The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of November 9, 1989 .......... Page: 502
Point of order:
Representative Grobschmidt rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 18 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 9, Oct. 1989 Spec. Sess. was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 7, 1987 .......... Page: 379
Point of order:
Representative Clarenbach rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 442 [relating to charges for dishonored drafts presented to the state; state contracts subject to approval by the governor; conduct of an aerial photographic survey; the energy conservation duties of the department of administration; discontinuance of the wind energy program administered by the department of administration; the return date for small claims garnishment actions against the state; establishment of a minimum claim for consideration by the claims board; abolition of the council on data processing in the department of administration; publishing fees for legal notices; population estimate procedure; appointment of the employes of the tax appeals commission; the state employes merit award board; state contracts for continuing provision of materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services; annual reports of the council on small and minority business opportunities; changing the reporting date of a department of administration report to the council on small and minority business opportunities; membership of the state capitol and executive residence board; reports of state public depositories; and the procedure in the event of reduced federal revenue sharing funds (suggested as remedial legislation by the department of administration)] was not germane under Assembly Rule (54) (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope]. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
450 [Note:] 1987 AB 442 was a multi-issue bill comprising 17 issues suggested as remedial legislation by the Department of Administration and approved for introduction as remedial legislation by the Legislative Council.
Sec. 13.83 (1) (c) 4, stats., limits remedial legislation to minor substantive changes "proposed by state agencies to improve the administration of their agencies or proposed by the committee, a standing committee of the legislature or a legislative service agency to improve the language or organization of the statutes or session laws".
One of the minor substantive issues addressed by 1987 AB 442 was the membership of the state capitol and executive residence board (SCERB). A.Amdt.3 proposed to change SCERB's function, limiting its supervisory authority to the Executive Residence and vesting the supervisory authority for the Capitol building in the cochairs of the joint committee on legislative organization (JCLO). In addition, the department of administration would no longer "have charge of" the Capitol, but would carry out its duties to operate, maintain and repair the Capitol under the direction of the JCLO cochairs.
A.Amdt.3 properly reflected the impact of these changes by removing the references to "the membership of" SCERB and to "remedial legislation" from the relating clause of AB 442.
Assembly Journal of October 21, 1987 .......... Page: 447
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled that assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 442 was not germane and the point of order raised by Representative Clarenbach on October 7, 1987 well taken.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1986 .......... Page: 1014
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that that Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess. [relating to: Wisconsin housing and economic development authority agricultural production loan guarantees and interest reductions; creating a farm mediation and arbitration program for resolution of disputes with creditors, creating a farm mediation and arbitration board; the homestead exemption from executions, liens and liability for debts; the proceeds from the sale of real property the taxes on which are delinquent; the income and franchise tax effects of the food security act; authorizing county land conservation committees to develop tree planting programs; authorizing the departments of natural resources and agriculture, trade and consumer protection to grant exemptions from certain laws; training and employment services for dislocated workers, including farmers; increasing an appropriation to the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection to provide funds for the volunteer farm credit advisor program; property tax assessment and equalized valuation of agricultural land; specialty crops hearing; a motor fuel tax exemption; interest payments that may be included in calculating an income tax credit; student loans; and providing for a study, making an appropriation and granting rule-making authority], was not properly before the assembly under Assembly Rule 93 (1) [scope of session call exceeded].
451 [Note:] Governor Earl had enumerated 14 issues in his original proclamation to convene the March 1986 Special Session. The first supplementary proclamation removed one issue; another supplementary proclamation added a new issue.
In many cases, there has been a separate special session bill for each issue shown in the governor's proclamation. That is not required. In the March 1986 Special Session, only one bill was introduced. This omnibus farm problem bill addressed all the issues enumerated by the governor.
Each of the amendments challenged below attempted to deal with an issue not enumerated in the proclamation as amended: A.Amdt.9 created incentives for production of alcohol as a motor vehicle fuel; A.Amdt.11 permitted property tax assessments to deviate by 15% from full market value; A.Amdt.12 established a program of animal health and disease research; A.Amdt.13 attempted to change land assessment from full value to current use; A.Amdt.14 permitted the department of agriculture to issue permits for the destruction of deer or bear causing crop damage; A.Amdt.15 proposed to assess agricultural land at 75% of full value; A.Amdt.16 required an "IMPORTED" label (in 1-inch type) for all food not produced in the United States; A.Amdt.22 permitted debt-ridden farmers to exclude some capital gains from the minimum tax; and A.Amdt.27 proposed to classify highway rights-of-way as wasteland for asessment purposes.
