[Background: following the introduction of assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 452 "relating to employment relations in higher education and making an appropriation", a call was imposed on the question of tabling AB 452. When the motion to lift that call had failed (A.Jour., p. 2344), the assembly acted on SB 163 and began consideration of SB 450.]
Point of order:
Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that, under Assembly Rule 86 (1), the question before the assembly should be adoption of assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 452 because the call of the assembly was only on the specific question of tabling Assembly Bill 452 and that did not preclude consideration of other questions on the bill.
[Procedural point:] Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that the point of order raised by Representative Jackamonis was not timely under Assembly Rule 62 (4) [timely only if raised before question is decided]. The chair [Rep. Clarenbach] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach] ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Jackamonis that the next question before the assembly should be the adoption of assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 452.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 12, 1982 .......... Page: 2237
Point of order:
481 Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the time limit for the president to rule on the point of order raised by the Senator from the 15th, Senator Cullen, has expired. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of June 14, 1982 .......... Page: 2240
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Saturday, June 12, the Senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, raised the point of order that the time limit for the president to rule on a point of order raised by the Senator from the 15th, Senator Cullen, on Thursday, June 10, had expired. The chair took Senator Chilsen's point of order under advisement.
The chair reviewed the Journal of the Senate from the time the original point of order was raised and would like to draw the attention of the body to the fact that the chair has not had an opportunity to present his decision until this morning, because the senate has by unanimous consent recessed or adjourned or not had a quorum present to transact business.
Since the chair has ruled, it is the opinion of the chair that the point of order raised by the Senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen is moot.
Senate Journal of March 31, 1982 .......... Page: 1914
Point of order:
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 806 be withdrawn from committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources and taken up at this time?
Senator Bablitch moved that the motion to withdraw Senate Bill 806 from committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources and taken up at this time be laid on the table.
Senator Goyke raised the point of order that the motion to suspend the rules is not subject to motion to table. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of April 2, 1982 .......... Page: 1972
Point of order:
Senator Opitz raised the point of order that pursuant to Senate Rule 7 (2) the chair was required to rule on the Point of Order raised March 31, 1982. The chair took the point of order under advisement. [No ruling given.]
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 21, 1979 .......... Page: 549
[Point of order:]
Senator Lorge raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 19 [relating to raising the drinking age to 19 and providing a penalty] was not germane.
Senator Kleczka asked unanimous consent that the bill be referred to joint committee on Finance. Senator Lorge objected.
Senator Bablitch moved that the rules be suspended and the bill be referred to joint committee on Finance.
[Point of order:]
482 Senator Lorge raised the point of order that the chair took his point of order under advisement, that the bill is in the possession of the chair and, therefore, that the motion to
suspend the rules and refer the bill to the joint committee on Finance is not proper. The chair took both points of order by Senator Lorge under advisement.
[Note:] Original 1979 SB 19 was a 13-page bill to increase the drinking age from 18 to 19. S.Sub.1 (23 pages) contained several related provisions concerning alcohol abuse by minors, and contained a 10 cents per 31-gallon barrel increase in the beer tax.
Senate Journal of June 21, 1979 .......... Page: 551
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 19 is germane. With that decision the question of suspending the rules is moot and the point of order raised by Senator Lorge in reference to suspending the rules is moot.
At the time the point of order was raised there was a unanimous consent request by Senator Kleczka that the bill be referred to joint committee on Finance. Senator Lorge objected.
Senator Kleczka moved that Senate Bill 19 be referred to joint committee on Finance.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1976 .......... Page: 3256
Point of order:
Representative Tropman rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 1067 [relating to the licensing of medical practitioners, creating a council on physicians' assistants, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty] was not germane under Assembly Rule 55. The speaker took the point of order under advisement. [AA-4 and AA-5, also pending, considered. Then:]
The assembly proceeded to the next bill pending the ruling on the point of order on assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 1067.
[Note:] In the 1979 adoption of the rules (A.Res. 7) this procedure was codified in the following rule:
"All points of order involving amendments, or amendments to amendments, must be disposed of before the assembly proceeds to any question of lesser precedence".
Assembly Journal of March 10, 1976 .......... Page: 3266
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order on assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 1067 not well taken.
483Point of order under advisement: timeliness of ruling
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 17, 1976 .......... Page: 1737
[Point of order:]
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that Senate Bill 227 should be before the senate at this time. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of February 24, 1976 .......... Page: 1797
On February 17, 1976, Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that the required time for the presiding officer to rule on the point of order raised on February 4, 1976, relating to Senate Bill 227, has expired and the bill should be before the senate at this time.
The chair rules that under Senate Rule 7 (2), the point of order is well taken.
