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.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 26, 1973 .......... Page: 1927
[Ruling of the chair overturned on appeal:]
Senate amendment 3 [to Assembly Bill 1287] offered by Senators Devitt, LaFAve, Knutson, Peloquin, McKenna, Krueger, J. D. Swan, Schuele, M. Swan, Roseleip, Frank, Parys and Dorman.
[Point of order:]
Senator Hollander raised the point of order that senate amendment 3 was not germane.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator McKenna appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the ruling of the chair stand as the decision of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-14, noes-17.] So the ruling of the chair was not sustained.
Senate amendment 3 adopted.
Senate Journal of July 26, 1973 .......... Page: 1506
[Tabling of appeal of ruling:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that Senate Bill 684 [relating to developmental disabilities] required a fiscal note.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. Senator Steinhilber moved that the appeal be laid on the table.
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-14, noes-16.] So the motion did not prevail.
Senate Journal of May 17, 1973 .......... Page: 1075
[Previous question: motion not applicable to chair's ruling]
Senator Knowles raised the point of order that Senator Johnson had the floor as yielded from Senator M. Swan who had the floor as yielded by Senator Dorman.
477 The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Johnson appealed the ruling of the chair. Senator Johnson moved the previous question.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that the previous question could not be put on an appeal of the ruling of the chair.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Johnson appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the ruling of the chair stand as the decision of the senate?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-13, noes-19.] So the ruling of the chair was not sustained.
Senator Flynn moved reconsideration of the vote by which the ruling of the chair was not sustained.
Senator Johnson raised the point of order that the motion to reconsider was improper and out of order.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Johnson moved that the motion for reconsideration be laid on the table.
The chair ruled Senator Johnson out of order and Senator Flynn had the floor.
Senator Johnson raised the point of order that he had the floor and that the motion to table was in order.
By request of Senators Johnson and Risser, with unanimous consent, the senate proceeded with action on Senate Joint Resolution 67 and the amendments attached thereto.
Point of order based on incorrect information
1 9 9 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 22, 1994 .......... Page: 865
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 1125 [relating to a state minimum wage, overtime pay for executive, administrative and professional employes, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty] was not properly before the assembly under Assembly Rule 39 and Joint Rule 52, because the analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau does not conform to the relating clause of the bill.
[Note:] In many cases, the creation of a new statute within an existing range of numbers brings a violation of the new statute numbers into the penalty provision applying to the range of existing statutes.
Usually, the existing penalty is not described in the analysis of the bill but, because the creation of the new statute results in a possible penalty situation, the bill's relating clause notes "providing a penalty" as required by Jt.Rule 52 (1) (d) 3.
The chair (Speaker pro tempore Carpenter) ruled the point of order not well taken.
478 1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 8, 1989 .......... Page: 214
Point of order:
Representative Coleman rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 10 to Senate Bill 7 [relating to making permanent the requirement that certain motor vehicle operators and passengers use safety belts] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
Representative Hauke asked unanimous consent that the assembly stand informal for twenty-five minutes. Granted.
[Note (the information appears to contradict ruling made):] The bill was limited to delaying the sunset date for mandatory seat belt use from June 30, 1989, to June 30, 1991, and providing for a November 1990 advisory referendum on making the seat belt law permanent.
A.Amdt-10 expanded the scope of the proposal by requiring that, beginning July 1, 1990, no new or used automobile could be bought, sold, leased, traded or transferred in Wisconsin unless the automobile was equipped with both lap and shoulder restraints for each seating area in the back seat.
The amendment included the appropriate addition to the bill's title: "requiring the installation and use of certain safety belts in automobiles".
