[Note:] A.Rule 90 (4) says that "motions to suspend the rules shall not be permitted for frivolous, indecorous or clearly dilatory purposes".
That rule fails to mention a more prosaic reason: no rule should ever be suspended when the end sought to be achieved by the suspension can be achieved under a regular procedure provided in the rules. The proper way to overcome a ruling of nongermaneness is to appeal the ruling of the chair.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the motion out of order.
1 9 8 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 17, 1988 .......... Page: 726
[Point of order:]
Senator Feingold raised the point of order that senate amendment 5 [to Senate Bill 191, relating to revising crimes against the life, bodily security and safety of persons, defining criminal recklessness and criminal negligence and providing penalties] is not germane.
[Note:] The bill contained the recommendations of the Judicial Council's committee on homicide and lesser included offenses.
S.Amdt.5 was a "life means life" proposal prohibiting work release and parole for persons convicted of certain capital offenses.
S.Amdt.3 was a shorter version of the "life means life" proposal.
S.Amdt.1 attempted to include unborn children, "from fertilization until birth", within the prohibitions and penalties revised in the bill.
The Chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senator Feingold raised the point of order that senate amendment 3 is not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senator Ulichny raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 is not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the Chair. The question was: Shall the ruling 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-20, noes-11.] So the ruling of the Chair stood as the judgment of the Senate.
Senate Journal of October 21, 1987 .......... Page: 422
[Precedence of appeal:]
469 Senator Strohl asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 462 [relating to the Wisconsin retirement system, allowing retired public employes to purchase state group health insurance coverage, fixed retirement investment trusts, transferring funds and making an appropriation] be laid on the table.
Senator Davis objected. Senator Davis appealed the ruling of the chair [given immediately preceding the unanimous consent request].
Senator Strohl moved that Assembly Bill 462 be laid on the table.
[Point of order:]
Senator Ellis raised the point of order that the motion of Senator Strohl was not timely. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of October 27, 1987 .......... Page: 453
Ruling of the chair:
On Wednesday, October 21, 1987, the senator from the 19th, Senator Ellis, raised the point of order that a motion to appeal the decision of the Chair takes precedence over the motion to table a proposal.
The senator from the 21st, Senator Strohl, had the floor after the Chair had ruled on a pending point of order in relating to Assembly Bill 462. The senator from the 21st asked unanimous consent that the bill be laid on the table. An objection was heard. The senator was then going to move to lay the bill on the table, when he yielded to the senator from the 11th, Senator Davis, who then appealed the ruling of the Chair. The senator from the 21st then moved to table the bill.
Section 230, (7) of Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure reads as follows: "When an appeal has been taken from a decision of the presiding officer, no new business is in order until the appeal has been disposed of."
The motion to appeal is an incidental question relating to the general procedural nature of the senate. Therefore, it takes precedence over any main motion relating to the matter under consideration.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the motion to appeal the decision of the Chair takes precedence over the motion to table, and the point of order raised by the senator from the 19th is well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
Senate Journal of July 2, 1987 .......... Page: 388
[Background:] Senator Chilsen moved that Assembly Bill 462 [relating to the Wisconsin retirement system, allowing retired public employes to purchase state group health insurance coverage, fixed retirement investment trusts, transferring funds and making an appropriation] be nonconcurred in. The question was: Shall the bill be nonconcurred in?
[Point of order:]
Senator Ellis raised the point of order that a three-fourths vote was needed to concur in the bill. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of October 21, 1987 .......... Page: 422
Ruling of the chair:
470 The Senator from the 19th District, Senator Ellis, has raised the point of order that in accordance with Section 26, Article IV of the Wisconsin Constitution, Assembly Bill 462 requires a three-fourths majority vote for concurrence.
The Chair has had an opportunity to study the contents of Assembly Bill 462 as it relates to the special vote requirement.
The Chair would refer the membership to an earlier ruling on this subject as it related to the passage of Senate Bill 100 (the Executive Budget Bill). At that time the Chair ruled that the extraordinary vote requirement of Section 26, Article IV of the Wisconsin Constitution applied 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. (See Ruling of the Chair, page 241, Journal of the Senate, June 18, 1987.)
Assembly Bill 462 contains the following provisions:
1. Normal retirement age is set at age 62 for general employes.
2. Benefit reduction for retirement prior to age 62 is reduced from 4.8% per year to 2.4% for a ten year period (this would make it easier for employes to retire early as they would not lose as much in benefits).
3. Early retirement window. The bill provides a three-year window for early retirement (rule of 62/23 and 55/25). Each year of service over 23 to 25 minimum reduces retirement age by one year.
4. Multiplier for protective service is brought into conformity with Federal Age Discrimination Law.
5. Accelerated recognition of long-term capital gains.
6. Temporary increase in interest assumption to offset benefit improvements.
7. A 2% reduction in interest credited to employes accounts (from 5% to 3%).
8. Vesting rights revised. New employes are vested after 5 years of service instead of immediate vesting.
9. Provides health insurance plan for annuitants who do not have a group health plan.
10. Provides for a reduction in employer contributions.
The changes related to the accelerated recognition of long-term capital gains are the only changes in the bill that could possibly cause a three-fourths vote requirement. As part of the accelerated recognition of long-term capital gains, 600 million dollars is transferred from the transaction amortization account to either the fixed annuity reserve or the fixed employer accumulation reserve. In addition, the distribution formula of the Fixed Retirement Investment Trust is amended to provide an amount equal to the current income, plus 10% of the transaction amortization account. Currently the formula provides for an amount equal to the current income, plus 7%.
The Chair points out that these changes alone do not provide for an increase in benefits to current annuitants, although current law provides a vehicle for a portion of these funds to be used by the Employe Trust Fund Board to provide dividend payments to annuitants. The Chair is of the opinion that Assembly Bill 462 in and of itself does not increase benefits for current annuitants or participants of the retirement fund who are no longer employed. Therefore, the Chair is of the opinion that Assembly Bill 462 does not require the extraordinary majority as required by Article IV, Section 26, of the Wisconsin Constitution. A simple majority only is required. The point of order is not well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
471 [Intervening text omitted.] Senator Davis appealed the ruling of the chair.
Senate Journal of October 27, 1987 .......... Page: 453
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.
Senate Journal of October 28, 1987 .......... Page: 463
[Point of order:]
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
