for the immunization program for school age children. Senate substitute amendment 2 as amended stays within this scope.
Therefore it is the opinion of the Chair the amendment is germane and the Point of Order is not well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
Senate Journal of December 21, 1989 .......... Page: 590
[Point of order:]
Senator Davis raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 [to Oct. 1989 Spec. Sess. Senate Bill 13] was not germane to the call of the special session.
[Note:] Executive order 67, issued 9/29/89 to convene to Oct. 1989 Spec. Sess., was expanded on 12/15/89 (Sen. Jour., p. 578): "To enact legislation to provide funding for vaccinations for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR)."
The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point not well taken.
Senate Journal of October 12, 1989 .......... Page: 443
[Point of order:]
Senator Van Sistine raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 78, relating to extending state group health insurance coverage to children of dependent children of eligible employes] is not not germane.
[Note:] The bill extended mandatory group health insurance coverage to include the children of an eligible employe's minor child until the employe's minor child reaches age 18.
The amendment proposed to rescind all grandparent liability under existing law.
330 The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point well taken.
Senate Journal of June 30, 1989 .......... Page: 297
[Point of order:]
Senator Feingold raised the point of order that [senate] substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Joint Resolution 51, relating to memorializing congress to pass a constitutional amendment (flag desecration)] is not germane to the bill.
[Note:] The joint resolution memorialized congress to overrule, by constitutional amendment, the 1989 Texas v. Johnson decision holding flag burning a protected act of political expression.
Sub.Amdt. 1 asked congress "to stand fast in its resolve to protect the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression", and not to react to the flag burning case.
The Chair took the point of order under advisement. [Ruling not found.]
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 19, 1988 .......... Page: 1116
Point of order:
Representative Hauke rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 598 [relating to the homestead credit, farmland preservation credit, school property tax credit, vocational, technical and adult
education incentive grants and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] The bill proposed to give property tax relief through changes in the school property tax credit, the farmland preservation credit and VTAE incentive grants.
A.SubAmdt.1 proposed a completely different approach to property tax relief by state assumption of teachers' salaries funded by eliminating the school property tax credit and increasing the sales tax from 5% to 6%.
A.Rule 54 (1) identifies as not germane a substitute amendment "which would totally alter the nature of the proposal".
