Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that pursuant to s. 13.50 (6) (a) and (b) and senate rule 54, the committee was required to act on senate substitute amendments 1 and 2 to Senate Bill 1, Special Session. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, the rules were suspended to allow the ruling of the chair to be submitted at a later date.
Senate Journal of November 9, 1977 .......... Page: 1401
On Monday, November 7, 1977, Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that s. 13.50 (6) and senate rule 54 require the joint survey committee on retirement systems to submit reports on senate substitute amendments 1 and 2 to Senate Bill 1, Special Session and that until such reports are received further action on the substitutes is improper. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Section 13.50 (6) (a) directs that:
No bill or amendment thereto creating or modifying any system for, or making any provision for, the retirement of or payment of pensions to public officers or employes, shall be acted upon by the legislature until it has been referred to the joint survey committee on retirement systems and such committee has submitted a written report on the proposed bill.
Senate Rule 54, Amendments to be reported, directs that:
Whenever any bill to which am amendment is pending shall be referred to a committee such amendment shall be reported back to the senate.
The question is whether the statutory language requires each bill and amendment to be referred to the retirement committee and then requires a single written report on the proposed bill; or, whether the statute requires each bill and amendment to be referred to the retirement committee and then requires a written report on the bill and each amendment.
A ruling of the chair which has application in this case was made on October 10, 1973 (1973 Senate Journal page 1691) in response to a point of order by Senator McKenna that a retirement bill was improperly before the senate because: 1) a majority of the committee members had not approved the entire report as required in 13.50 (5), and 2) the committee had submitted its report recommending adoption of senate substitute amendment 1 while the bill itself was reported without recommendation in violation of 13.50 (6).
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled in part that, "While the statute is clear that the joint survey committee on retirement systems must make a report on a bill before being acted upon by the legislature, the statutes are silent on the need for a report by the committee on an amendment. However, it is clear that the amendment must be submitted to the committee."
542 The chair went on to conclude that: (1) a committee report must be received on the original bill with approval of a majority of all the members of the committee, and (2) that amendments must be referred to the committee but that there is no requirement for a report by the committee on amendments."
A glance at language elsewhere in the rules and statutes bear out these conclusions. Joint rule 42 (b), for example, mentions a single report for each retirement bill.
"Bills affecting a public retirement fund shall be referred to the joint survey committee on retirement systems under section 13.50 of the statutes .... For any such bill the fiscal estimate shall be prepared by the respective joint survey committee at the time the
committee prepares its analysis of the bill, and shall be submitted to the legislature as a part of the committee's bill analysis which is then printed as an appendix to the bill."
It is a well-known joint rule, 41 (2), that fiscal estimates are required on original bills only and not on substitute amendments or amendments.
Tax exemption bills, which are handled by a statutory committee similar in structure and operation to the joint retirement committee, are required to have only a single report before being considered by the legislature.
These references lead to but one conclusion .... that bills and amendments must be referred to the retirement committee, but that a written report is required only on the proposed bill.
The senate rule 54 requirement that amendments as well as bills be "reported" back to the senate clearly refers to the "report" required under senate rule 27, not the statutory report required by s. 13.50 (6).
Reports under senate rule 27 are typically brief documents which simply record the action of the committee and the committee's recommendations. Statutory reports from the retirement committee, on the other hand, are very thorough documents which take hours to research and prepare. They are submitted for the purpose of informing the legislature about the effect, cost and desirability of retirement legislation, but they make no recommendation regarding passage or postponement of the legislation.
The purpose of senate rule 54 is to assure that every amendment in a senate committee will be returned to the floor for action, not to require a lengthy and detailed report for each amendment and substitute. To read rule 54 as requiring such a report for each amendment and substitute amendment would be a perversion of the rules and present unlimited opportunity for delay.
For these reasons, the point of order raised by Senator Sensenbrenner is not well taken.
FRED A. RISSER
Acting President
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 14, 1974 .......... Page: 2197
[Point of order:]
Senate Bill 632 [relating to public employes deferred compensation plan]. Read a second time.
Senator LaFave asked unanimous consent that Senate Bill 632 be rereferred to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems. Senator Risser objected.
Senator LaFave raised the point of order that, pursuant to Section 13.50 (5) of the Wis. Statutes, the committee must report in the majority either favorably
543 or unfavorably. Since the committee reported the bill with a tie vote, the measure must be rereferred to the committee.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of October 9, 1973 .......... Page: 1675
[Written report nor required on amendments:]
Senator McKenna raised the point of order that Senate Bill 528 was required by statute to go to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of October 10, 1973 .......... Page: 1691
[Ruling of the chair:]
Ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised by Senator McKenna that Senate Bill 528 was not properly before the Senate since it did not comply with Section 13.50 of the statutes inasmuch as Section 13.50 (6a) provides in part that no bill or amendment thereto creating or modifying any system for, or making any provision for, the retirement of or payment of pensions for public officers or employees, shall be acted upon by the legislature until it has been referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems and such committee has submitted a written report on the proposed bill.
