The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken because there were two representatives standing at the same time seeking recognition and the speaker has the right to recognize either one. The chair also noted that the motion for reconsideration will still be in order during the eighth order of business on the next legislative day.
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 8, 1987 .......... Page: 384
[Time for motion expired:]
500 Representative Coleman moved reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 24 to Senate Bill 7 was adopted.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that the motion was not timely under Assembly Rule 73 (2) (a).
[Note:] The 2nd reading stage ends with the vote on the question: "Shall the bill be ordered engrossed and read a 3rd time?" Thus, there first has to be reconsideration of the vote on that question before the vote on a specific amendment can be reconsidered; Assembly Rule 73 (4) (a).
The Senate Bill 7 was ordered to the 3rd reading on October 6 [Assembly Journal, page 371]. October 7 had been a roll call day [Assembly Journal, page 373]. October 8 was too late to enter either a motion to reconsider assembly amendment 24 or a motion to reconsider engrossment of the bill.
Representative Prosser moved reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Bill 7 was ordered to a third reading.
The speaker ruled that the motion was not timely under Assembly Rule 73 (2) (a).
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1986 .......... Page: 936-39
[Action when reconsideration of passage or concurrence fails.]
The question was: Shall the vote by which senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 6 to Senate Joint Resolution 1 [relating to authorizing the creation of a Wisconsin state lottery (first consideration)] was nonconcurred in be reconsidered? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-0, noes-99.] Motion failed.
The question was: Shall the vote by which senate amendment 2 to assembly amendment 6 to Senate Joint Resolution 1 was concurred in be reconsidered? Motion failed.
Representative Becker asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Senate Joint Resolution 1 be immediately messaged to the senate. Representative Schneider objected.
Representative Becker moved that the rules be suspended and that Senate Joint Resolution 1 be immediately messaged to the senate.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Senate Joint Resolution 1 be immediately messaged to the senate? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-62, noes-36.] Motion failed (less than 2/3).
Point of order:
Representative Shoemaker rose to the point of order that Senate Joint Resolution 1 should be immediately messaged to the senate under Assembly Rule 50.
501 [Note:] A.Rule 50 requires immediate transmission to the senate, for each assembly "proposal which passes after a 3rd reading, and each senate proposal adversely disposed of by the assembly, .... after any motion to reconsider such passage or adverse disposition has failed or the time for making such motion has expired, together with a certified report of the assembly's action".
Ruling on the point of order:
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken because the reconsideration motions on Senate Joint Resolution 1 had failed.
Assembly Journal of March 13, 1986 .......... Page: 861
Reconsideration of failure to adhere:
The question was: Shall the assembly adhere to its position on assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 94 [relating to recodifying and making technical and minor substantive changes in the administrative rule-making process] and request a committee of conference?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-49, noes-49.] Motion failed.
Representative T. Thompson moved reconsideration of the vote by which the assembly failed to adhere to its position on assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 94. Entered.
Assembly Journal of March 18, 1986 .......... Page: 899
Motion out of order:
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled out of order the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which the assembly failed to adhere to its position on assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 94.
[Note:] In a similar (but not identical) situation in 1977, Speaker Jackamonis ruled out of order a motion by Rep. Shabaz to reconsider the vote by which the assembly failed to recede from its position on assembly amendment 1 to 1977 SB 63 (A.Jour., p. 311). Speaker Jackamonis explained that a vote to
recede was, in fact, a vote to reconsider and, since a vote on a motion to reconsider cannot be reconsidered [A.Rule 73 (5)], a vote on a motion to recede cannot be reconsidered.
Paul Mason, in sections 766 to 774 of the Manual (ed. 1979), discusses "conferences concerning amendments". Mason never even mentions a motion to adhere; according to him (see s. 767), the question is to recede.
In the present case - because a tied vote loses the question [A.Rule 81] - the assembly has failed to adhere to its earlier position of adopting assembly amendment 1 to 1985 SB 94. An unsuccessful vote to adhere was the same as a vote to recede and could not be reconsidered, but the question to recede had yet to be put. When that question carried, the bill was agreed to by both houses and ready for enrolling.
