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:]
Senate amendment 2 offered by Senator Chilsen.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 2?
Senator Norquist moved rejection of senate amendment 2.
The question was: Rejection of senate amendment 2?
Senator Norquist raised the point of order that senate amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 812 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Lorge 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-18, noes-13]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
Senate Journal of March 28, 1984 .......... Page: 801
[Point of order:]
Senate substitute amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 58, relating to eligibility of employes affected by lockouts for unemployment compensation benefits] offered by Senator Harsdorf. ( The question was: Adoption of senate substitute amendment 1?
339 Senator Theno raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane.
[Note:] While the bill provided unemployment compensation benefits for employes affected by lockouts (thus deciding an issue), S.Sub.1 substituted a study by the council on unemployment compensation (with a possible report one year later).
In terms of deciding the issue itself, adoption of the substitute would have had the same effect (maintaining the status quo) as defeat of the bill. Consequently, the substitute attempted to "totally alter the nature of the original proposal" in violation of S.Rule 50 (1), and in violation of the rights of the authors of the proposal to have the issue considered and decided on its merits.
The approach was a common procedural error: if the legislature requires more information to decide an issue, then it is appropriate to re-refer the proposal to a standing committee for that information, but it is not appropriate to change the nature of the proposal itself. For a joint interim study by the 2 houses, the proper vehicle is a joint resolution requesting the legislative council to study the subject matter of the proposal.
(It appears that there has not been a contrary ruling since 7/18/63 [see Sen.Jour. p. 1620]. At that time, pres. pro tem. Sen. Frank Panzer had allowed a substitute amendment replacing decision with study, but the senate then rejected the substitute.)
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of March 15, 1984 .......... Page: 721
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 5 to senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 180, relating to salt on highways] offered by Senator Harsdorf.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 5 to senate substitute amendment 1?
[Note:] Both the bill and S.Sub.1 dealt only with restricting the use of salt for snow removal. S.Amdt.5 proposed to authorize the use of studded snow tires for school buses.
Senator Strohl raised the point of order that senate amendment 5 to senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 709
[Background: Senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 500, "relating to extending eligibility for veterans benefits to veterans of United States military action in Lebanon and Grenada, offered by Senator Strohl.]
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1?
Senator Van Sistine raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane.
By request of Senator Strohl, with unanimous consent, senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 was returned to the author.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1?
Senator Johnston raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 15, 1984 .......... Page: 720
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Tuesday, March 13, 1984 the Senator from the 4th, Senator Johnston raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 500 was not germane. Specifically the Senator from the 4th raised the point that section 17 of the amendment relating to special license plates for prisoners of war
expanded the scope of the bill. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Section 17 of the substitute amendment amends section 341.14 (6) of the statutes to add the new veteran benefit group (Lebanon and Grenada) to those already referenced for special Ex-Prisoner of War Plates. Section 341.14 (6) currently provides the special plates for all defined as "Veteran" for state benefits.
Mason's Manual Section 402 (2) reads as follows "To determine whether an amendment is germane, the question to be answered is whether the question is relevant, appropriate, and in natural and logical sequence to the subject matter of the original proposal."
It is the opinion of the chair that it is appropriate and logical to insure that all veteran benefits are extended to the new group. Therefore the point of order raised by the Senator from the 4th is not well taken and the substitute amendment is germane.
Senate Journal of February 1, 1984 .......... Page: 570
[Background: Senate Bill 317, relating to exempting migrant workers enrolled in the university of Wisconsin system from nonresident tuition. Read a second time. Ordered to a third reading. By request of Senator Cullen, with unanimous consent, the bill was considered for final action at this time.]
Read a third time.
By request of Senator Engeleiter, with unanimous consent, the bill was referred to a second reading.
Read a second time.
Senate amendment 1 offered by Senators Engeleiter and Davis.
[Point of order:]
Senator Norquist raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 was not germane.
341 [Note:] To qualify for exemption from nonresident tuition, existing law required 12 months Wisconsin residence immediately preceding admission to the UW system. The bill exempted from nonresident tuition any migrant worker who had worked in Wisconsin for at least 2 months/year in 3 of the preceding 5 years.
S.Amdt.1 proposed to grant a limited exemption (5 credits per semester), not tied to any specified length of residence, to any person employed full-time in this state who moved to Wisconsin for the purpose of such employment.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of October 11, 1983 .......... Page: 403
[Point of order:]
Senator Strohl raised the point of order that senate amendment 2 [to Assembly Bill 93, relating to requiring public schools to instruct pupils on the relationship between highway safety and the use of drugs] was not germane.
[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.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of October 11, 1983 .......... Page: 402
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 93, relating to requiring public schools to instruct pupils on the relationship between highway safety and the use of drugs] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of October 11, 1983 .......... Page: 403
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
Earlier today, the Senator from the 29th District, Senator Chilsen, raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 93 was not germane.
The original bill would expand the current requirement to provide instruction on prevention of accidents and highway safety, to include the relationship of alcohol and controlled substances and highway safety. The substitute amendment would eliminate the current law on requiring instruction on prevention of accidents and highway safety. The point of order is well taken, and the substitute amendment is not germane.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 28, 1982 .......... Page: 3534
Point of order:
342 Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Resolution 1, May 1982 Special Session [requesting the governor to expand the call of the May 1982 special session of the legislature to include proposals relating to restriction of abortions in public hospitals] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) [nature of proposal changed].
[Note:] A.Amdt.1 proposed to change the resolution from a request for expanding the special session to a request for an extraordinary session to be called by the organization committees of the 2 houses.
While the amendment did relate to the operation of the assembly, it did not relate to the "organization of the legislature during the special session" as required by A.Rule 93 (1).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken and the amendment not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) and Assembly Rule 93 (1) [germaneness to special session call].
Representative Thompson appealed the decision of the chair.
