Senator Davis raised the point of order that a three-fourths majority was necessary for concurrence of Assembly Bill 462.
The Chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of June 18, 1987 .......... Page: 241
[Point of order:]
Senator Davis raised the point of order that Senate Bill 100 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the general executive budget bill of the 1987 legislature, and making appropriations] did not pass as a three-fourths vote was necessary. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling of the chair:
The Senator from the 11th, Senator Davis, raised the point of order that Senate Bill 100 (the Executive Budget Bill) was not passed and that in accordance with the provisions of Article IV, Section 26 and Joint Rule 12 (2) (a) a three-fourths majority of all members elected (25) is required to pass the bill. The vote on passage was 19 Ayes - 14 Noes.
Article IV, Section 26 reads as follows:
"The legislature shall never grant any extra compensation to any public officer, agent, servant or contractor, after the services shall have been rendered or the contract entered into; nor shall the compensation of any public officer be increased or diminished during his term of office except that when any increase or decrease provided by the legislature in the compensation of the justices of the supreme court or judges of any court of record shall become effective as to any such justice or judge, it shall be effective from such date as to each of such justices or judges. This section shall not apply to increased benefits for persons who have been or shall be granted benefits of any kind under a retirement system when such increased benefits are provided by a legislative act passed on a call of ayes and noes by a three-fourths vote of all the members elected to both houses of the legislature, which act shall provide for sufficient state funds to cover the costs of the increased benefits."
Joint Rule 12 (2) (a) makes reference to the special vote requirement of Article IV, Section 26 of the constitution.
The Chair would remind the membership that it is not the right of the Chair to rule on the constitutionality of a proposal. However, it is the responsibility of the Presiding Officer to enforce the rules of the body and insure compliance with established parliamentary practice to include those procedures required by the state constitution.
The Senator from the 11th, Senator Davis, made reference to language on page 27 of senate amendment 47 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 100, relating to military service credit and transfer of $230,000,000 from the
transaction amortization account of the fixed retirement investment trust to the appropriate reserve of the fixed retirement investment trust.
472 The first point in reference to military credits does not have an impact on the benefits of those persons currently receiving an annuity. The amendment allows credit for military service to certain current employes. The second point, relating to the transfer of funds is an accounting transaction that once again does not provide an increase in benefits. The transfer of funds has an effective date of July 1, 1987. The date of occurrence of the transfer does not have an impact on the benefits of current annuitants. The chair is aware that a portion of the dollars being transferred will be used as a special investment dividend to provide an increase to persons currently receiving a supplemental benefit. Additional language in the amendment dictates that the amount of this dividend shall be equal to a supplemental benefit currently received by these annuitants.
The resolution which inserted the current retirement language in Article IV, Section 26 was 1973 Senate Joint Resolution 15. The ratification question put to the voters was: Shall Section 26 of Article IV of the Constitution be amended to permit the legislature to increase the pensions of persons who have already retired under any public retirement system (such retirement benefits already may be granted to teachers), and to require the state to provide sufficient state funds to cover the costs of the increased benefits to all persons retired under a public retirement fund? In addition, the Joint Survey committee on Retirement Systems report on Senate Joint Resolution 15 spoke only to the legislature taking action to increase benefits for "retired" persons.
The purpose of the new language was to enable the legislature to increase pensions for those persons who are retired, not to further restrict the legislature's authority to increase benefits for current employes. The Supreme Court recognized the legislature's authority to increase benefits for those who are currently employed in State ex. rel. Dudgeon v Levitan, 181 Wis. 326, 193 N.W. 499 (1923).
The commonly accepted interpretation of the language contained in Article IV, Section 26, is that the special vote requirement applies when increased benefits are provided to persons who have been granted benefits or have left employment covered by the system and are eligible for benefits at a future date. The chair concurs with this interpretation of Article IV, Section 26 of the Constitution.