On the other hand, if the question to recede had also failed, 1985 SB 94 would have been dead unless the 2 houses agreed to a conference and were able to resolve their differences by adopting the conference report in both houses.
The question was: Shall the assembly recede from its position on assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 94? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-55, noes-42.] Motion carried.
502 Representative Becker asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 94 be immediately messaged to the senate. Granted.
Assembly Journal of February 13, 1986 .......... Page: 685-86
Reconsideration motion not timely:
The question was: Assembly Bill 506 [relating to the authority of cities, towns and villages to impose franchise fees on cable television operators] having been read three times, shall the bill be passed?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-46, noes-49.] Motion failed. [Intervening text omitted. The chief clerk read the title of the next proposal:] Assembly Joint Resolution 59, relating to 4-year terms of office for sheriffs (first consideration).
Representative Jauch moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 506 failed to be passed.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the motion not timely under Assembly Rule 73 (2) (a) because the assembly had proceeded to the next proposal on the calendar.
Assembly Journal of April 25, 1985 .......... Page: 118
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that, under Assembly Rule 73, Senate Bill 76 [relating to various changes in the unemployment compensation law, providing for a study, granting rule-making authority and
making appropriations] should not be before the assembly, but should instead be on the calendar of Monday, April 29, because a motion to reconsider the vote by which Senate Bill 76 was ordered to a third reading was offered by Representative Paulson today. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of April 25, 1985 .......... Page: 119
Ruling on the point of order:
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order raised by Representative T. Thompson not well taken because Senate Bill 76 was properly before the assembly under Assembly Rule 73 (2)(b). The speaker ruled that, pursuant to Assembly Rule 46 (5), Senate Bill 76, which was ordered to a third reading on Tuesday, April 23, was appropriately placed on the printed calendar of Thursday, April 25 under the eleventh order of business (third reading of senate bills). The speaker further ruled that a subsequent motion for reconsideration did not delay consideration of the bill beyond the time when it is "next regularly scheduled for consideration", but only served to put the question of reconsideration before the assembly.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 21, 1984 .......... Page: 1003
[Reconsideration motion, time for offering:]
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 999 [relating to regulation of utility advertising practices] be ordered engrossed and read a third time? Motion carried.
503 Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 999 be given a third reading. Representative Plous objected.
Representative Johnson moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 999 be given a third reading.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 999 be given a third reading? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-71, noes-23.] Motion carried.
Representative Gilson asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "Aye" on the previous question. Granted.
Representative Plous moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 999 was ordered to a third reading.
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration was not in order at this time. The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 21, 1984 .......... Page: 1005
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 999 was ordered to a third reading was not in order when offered by Representative Plous, because it was not offered immediately after the vote on engrossment.
Assembly Journal of March 15, 1984 .......... Page: 963
[Time for considering motion for reconsideration:]
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 200 [relating to establishing a system of marital property shared by husband and wife and providing penalties] was not properly before the assembly under Assembly Rule 73, and should be on the calendar of Friday, March 16 rather than the calendar of Thursday, March 15. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
504 [Note:] On Tuesday, 3/13/84, the assembly concurred (with amendments) in Senate Substitute Amendment 1 to 1983 Assembly Bill 200. On Wednesday, 3/14/84, the lady from the 69th entered a motion for reconsideration of that vote of concurrence.
The gentleman from the 42nd raised the point of order that consideration of this motion for reconsideration should be on the calendar for Friday, 3/16/84.
Assembly Rule 73 (3) (a) reads, in part, that "consideration of any other motion for reconsideration of passage or concurrence, entered on the roll call day following the day on which the proposal was passed or concurred in, shall be laid over and placed on the calendar for the first legislative day which occurs at least 2 calendar days after the decision was made" [emphasis supplied].