Respectfully submitted,
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 15, 1974 .......... Page: 87
[Senate Bill 5, (Spring 1974) Special Session, relating to regulation of elections and campaign contributions and expenditures, providing for public financing of certain political campaigns, granting rule-making authority, providing penalties and making appropriations.]
[Point of order:]
Senator Dorman raised the point of order that senate amendment 3 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of May 15, 1974 .......... Page: 87
[Subsequent action:]
Senator Petri called the chair's attention to senate amendment 3 which had been under advisement by the chair on a point of order. As the chair had not made a ruling within an hour, the question should be submitted to the body pursuant to the rules.
The chair submitted the question to the body.
The question was: is senate amendment 3 germane?
Senate amendment 3 was considered germane.
Senate Journal of October 2, 1973 .......... Page: 1575
[Point of order:]
[On 10/2/73, the Senate was on the calendar for 5/11/73.] Senate Resolution 19, "to amend senate rule 7 (2), relating to the time for rendering a decision on points of order taken under advisement". Read.
484 Senator Keppler raised the point of order that Senate Resolution 19, pursuant to senate rule 90, was not properly taken up earlier. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of October 2, 1973 .......... Page: 1581
[Ruling of the chair:]
As it relates to the point of order raised on Senate Resolution 19, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that one week did indeed mean seven days and not seven legislative calendar days. As these bills must go somewhere, it is
necessary that the chief clerk put the bill on a calendar, but after one week (seven days) the bill would be considered privileged and could be taken up by a majority of the members present.
Therefore, pursuant to senate rule 90, the chair ruled the point of order well taken.
By request of Senator Petri, with unanimous consent, Senate Resolution 19 was laid on the table.
Senate Journal of January 24, 1973 .......... Page: 209
[Ruling of the chair:]
State of Wisconsin Office of the Lieutenant Governor January 24, 1973 To the Honorable Senate:
Since the beginning of this legislative session allegations have been made by the leadership of the Republican caucus of the Wisconsin State Senate that during the 1971 legislative session I abused my rights to rule on points of order to the consistent advantage of members of my own party.
During the 1971 legislative session, 125 points of order were raised by members of both parties. Of those 125 points of order ruled upon by me, 32 were appealed - and out of those 32 appeals only nine times was the chair not upheld by the Senate. It is important to remember that during this time the majority party had a 20-13 margin which put a simple majority within easy reach, should it have been determined that these rulings were not based on an impartial decision. Being overruled nine out of 125 times means that the Senate body concurred in my rulings 92.8% of the time.
Examining the Senate Journal of the 1971 legislative session you will find that in nearly one-half the cases (9 of 19), in which points of order were taken under advisement and rulings were subsequently forthcoming, those rulings were made either on the same day or on the next succeeding day. The average length of time that a point of order was taken under advisement was 2.7 days or just over half the time currently permitted under the rules adopted by the Republican controlled Senate in 1969.
It should be noted that it is not always in the best interest of the Senate for the chair to make an immediate decision. One will find that, for example, the chair took seven legislative days to rule on a point of order raised by Senator Knowles, that point of order being that senators may not explain their votes during a roll call on a nondebatable motion. Adjudication of this question required not only that I examine precedent but also that I discuss the matter individually with senators to allow them to fully express their individual feelings prior to ruling. This ruling was not appealed.
485 Another point of order requiring deliberation was raised by Senator Risser to the effect that a resolution calling for an Attorney General's ruling was not privileged. The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled against Senator Risser. These and other points of order highlight the fact that if the body is to operate effectively, fairly and democratically it will
occasionally be necessary for the chair to take the time for essential research before ruling. That this
privilege is not being abused is clear from the statistic that only thirty times out of 125 points of order was a point of order taken under advisement.
On 52 occasions the chair ruled a point of order not well taken. In order to substantiate the charge that the President of the Senate is unfair to the detriment of the opposition party it should be shown that the overwhelming majority of unfavorable decisions by the chair were decided against the opposition party.
A careful review of the Senate Journal indicates that in 52 rulings against a senator raising the point of order, 28 were against members of the majority party while 24 were decided against the minority party. This is as close to impartiality as is possible in view of the fact that the majority party maintained a 20 to 13 margin in membership.
The Constitution clearly provides that the Lieutenant Governor shall be the President of the Senate. The history of my exercise of that authority indicates that basic fairness has prevailed.
I wish to emphasize that I will continue to exercise that basic fairness in all matters before the Senate. Only when the majority party abuses its responsibility will it be dissatisfied with the manner and method in which I fulfill my responsibilities in presiding over the Senate of the State of Wisconsin.
Yours very truly
MARTIN J. SCHREIBER
President of the Senate
Previous question: motion for
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
