noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-9]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Senate Bill 663?
[Point of order:]
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Harsdorf appealed the ruling of the chair. 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.
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Senators Chilsen and Lorge.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. Senator Chilsen asked unanimous consent that the ruling of the chair be written and printed in the senate journal. Senator Cullen objected.
458 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 13, 1984 .......... Page: 706
[Point of order:]
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 [to Senate Bill 663, known as the "budget surplus adjustment bill"] was not germane.
[Note:] 1983 SB 663 was a multi-issue bill addressing the following topics: "the individual and corporate surtaxes, the homestead credit, the required general fund balance, reducing the bonding authority for highway projects, income tax exemptions, income and franchise tax deductions for intercorporate dividends and for insurers' loss carry-backs, property tax statements, the definition of the internal revenue code for purposes of the income, franchise,
inheritance and minimum taxes, required health insurance coverage, income tax exemptions, utility taxes on telephone companies, decreasing the primary guaranteed valuation, providing penalties and making an appropriation".
Despite the large number of topics, the bill had been narrowly drafted and each topic was precisely reflected in the bill title. Consequently, S.Sub.2 and the 4 amendments challenged below each related to a "different subject" - i.e. a subject not covered by the original bill - in violation of S.Rules 50 (1) and (7).
S.Sub.2 was limited to only 4 topics, and the treatment was in each case different from the original bill. The substitute dealt with: "the corporate surtax, the individual surtax, the gift tax and inheritance tax exemptions for class A distributees, and the rates for the individual income tax".
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator McCallum appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate?
By request of Senator McCallum, with unanimous consent, he withdrew his motion to appeal the ruling of the chair.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 707
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 11 [accelerated distribution of shared revenues] offered by Senators Engeleiter, Harsdorf, Chilsen, Ellis, Theno, Lorman, Davis and Lasee.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 11?
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 11 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 708
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 14 [exempting raffle tickets from sales tax] offered by Senators Harsdorf and Engeleiter.
459 The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 14?
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 14 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 709
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 19 [UW faculty salaries] offered by Senator Harsdorf.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 19?
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 19 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 20 [increasing the state property tax credit] offered by Senators Harsdorf, Ellis, Engeleiter, Davis and Theno.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 20?
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 20 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of July 16, 1981 .......... Page: 871
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 18 [compiled amendment, 187 items] to senate amendment 125 [compiled amendment, 479 items] to Assembly Bill 66 [budget bill] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope] because it contains new provisions not related to any of the provisions of senate amendment 125 to Assembly Bill 66.
[Note:] It is nearly impossible to argue germaneness in connection with the executive budget bill. Joint Rule 52 (1) (e) expressly authorizes a simplified title:
"Executive budget bills .... may use a descriptive title similar to the following example: 'AN ACT to amend and revise chapter ..... and to make diverse other changes in the statutes, relating to .....'".
Just about any amendment will fit under the "diverse other changes in the statutes" title, and almost no amendment would totally alter the nature of the proposal [A.Rule 54 (1)].
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1980 .......... Page: 3068
Point of order:
460 Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1285 [relating to increasing the excise tax on motor fuel and special fuel, adjusting the appropriations for connecting highways, swing and lift bridges and highway maintenance, increasing automobile registration fees and other transportation fees, imposing vehicle permit fees based on the excess size and weight of the vehicle, changing the computation of the cost factor for local transportation aids, authorizing the contracting of public debt for highway construction, providing inflationary supplements for department of transportation appropriations, granting rule-making authority and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (5) [amendment to amendment].
[Note:] 1979 AB 1285 was a multi-issue bill which, according to its title, dealt with 7 substantive and 2 derivative issues.
A.Sub.1 reduced the number of substantive issues to 2: "increasing the excise tax on motor fuel and special fuel and imposing vehicle permit fees based on the excess size and weight of the vehicle".
A.Amdt.8 (above) proposed to deal with a 3rd substantive issue (contained in the original bill but not in the substitute): "changing the computation of the cost factor for local transportation aids".
Similarly, A.Amdt.10 (below) proposed to deal with "changing the cost factor for local transportation aids".
The chair [Speaker Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1980 .......... Page: 3069
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 10 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1285 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (5).
