Senate Journal of February 11, 1988 .......... Page: 592
[Point of order:]
Senator Czarnezki raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 244, relating to collective bargaining of school class size and the number and length of teacher preparation periods in 1st class city school districts] is not germane.
[Note:] By its relating clause and in its text, SB 244 was restricted to apply only to the city of Milwaukee.
S.Amdt.1 was a floor amendment removing the "first class city" restriction from the text (but not, the relating clause) of the bill.
By removing the first class city restriction, S.Amdt.1 to expanded the bill's scope as to "totally alter the nature" of the proposal in violation of S.Rule 50 (1).
The Chair [President Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
333Senate Journal of May 28, 1987 .......... Page: 208
[Point of order:]
Senator Lee raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 [to Senate Bill 38, relating to elected officials serving on vocational, technical and adult education district boards] was not germane.
[Note:] A vocational board consists of appointed members and some local elected officials serving ex officio.
The bill, and S.SubAmdt.1, addressed only the vocational board tenure of ex-officio elected officials and the filling of appointed-member vacancies.
S.SubAmdt.2 proposed to have all members elected, thereby changing the nature of the proposal in violation of S.Rule 50 (1).
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of May 12, 1987 .......... Page: 173
[Point of order:]
Senator Te Winkle raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 166, relating to establishing a speed limit of 65 miles per hour for rural interstate highways] was not germane.
[Note:] S.SubAmdt.1 contained the entire text of the original bill and, in addition, proposed an energy conservation program to be financed by a part of the anticipated motor fuel tax revenue increased resulting from the speed limit increase.
The substitute amendment was not one "intended to accomplish a different purpose", nor did it "totally alter the nature of the original proposal"; it satisfied S.Rule 50 (1).
S.SubAmdt.1 may also have satisfied S.Rule 50 (9) in that it contained "new material added which does not affect the subject or purpose" of the bill.
The chair [Sen. Helbach] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 18, 1986 .......... Page: 904
Point of order:
Representative R. Young rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 889 [relating to various changes in human services and county laws] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
334 [Note:] AB 889 was a 231-page revision bill standardizing the names of 4 agencies in each county dealing with human services reconciling requirements of the 1985 budget (WisAct 29) with existing statute law on conty human services.
A.Amdt.1 attempted to attach to the bill a new procedure to fix county responsibility for the cost of emergency medical care for indigents.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of February 18, 1986 .......... Page: 706
Point of order:
Representative Tesmer rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 212 [relating to small claims actions, worthless checks, retail theft, dates of accounts on checks and providing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) [expansion of scope].
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] The proposal related to "small claims actions, worthless checks [and] retail theft".
Although A.Amdt.8 added "continuous garnishment of private employes" to the title, it did not expand the scope of the proposal. Rather, the amendment dealt with the particularized detail of assuring compliance with a restitution order. See A.Rule 54 (4)(e).
Representative Holperin rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 212 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(a) [unrelated individual proposition].
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 18, 1985 .......... Page: 518
Point of order:
Representative Neubauer rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 8, September 1985 Spec. Sess. [relating to making an appropriation for funding for Forward Wisconsin, inc], was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] The bill, conforming to item 7 of the special session call (A.Jour. 9/26/85, p. 356), was limited to increasing the state contribution to Forward Wisconsin, inc.
A.Sub.1 proposed to reorganize the state's department of development to obtain, by reduced DOD operations, funds to be allocated to Forward Wisconsin.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 17, 1985 .......... Page: 488
Point of order:
335 Representative Seery rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 460 [relating to prohibiting basement insulation requirements in rental unit energy efficiency regulation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] Introduced by JCRAR, AB 460 was limited to the narrow purpose of prohibiting DILHR, in adopting rules under statute 101.122 (2) (a), from including "any requirement for interior or exterior foundation insulation or basement ceiling insulation".
A.Sub.1 dealt with a different subject and, consequently, changed the nature or purpose of the proposal as is prohibited by A.Rule 54 (1). Looking only at "insulation", the substitute created several statutes (in the nature of rules) and, in addition, permitted DILHR to implement these statutes under the department's general "chap. 227" rule-making authority. The substitute also contained a subdivision "1o" which, based on furnace specifications, exempted certain housing from insulation requirements. Furnaces were not mentioned in the original bill.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 22, 1986 .......... Page: 915
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 1, May 1986 Spec. Sess., relating to raising the legal drinking age to 21] was not germane.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] Although S.Sub.1 would have permitted certain individuals at least 19 years of age to consume alcohol on certain premises, the overall intent of the substitute amendment was to raise the legal drinking age to 21.
S.Sub.2 [below], on the other hand, would have kept the legal drinking age at 19, requiring the 21-year age only for individuals not in possession of a valid Wisconsin photo ID or driver's license.