The chair has not located language in senate amendment 47 or senate substitute amendment 1 that would provide for an increase in benefits to any current annuitant or person who is no longer in employment covered by the system that is eligible for benefits in the future.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that Article IV, Section 26 of the Constitution and Joint Rule 12 (2) (b) do not apply to passage of Senate Bill 100, and the point of order is not well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
Senator Davis 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 demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-14.] So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
473Senate Journal of May 12, 1987 .......... Page: 173
[Point of order:]
Senator Roshell raised the point of order that senate amendment 7 to 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.
The chair [Sen. Helbach] ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] S.Amdt.7 to S.SubAmdt.1 provided a "June 1, 1987" delayed effective date. Amendments providing "limitations on the effective date" are germane; S.Rule 50 (9).
S.Amdt.13 to S.Sub.1 incorporated into the bill a requirement to operate motor vehicles only when driver and passengers are wearing seat belts. S.Amdt.1 to S.Amdt.13 to S.SubAmdt.1 restricted the seat belt requirement to the rural interstate highways where the higher speed limit would apply.
Senate Journal of May 12, 1987 .......... Page: 175
[Point of order:]
Senator Te Winkle raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 13 to senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Ellis 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: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-19, noes-14.] So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 27, 1983 .......... Page: 551
[Appeal of ruling: withdrawing permitted by unanimous consent:]
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 14 to Assembly Bill 7, October 1983 Special Session [relating to taxation of milk assessments and refunds of them, garnishment of the proceeds from the sale of agricultural products, use of nondairy products in state and municipal buildings prohibited, distribution of cheese at tourist information centers, foreclosure by advertisement, promotion of Wisconsin products, dissolution of a consent order regarding dairy advertising and granting rule-making authority], was not
germane under Assembly Rule 93 (1) [in special session, amendment must fit within call].
[Note:] A.Amdt.14 proposed to replace the inheritance tax with an estate tax.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Merkt moved that Assembly Rule 93 be suspended.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the motion out of order under Article IV Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution.
474 Representative Merkt appealed the decision of the chair on the germaneness of assembly amendment 14 to Assembly Bill 7, October 1983 Special Session.
Representative Merkt asked unanimous consent to withdraw his appeal.
Granted.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
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.
475Senate 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.
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 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 23, 1982 .......... Page: 1790
Point of order:
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that pursuant to Senate Rule 41 the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 621 [relating to prohibiting 3rd trimester abortions in public hospitals except to save the life of the mother and regulating other abortions in public hospitals, providing aid to women who suffer from certain diseases exacerbated by pregnancy or delivery, providing care for certain diseases of children and making an appropriation] from committee on Human Services and refer to committee on Senate Organization was not properly before us at this time.
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
A similar point of order was raised on March 25, 1976 on Assembly Bill 421. On page 2165 of the Journal of the Senate March 25, 1976, the ruling reads: "As it relates to the point of order raised on Assembly Bill 421, the chair ruled that pursuant to Senate Rule 41, a bill could not be withdrawn from committee when a public hearing has already been scheduled. Any attempt to do so would require a suspension of the rules and a two-thirds vote."
On page 540 of the Journal of the Senate March 16, 1971, Senator from the 14th, Senator Lorge, proposed this rule in Senate Resolution 13. The analysis reads: "This proposal would prevent a motion to recall a bill from committee from taking effect prior to hearing if such has been scheduled".
476 Members have raised the question of the definition of a week. The chair has reviewed the rules and has found no definition of a week by our rules; however, the Index to the
Senate Rules and Senate Rule 31 (4) states that Webster's New International Dictionary will be the standard for language usage. Webster's New International Dictionary defines a week as: "any 7 consecutive days."
A hearing is scheduled on the matter for Monday, March 29, 1982. Therefore, based on past precedent and the definition of a week, it is the opinion of the chair that in accordance with Senate Rule 41 (a) the bill cannot be withdrawn at this time and the point of order raised by the Senator of the 24th, Senator Bablitch, is 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?
[Tabling of appeal:]
Senator Bablitch moved that the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair be laid on the table?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-15.] So the motion prevailed.