When an an assembly bill has been amended in the senate and is before the assembly for concurrence in the senate amendment, the assembly's vote is a further "concurrence" bringing the proposal closer to its final passage.
This concurrence vote is no different from an assembly vote to concur in a senate proposal. It is the last step to be taken by the assembly at that stage; barring a motion for reconsideration, there is no further action to be taken by the assembly.
Any motion to reconsider the vote by which the assembly concurs in a senate amendment to a proposal or amendment originating in the assembly is a vote to reconsider "concurrence" within the meaning of Assembly Rule 73 (3) (a), and must be placed on the calendar for the first legislative day which occurs at least 2 calendar days after the decision was made.
Since the assembly's decision to concur in Senate Amendment 1 to 1983 Assembly Bill 200 was made on 3/13/84, the motion to reconsider that vote had to be placed on the calendar for Thursday, 3/15/1984.
Assembly Journal of March 15, 1984 .......... Page: 964
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that Assembly Bill 200 was properly placed on the calendar of Thursday, March 15 under Assembly Rule 73 (3) (a) because the "decision" on concurrence in senate substitute amendment 1, which in effect was concurrence in the bill, was made on Tuesday, March 13. The speaker ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 6, 1984 .......... Page: 845
[Reconsideration motion, when withdrawing permitted:]
Representative R. Thompson asked unanimous consent to withdraw his motion for reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 2 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 56 was rejected.
[Note:] Senate Bill 56 was ordered to the 3rd reading on Wednesday, 2/29/84, A.Jour. p. 813. The attempt to take up 3rd reading immediately failed and the proposal was placed on the calendar for Friday, 3/2/84, under the 11th order. Motions for reconsideration were entered on Thursday, 3/1/84, A.Jour. p. 821.
The request to withdraw one of the reconsideration motions, made on Tuesday, 3/6/84, had to be refused because the time for entering a reconsideration motion had expired.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that request out of order under Assembly Rule 73 (6).
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 5, 1981 .......... Page: 444
[Background: Assembly Bill 235, "relating to sexual activity between consenting adults and revising penalties", was indefinitely postponed on 4/28/81, A.Jour. p. 405, and Rep. Tesmer entered the motion to reconsider that vote on 4/30/81, A.Jour., p. 419. When reconsideration came up on 5/5/81, Rep. Loftus asked unanimous consent (Rep. Shabaz objected) and then moved to table the bill.]
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Rule 74 (2) prohibited a motion to table Assembly Bill 235 at this time because the reconsideration question pending before the assembly was procedural. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
505 [Note:] On 5/7/81, A.Jour. p. 466, Rep. Tesmer was given unanimous consent to withdraw her reconsideration motion on AB 235.
Unanimous consent had the effect of suspending A.Rule 73 (7), which prohibits withdrawing a motion for reconsideration when the time for making the motion has expired.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 24, 1982 .......... Page: 1816
Point of order:
Senator Moody moved reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Bill 789 [relating to return of a public utility's interest in property taken for an abandoned project] was referred to committee on Aging, Business and Financial Institutions and Transportation.
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that the reconsideration motion was not properly before the senate. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 25, 1982 .......... Page: 1841
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Wednesday, March 24, 1982 the Senator from the 3rd, Senator Kleczka, raised the point of order that the motion to reconsider the vote by which Senate Bill 789 was referred to the committee on Aging, Business and Financial Institutions and Transportation made by the Senator from the 9th, Senator Moody, was not proper.
On page 991, Journal of the Senate June 25, 1975, the chair ruled that a motion to withdraw a matter from committee was not subject to reconsideration.
Section 390, paragraph 2, Mason's Manual reads: The motion to refer to committee may not be reconsidered but the matter referred to committee may be withdrawn.
Section 456 of Mason's Manual reads in part: Under the rules of parliamentary law, the procedural motions, such as to recess, to lay on the table and to refer to committee are not subject to reconsideration.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the chair that the motion is not proper and the point of order raised by the Senator from the 3rd, Senator Kleczka, is well taken.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
