[Motion:]
Representative Shabaz moved that Assembly Bill 866 be taken up at this time.
[Note:] 1979 AB 866 was trapped in a "catch-22". On 3/4/80, the assembly had refused - 7 to 90 - to refer the proposal to the joint survey committee on tax exemptions.
At the same time, s. 13.52 (6), stats., prevented the assembly from taking further action:
.... "such proposal shall not be considered further by either house until the joint survey committee on tax exemptions has submitted a report, in writing, setting forth an opinion on the legality of the proposal, the fiscal effect upon the state and its subdivisions and its desirability as a matter of public policy".
439 The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the motion out of order.
Assembly Journal of March 6, 1980 .......... Page: 2507
[Motion:]
Representative Goodrich moved that Assembly Bill 866 be taken up at this time.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the motion out of order.
Assembly Journal of June 5, 1979 .......... Page: 704
[Time for reconsideration motion:]
The question was: Shall assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 275 [relating to authorization of Wisconsin credit unions to do business in other states and of foreign credit unions to do business in Wisconsin, and granting rule-making authority] be adopted? Motion carried.
Representative Loftus moved reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 275 was rejected.
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the motion for reconsideration not timely.
Point of order:
Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 275 was timely under Assembly Rule 73.
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 275 was not timely under Assembly Rule 73 (2). The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of June 28, 1979 .......... Page: 1006
On June 5, 1979 (Assembly Journal, page 704) Representative Shabaz raised the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of assembly amendment 2 to assembly amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 275 was not timely under Assembly Rule 73 (2).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because Assembly Rule 73 (2) provides that motions to reconsider final actions on amendments may be entered (1) at any time after such action is taken, on the day the action is taken, while the proposal to which the amendment relates is before the assembly during the second reading stage of consideration; (2) immediately following completion of the second reading stage of the proposal to which it relates if that stage is completed on the same day; (3) during the eighth order of business on the same day the action was taken; and (4) during the eighth order of business on the first legislative day on which a roll call is taken following the day on which the action is taken.
Senate Journal of March 30, 1978 .......... Page: 2223
[Point of order:]
Senator Dorman moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 518 be returned to the amendable stage. The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 518 be returned to the amendable stage? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-10.] More than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative the rules were suspended.
Senator Dorman moved reconsideration of the vote by which senate amendment 1 was adopted.
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that the reconsideration motion is not timely.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of February 14, 1978 .......... Page: 1702
[Background:] By request of Senator Parys, with unanimous consent, Senate Bill 568 was referred to joint committee on Finance. Senator Dorman asked unanimous consent that Senate Bill 568 be withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance. Senator Parys objected. Senator Dorman moved that Senate Bill 568 be withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance.
[Point of order:]
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that the motion to withdraw Senate Bill 568 from the joint committee on Finance is not in order, and that this motion is only proper under the eighth order of business.
Senator Flynn asked unanimous consent that he be recorded with the majority on the last roll call. The chair took the point of order, raised by Senator Sensenbrenner, under advisement.
Senate Journal of February 14, 1978 .......... Page: 1708
Earlier today Senator Parys asked unanimous consent that Senate Bill 568 be referred to the joint committee on Finance and the bill was so referred.
Before the next bill was called Senator Dorman moved that the bill be withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance which would have the effect of referring the bill to the committee on Senate Organization.
At that time Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that we were not on the eighth order of business and that a motion to withdraw was therefore not proper. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
The chair has checked the rules and finds no written rule that restricts motions to the eighth order of business, although that has been the practice and precedent of this session.
The chair recalls that in past sessions, operating under similar rules, motions to withdraw from committee have been made at other times than the eighth order.
It is the chair's opinion however, that unwritten precedent or informal agreements on Senate procedure should control when there is no written rule directly on point.
441 In this case the chair finds no written rule either allowing or forbidding the Senator to make a motion to withdraw from committee at the time he made it. But there is strong
precedent this session, enunciated as recently as last week by the majority leader, that motions to withdraw bills from committee will be restricted to the eighth order of business.