On the other hand, A.Amdt.21 was held to be within the governor's call. The amendment dealt with suspension of court action to allow for voluntary mediation or arbitration of a creditor's action against a farmer and was covered by item 3 of the original proclamation.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1986 .......... Page: 1015
Point of order:
Representative Swoboda rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 9 to Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess., was not germane to the special session call.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1986 .......... Page: 1016
Point of order:
Representative Swoboda rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 11 to Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess., was not germane to the special session call.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Point of order:
Representative Swoboda rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 12 to Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess., was not germane to the special session call.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1986 .......... Page: 1017
Point of order:
Representative Swoboda rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 13 to Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess., was not germane to the special session call.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Point of order:
Representative Swoboda rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 14 to Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess., was not germane to the special session call.
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Point of order:
Representative Hephner rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 15 to Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess., was not germane to the special session call.
452 The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Point of order:
Representative Swoboda rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 16 to Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess., was not germane to the special session call.
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1986 .......... Page: 1018
Point of order:
Representative Porter rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 21 to Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess., was not germane to the special session call.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Point of order:
Representative Swoboda rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 22 to Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess., was not germane to the special session call.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1986 .......... Page: 1019-20
Point of order:
Representative Swoboda rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 27 to Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess., was not germane to the special session call.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
The chair ruled that assembly amendment 27 to Assembly Bill 1, March 1986 Spec. Sess., was not germane to the special session call and the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 6, 1984 .......... Page: 1187
Point of order:
Representative Neubauer rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 1174 [relating to the financial assistance program for septic tank replacement and rehabilitation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] A.Amdt.3 proposed to add a new issue, reflected by the insertion of the following words into the title:
"and alternative and experimental private sewage systems".
The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of April 6, 1984 .......... Page: 1188
[Point of order withdrawn:]
Representative Neubauer asked unanimous consent to withdraw his point of order on assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 1174. Granted.
Representative T. Thompson asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 1174 be laid on the table. Granted.
453Assembly Journal of April 5, 1984 .......... Page: 1164
[Background:]
Representative McEssy moved rejection of assembly amendment 1to Senate Bill 592 [relating to penalties for persons who violate the alcohol beverage laws, to dealings between brewers, wholesalers and retailers, and to technical and minor policy changes in regard to alcohol beverages, excise taxes, special fuel taxes and rates for the liquor tax and providing a penalty]. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-35, noes-64.] Motion failed.
Representative Walling asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "Aye" on the previous question. Granted.
Representative Matty asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "No" on the previous question. Granted.
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 592 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
[Note:] A.Amdt.1 to SB 592 proposed a uniform statewide bar opening time of 6 a.m. On the face of it, that introduced a new issue into the multi-issue bill.
The drafting record of A.Amdt.1 shows that it was to be "the same as engrossed AB 244" [relating to changing bar opening time to 6 a.m.] which had already been passed to the Senate. If A.Amdt.1 was intended to prevent a possible conflict requiring a future reconciliation, then a generous construction of the germaneness rule might hold the amendment germane since one of the issues enumerated in the title of SB 592 was to make "technical and minor policy changes in regard to alcohol beverages".
On the other hand, it is one of the purposes of the veto review floorperiod [Jt.Rule 82 (1) (c)] to consider revisor's correction bills. If both AB 244 and SB 592 had been enacted into law (both 1983 bills failed), the revisor would have placed a proposed reconciliation into one of the correction bills.
Assembly Journal of April 5, 1984 .......... Page: 1165
The assembly reconvened. [7:30 p.m.] Speaker Loftus in the chair. [Intervening text omitted.]
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 592 was germane and the point of order not well taken.
Representative McEssy moved that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 592 be laid on the table. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-33, noes-66.] Motion failed.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 592 be adopted? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-78, noes-21.] Motion carried.
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1984 .......... Page: 979
Point of order:
454 Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 663 [relating to 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] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] Does any multi-issue bill set its own "special session" environment? In a special session, the Legislature is free to treat any of the issues raised by the Governor by doing nothing, but it cannot treat additional unrelated issues. For a multi-issue bill, this might mean that amendments to
delete the treatment of individual separable issues are germane, but that amendments to ingraft additional unrelated issues are not germane.
The legislative rules on germaneness of amendments derive from long-term experience with single issue bills. They really do not address the special germaneness questions raised by multi-issue bills. It is likely that multi-issue bills to adjust the state's budget and revenues will be introduced for many sessions to come.
The biennial budget bill, though a multi-issue bill, holds a special status under law and legislative rule (shared, until 1981, by the biennial "budget review bill"), and germaneness rules have not been strictly applied.
The speaker [Loftus] took the point of order under advisement [see p. 983, below. Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker took the point of order under advisement [see p. 982, below. Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to Senate Bill 663 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