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of February 20, 1986 .......... Page: 611
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 [to Assembly Joint Resolution 45, relating to excepting pari-mutuel betting on horse racing from the prohibition against legislative authorization of lotteries (first consideration)] was not germane.
336 [Note:] Although 1985 AJR 45 only mentioned "horse racing", the purpose of the proposed constitutional amendment was to exempt pari-mutuel betting from the constitutional prohibition against lotteries.
S.Amdt.1 changed "horse" to read "horse and dog" throughout the proposal. A conference committee subsequently deleted all reference to specific animals, authorizing "pari-mutuel on-track betting". S.Amdt.3 [below] required the state to inspect racing facilities used in pari-mutuel betting to prevent cruelty to animals.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of February 20, 1986 .......... Page: 612
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that senate amendment 3 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of September 24, 1985 .......... Page: 337
[Point of order:]
Senator Adelman raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Joint Resolution 47, relating to memorializing Congress to retain the individual income tax deduction for state and local taxes] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of October 1, 1985 .......... Page: 359
Ruling of the chair:
On Tuesday, September 24, 1985, the Senator from the 28th, Senator Adelman, raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Joint Resolution 47, introduced by the Senator from the 20th, Senator Stitt, was non-germane. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Joint Resolution 47 adds a considerable amount of new language related to memorializing Governor Earl to retain Wisconsin's property tax and rent credits. The title of the resolution is expanded to include this language.
Senate Rule 50 (1) states: No standing committee shall report any substitute amendment for any proposal originating in either house referred to such committee nor shall the Senate consider any substitute or amendment which relates to a different subject, is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a title essentially different or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal.
It is the opinion of the chair [Pres. Risser] that senate substitute amendment 1 does not comply with the provisions of Senate Rule 50 (1) and therefore, the point of order is well taken.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 6, 1984 .......... Page: 1198
Point of order:
337 Representative Brist rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 689 [relating to repealing certain restrictions on deduction of advertising, display and promotional allowances from cost under the unfair sales act] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] 1983 Senate Bill 689 was a one-line repealer bill. A.Sub.1 did not even contain that repeal - clearly, it was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (d) [amending repealer bills].
Since A.Sub.1 to SB 689 was identical to 1983 SB 403, which was also pending in the Assembly, the substitute was a classic example of a "rider" amendment or substitute which is "not germane" under A.Rule 54 (3) (a) [one individual proposition amending another individual proposition].
Finally, because the substitute did not even contain the repeal which was the sole purpose of the original bill, the substitute "would totally alter the nature of the proposal" in violation of A.Rule 54 (1).
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 20, 1983 .......... Page: 481
Point of order:
Representative D. Travis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 4 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 (1).
[Note:] It is generally held that an amendment "limiting the scope of the proposal" is germane [see A.Rule 54 (4) (c)], but it is also true that an amendment is not germane if it "would totally alter the nature of the proposal" [A.Rule 54 (1)]. The scope and nature of a proposal must determine which rule governs in the specific case. Assembly Bill 260 of 1983 was not only a bill to change the legal drinking age, but also a bill dealing with identification card violations and with an early morning driving curfew for persons under 18 years of age.
If the several subjects are so closely related to the drinking age question that the inclusion of other similar subjects or the deletion of any of the existing subjects - other than the nucleus subject of raising the drinking age - will not totally alter the nature of the proposal, then amendments to include [A.Rule 54 (4) (e)] or delete [A.Rule 54 (4) (c)] such subjects will be germane.
On the other hand, if the peripheral subjects are only vaguely related to the core subject of raising the drinking age, then any amendment to delete one of those subjects might "totally alter the nature of the proposal" [A.Rule 54 (1)] and therefore be not germane.
The chair [Speaker Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 4, 1983 .......... Page: 362
Point of order:
338 Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 272 [relating to publication of notice to cut noxious weeds] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
[Note:] The bill authorized 2 or more municipalities who publish their notices in the same newspaper to publish a single combined noxious weed cutting notice.
A.Amdt.1 attempted to authorize any municipality to publish its own notice in a "shoppers guide" if the newspaper used for publication of legal notices reached less than 10% of the households in the municipality.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 28, 1984 .......... Page: 801
[Point of order:]
Senator Norquist raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 812, relating to the establishment of school district programs for school age mothers, granting rule-making authority and making an appropriation] was not germane.
[Note:] The bill provided for state-aided programs, to be approved by the state superintendent, for school age mothers. S.Amdt.1 prohibited superintendent approval of any program providing "referral or counseling for abortions".
S.Amdt.2, below, had a similar prohibiting effect.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-17, noes-14]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
[Point of order:]