Therefore, the chair rules that based on precedent established this session the point of order raised by the Senator from the 4th is well taken and Senate Bill 568 remains in the joint committee on Finance.
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
Senate Journal of September 28, 1977 .......... Page: 1283
[Point of order:]
Senator Bablitch moved that Senate Bill 409 be withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance and referred to the committee on Senate Organization. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that the motion to withdraw from committee was not proper under the eleventh order of business and should be made under the eighth order of business.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
By request of Senator Dorman, with unanimous consent, Senate Bill 409 was withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance and considered for action at this time.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of July 1, 1975 .......... Page: 1032
[Point of order:]
[Assembly Bill 409, relating to the effective expiration date of chapter 157, laws of 1973 - temporary emergency energy regulations]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that ss. 157 [chapter 157, laws of 1973] could no longer be amended as the statute had expired.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of June 3, 1975 .......... Page: 785
[Identical amendment:]
Senator Whittow moved that senate amendment 5 [to Assembly Bill 222, relating to state finances and appropriations constituting the executive budget bill of the 1975 legislature, and making appropriations] be placed after senate amendment 8.
[Point of order:]
Senator Lorge raised the point of order that senate amendment 8 was essentially identical to senate amendment 5 and therefore was not germane.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken as senate amendment 8 was not before the senate and therefore no ruling on germaneness could be made.
Senate Journal of April 24, 1975 .......... Page: 604
[Point of order:]
Senator Lorge asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "no" on the motion to lay on the table the motion to withdraw Senate Resolution 9 from committee which was made before recess. Senator Bablitch objected.
442 Senator Devitt moved that Senator Lorge be allowed to be recorded on Senate Resolution 9.
Senator Peloquin raised the point of order that motions were out of order under the fourteenth order [1975: "adjournment"] of business.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Devitt appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the ruling of the chair stand as the decision of the senate? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-15, noes-9.] So the ruling of the chair was sustained.
Senate Journal of January 22, 1975 .......... Page: 140
[Point of order:]
Senator Murphy moved that Senate Resolution 3 be taken from the table and considered for action at this time.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that the senate was not under the proper order of business to receive motions.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senator Knowles raised the point of order that pursuant to senate rule 65 a motion to take from the table is in order at any time. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of February 4, 1975 .......... Page: 216
On Wednesday, January 22, 1975, during the 10th order of business the Senator from the 33rd made a motion that Senate Resolution 3 be taken from the table.
The chair ruled that motion out of order ruling that said motion should be appropriately made under the eighth order of business.
Just prior to adjournment on said day the Senator from the 10th rose to a point of order on the chair's ruling citing Senate Rule 65.
(1) A motion to lay on the table shall only have the effect of disposing of the matter temporarily and it may be taken from the table at any time by order of the Senate.
The question is simply, can a bill or resolution be taken from the table at any time?
Senate Rule 65 when read in its entirety furnished the guidance needed for the decision on this appeal.
(2) A motion to lay a bill or resolution on the table shall, if approved, have the effect of returning the matter to the committee on senate organization.
(3) A motion to remove a bill or resolution from the table shall, if approved, have the effect of withdrawing the matter from the committee on senate organization and placing it on the calendar.
Under the Senate Rule 65 (2) a motion to table a bill or resolution is not really a motion to table in the traditional sense but actually is a motion with the effect of "returning the matter to the committee on senate organization." [See also Senate Rule 63 (1)(f)].
Under Senate Rule 65 (3) a motion to remove a bill or resolution from the table is not really a motion to remove from the table in the traditional sense, but actually a motion with the effect of "withdrawing the matter from the committee on senate organization and placing it on the calendar."
443 The "and it may be taken from the table at any time" language of Senate Rule 65 (1), because of the explicit language in (2) and (3) becomes inoperative when a tabling motion involves "placing" or "taking" a bill or resolution from the table.
A motion to take a bill or resolution from committee or remove a bill or resolution from the table cannot be made at any time but must be made under the appropriate order of business pursuant to the rules.
The point of order is not well taken.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTIN J. SCHREIBER
Lieutenant Governor
