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
Senate Journal of July 24, 1973 .......... Page: 1408
[Motion for previous question tabled:]
Assembly Bill 300 [relating to state finances and appropriations constituting the executive budget bill of the 1973 legislature, and making appropriations]
The question was: Adoption of the Committee of Conference report?
Senator J. D. Swan moved rejection of the Committee of Conference report. [Intervening text omitted.]
The question was: Adoption of the Conference Committee Report?
Senator J. D. Swan moved rejection.
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-17, noes-10.] So the motion prevailed.
Senator LaFave moved reconsideration of the vote by which the Conference Committee Report on Assembly Bill 300 was rejected. [Intervening text omitted.]
The question was: Reconsideration of the vote by which the Conference Committee Report on Assembly Bill 300 was rejected?
Senator Lorge moved the previous question.
486 By request of Senator Johnson, with unanimous consent, the motion to put the previous question was laid on the table.
The question was: Reconsideration of the vote by which the Conference Committee Report on Assembly Bill 300 was rejected.
Senator Risser moved a call of the senate [Display of roll call omitted; present-29, absent-0, with leave-4; intervening text omitted.]
The question was: Reconsideration of the vote by which the Conference Committee Report on Assembly Bill 300 was rejected?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-13, noes-12.] So the motion prevailed.
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.
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.
Printing and distribution of proposals
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 23, 1992 .......... Page: 1016
Point of order:
487 Representative Deininger rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 24 [relating to establishing a special order of business for Tuesday, March 24, 1992] was not properly before the assembly because it had not been distributed to the members under Assembly Rule 33 (6).
A.Rule 33 (6): Any resolution ... [offered by the rules committee to establish a special order of business] must be reproduced and on the desks of the members before action is taken thereon.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Copies of Assembly Resolution 24 having been distributed to the members, the resolution was therefore properly before the assembly.
1 9 8 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 23, 1988 .......... Page: 792
[Background:] Senator Strohl moved that Assembly Bill 991 [relating to obscenity, defining obscene material and obscene performance and providing
penalties] be taken up at this time. The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 991 be taken up at this time?
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 991 cannot be before the body without being available for viewing.
[Note:] Beginning at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March 23, 1988, the Senate recessed (rather than adjourned) from evening to morning so as to stay on the 3/23/88 legislative day without ever reaching the 14th order of business, "motions may be offered".
The first recess was from 5:33 p.m. on Wednesday to 10:10 a.m. on Thursday (3/24/88, S.Journ. p. 771). The 2nd such recess was from 11:15 p.m. on Thursday to 8:25 a.m. on Friday (3/25/88, S.Journ. p. 783). Adjournment of the legislative Wednesday finally came at 1:16 a.m. Saturday morning (S.Journ. p. 793).
Although Sen. Chilsen's point of order is shown in the "Wednesday" journal, its display on page 792 makes it clear that the incident happened sometime between 9:47 p.m. and 11:35 p.m. on Friday, 3/25/88.
The Assembly adopted A.SubAmdt.1 to AB 991, and messaged AB 991 to the Senate, on Thursday, March 24, 1988, sometime between 7:25 p.m. and 9:35 p.m (A.Journ. pp. 970-971). At the time of Sen. Chilsen's point of order, AB 991 had been "available for viewing" in the Senate for at least 24 hours.
However, the majority leader, Sen. Strohl, had moved a suspension of the rules so as to take up the bill. Even if a rule could be found requiring 24-hour availability of bills received for concurrence, that rule would have been superseded by the motion to suspend.
488 The Chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Privileged resolution
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1986 .......... Page: 1042
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 23 [relating to further consideration of proposals pending in the assembly] was not privileged and was in conflict with the provisions of the session schedule (Assembly Joint Resolution 1).
[Note:] On 3/26/86 the senate adjourned at 7:12 p.m., thus terminating its participation in floorperiod V under the session schedule. The assembly stayed in session.
At 11:25 p.m., Speaker Loftus offered A.Res.23 to focus assembly procedures on measures that could still be enacted, even with the senate gone. AB 229 on faculty collective bargaining was such a bill: except for a senate amendment, both houses had already agreed to it.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Resolution 23 offered by Representative Loftus.
Representative Loftus moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 229 be withdrawn from the calendar and taken up at this time. [Intervening text omitted.]
Representative Becker moved that the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-79, noes-19.] Motion carried.
Assembly Journal of March 6, 1986 .......... Page: 825
Point of order:
Representative Schmidt rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 628 [relating to survivorship and guardianship rights to motor fuel dealerships] was not properly before the assembly under Joint Rule 83 (3) and Assembly Rule 49 (2) because it was identical to Assembly Bill 511.
489 [Note:] Because AB 511 had not been listed in the save resolution (85 ARes-12) of proposals to be considered in 1986, the bill was properly deemed adversely disposed of and recorded as "failed to pass" pursuant to Jt.Rule 83 (3). Once a proposal has been adversely disposed of, a substantially similar proposal originating in the same house cannot be considered; see A.Rule 49 (2).
1985 ARes-18 (below) was designed to add AB 511 to the save list and thus remove the A.Rule 49 (2) objection to the consideration of AB 628. As a resolution relating to a procedure of the assembly, ARes-18 was privileged under A.Rule 43 (1) to be introduced under any order of business and to be "taken up immediately before all other proposals then pending, unless referred"....
Representative Loftus introduced a privileged resolution.
Assembly Resolution 18, relating to floorperiod V consideration of proposals pending in the assembly. By Representative Loftus.
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 18 was not privileged.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The question was: Shall Assembly Resolution 18 be adopted? Motion carried.
The chair ruled the point of order, raised by Representative Schmidt, not well taken because of the adoption of Assembly Resolution 18.
1 9 8 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 11, 1986 .......... Page: 578
[Point of order:]
Senator Stitt raised the point of order that Senate Resolution 14 [relating to creating a special senate committee to investigate the recent budget deficit and to make recommendations to the senate] was a privileged resolution. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] Under S.Rule 69, a resolution is privileged if it deals with "the organization or procedure of the senate, or .... any of its .... committees".
A resolution to create a new senate committee is not privileged, and may be considered an amendment of the rules of the senate requiring a one-week layover under S.Rule 90.
Senate Journal of February 11, 1986 .......... Page: 583
Ruling of the chair:
Earlier today Senate Resolution 14 was introduced and referred to the joint committee on Finance. Senator Stitt of the 20th District raised the point of order that the resolution was privileged, should be read at length by the Clerk and should be taken up immediately. The chair [Pres. Risser] took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Rules 34 and 45 require the reading at length if resolutions are considered privileged under Rule 69 and taken up immediately. The chair has ruled in the past that privileged resolutions may be referred to committee. However, in this situation the chair not only referred the resolution to committee, but is of the opinion that the resolution is not privileged.
Therefore, the point of order raised by the Senator of the 20th, Senator Stitt, that Senate Resolution 14 was a privileged resolution was not well taken.