The chair [Speaker Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
Orders of business (regular)
1 9 9 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 12, 1993 .......... Page: 465
[Point of order:]
Senator Ellis raised the point of order that the bill [Senate Bill 373, relating to requiring divorcing parents to attend an educational program concerning the effect of divorce on children] should properly be on the second reading under the eleventh order of business.
461 [Note:] On October 7, Senate Bill 373 had been given its 2nd reading, was ordered to a 3rd reading and, by 2 successive unanimous consent requests, was first read the 3rd time and was then placed at the foot of the calendar. When reached at the end of the day, again by unanimous consent, Senate Bill 373 was "laid on the table".
It appears that the purpose of the delay was to permit preparation of an amendment. Under S.Rule 65 (2), the adoption of a motion to table places the matter in the committee on Senate Organization.
With the amendment received, the committee on Senate Organization placed Senate Bill 323 on the calendar for October 12. So placed on the calendar, the question automatically reverted to engrossment of the proposal, and the proper placement on the calendar should have been 2nd reading under the 11th order of business.
The Chair [President Rude] ruled the point well taken.
Senate Journal of April 20, 1993 .......... Page: 160
[Motion to hold session not calendared by organization committee:]
Senator Chvala moved that the Senate meet in full session on Thursday, April 22 at 10:00 A.M.
[Note:] Whether the senate meets in full session or in skeleton session is determined by the calendar prepared for senate consideration by the committee on senate organization under S.Rule 18 (1). Except for a special order set by the two-thirds vote of the senate, a full session cannot be set by motion.
It is interesting to note that this motion was made on 4/20/93 - the day on which the senate, resulting from the April 1993 special elections, reorganized with a Republican majority for the first time since the 1973-74 biennial session.
As part of the reorganization, the committee structure was changed and all proposals still in standing committee were rereferred within the new committee structure.
The Chair [President Rude] ruled him out of order.
1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 8, 1990 .......... Page: 818
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion to place Assembly Bill 200 [relating to prohibiting bovine growth hormone] after Senate Bill 344 would need a two-thirds vote.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement.
462 [Note:] A request to delay consideration of one proposal from its place on the calendar to a later position on the same calendar, following the consideration of a specific other proposal, is a motion to postpone, to be decided by majority vote.
In special or extraordinary session, A.Rule 93 (5) prohibits motions "to postpone a proposal to a day or time certain"; consequently, in special or extraordinary session placing consideration of one proposal after consideration of another requires unanimous consent or a two-thirds vote.
Generally, and whether or not there is a written rule, advancing the consideration of a proposal ahead of its status under the rules requires a two-thirds vote, but delaying consideration to a later time, or refusing to consider, can be done by majority vote.
Ruling of the chair [p. 823]:
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Welch that since the motion to place a bill after another bill was not specifically listed in the Assembly Rules as a proper motion it would take a suspension of the rules and a two-thirds vote.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1986 .......... Page: 1026
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the assembly was not on the calendar of Wednesday, March 26 because a printed calendar had not been printed pursuant to Assembly Rule 29 (3). The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] Two special rules affect the last week of the final general business floorperiod of each biennial session. A.Rule 24 (3) and (4) permits the
committee on rules to place any business still still held by it during the final week on any calendar for that week unless such business still needs referral to a joint survey committee. The result is that the printed calendar (if one has been distributed) may not show all the business scheduled by the rules committee for a particular day during the final week.
The other special rule concerns the motion for reconsideration. A.Rule 73 (3)(b) says that after the 7th (reconsideration of passage or concurrence) order of business on the final scheduled day of the last general business floorperiod any motion for reconsideration may be taken up at any time by majority vote.
On the adjournment of that final day, new proposals may be introduced and printed only if needed for: 1) the veto review session under Jt.Rule 82; or germane to 2) any special session called by the governor or 3) any extraordinary session called by the legislature.
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1986 .......... Page: 1037
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that a printed calendar containing all of the proposals was not required for today's session because the committee on Rules had the authority to place bills on the calendar pursuant to Assembly Rule 24 (4). The speaker ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative T. Thompson.
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1986 .......... Page: 1037
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the assembly should not be on the calendar of Wednesday, March 26 because unfinished business remained on previous calendars.