The chair finds the point of order well taken. The record of Senate Bill 528 indicates that the bill was referred to the Joint Committee on Retirement Systems and that a report was received with senate substitute amendment 1 recommended for adoption, and the bill reported without recommendation. Substitute amendment 2 and 3 were pending, but there was no indication that the amendments had been considered by the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems. While the statute is clear that the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems must make a report on a bill before being acted upon by the legislature, the statutes are silent on the need for a report by the committee on an amendment. However, it is clear that the amendment must be submitted to the committee.
Section 13.50 (5) of the statutes states that all actions of the committee shall require the approval of a majority of all the members. The committee report shows that the vote by the committee was Ayes 3, Noes 3, and reported without recommendation. It is clear, therefore, that the committee report did not comply with Section 13.50 (5) of the statutes.
Therefore, the Chair concludes that (1) a committee report must be received on the original bill with approval of a majority of all of the members of the committee, and (2) that amendments must be referred to the committee but that there is no requirement for a report by the committee on amendments.
Rules: adoption or amendment of
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 19, 1988 .......... Page: 1007
Point of order:
544 Representative Welch rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 115 [relating to retroactive exemption of 1987 Assembly Bill 850 and 1987 Assembly Bill 1016
from adverse disposal] was not properly before the assembly under Joint Rule 96 (2) because the committee on Rules had voted to introduce the joint resolution less than twenty-four hours ago.
[Note:] Joint Rule 96 (2) "Any proposal to rescind or change a joint rule shall be introduced as a joint resolution stating the proposed change. Except as authorized by unanimous consent or by vote of two-thirds of the members present, the joint resolution shall not be acted upon in either house until copies of the joint resolution have been made available to the members for 24 hours."
The rule does not require a 24-hour delay after introduction.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that, although the committee on Rules had voted to introduce the joint resolution less than twenty-four hours ago, the point of order was not well taken because copies of the joint resolution were sent to the members last week.
Assembly Journal of March 24, 1988 .......... Page: 960
Point of order:
Representative Loftus introduced a privileged joint resolution.
Representative Nelsen rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 110 [relating to scheduling of extraordinary sessions] "shall not be acted upon" for twenty-four hours under Joint Rule 96 (2).
[Note:] Joint Rule 96 (2) "Any proposal to rescind or change a joint rule shall be introduced as a joint resolution stating the proposed change. Except as authorized by unanimous consent or by vote of two-thirds of the members present, the joint resolution shall not be acted upon in either house until copies of the joint resolution have been made available to the members for 24 hours."
Following the ruling, Speaker Loftus requested unanimous consent to take up AJR 110, but Rep. Nelsen (minority leader) objected. The final general business floorperiod of the 1987 Legislature ended on the next day (3/25/88), without further action on AJR 110.
Adoption of the joint resolution by both houses would have permitted the organization committees of the 2 houses to continue consideration of the 1988 annual budget bill in extraordinary session.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 11, 1986 .......... Page: 578
[Point of order:]
545 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.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 28, 1979 .......... Page: 254
Point of order:
Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that a roll call vote was required on adoption of Assembly Resolution 7 [relating to adopting the rules of the assembly in effect at the conclusion of the 1977 regular session of the assembly, with the modifications shown in this resolution, as the rules of the 1979 assembly].
The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of January 3, 1977 .......... Page: 36
Point of order:
Representative Wahner rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Resolution 7 was not germane under Assembly Rule 55.
[Note:] 1977 A.Res.7, in the manner of a "session law" provision, continued the assembly rules, renamed some assembly standing committees and created others until such time as a complete revision of the assembly rules was enacted by 1977 A.Res. 6.
A.Amdt.1 proposed a requirement of proportional representation of the assembly on all standing committees.
546 The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken because Assembly Resolution 7 did not deal with the composition of committees and the amendment would expand the scope of the resolution.
1 9 7 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 17, 1977 .......... Page: 240
[Point of order:]
Senate Joint Resolution 27 [to extend to Wednesday, February 23, 1977, the duration of floorperiod I established in the session schedule] Read. Considered as privileged.
Senator Parys raised the point of order that Senate Joint Resolution 27 was not privileged.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken pursuant to senate rule 69.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 11, 1975 .......... Page: 1112
Point of order:
Representative Hephner rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Joint Resolution 44 [relating to a legislative council study of .... airplane insurance legislation] was adopted which was entered on June 10, 1975 by Representative Dueholm was not in order.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken because adoption of the joint resolution by the assembly did not constitute final action and, therefore, the joint resolution had not taken effect.
Assembly Journal of June 11, 1975 .......... Page: 1112
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Resolution 22 [directing the assembly committee on tourism to study the impact on recreational areas of power equalization] was adopted which was entered on June 10, 1975 by Representative Ferrall was not in order. Representative Shabaz cited the ruling of the chair on 1971 Assembly Resolution 21 (1971 Assembly Journal, page 1000). The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] No ruling given. New motion entered (p. 1113) by Representative Johnson. That motion passed on September 10, 1975 (p. 1760) and the resolution was rejected 49 to 48. The issue was settled in the 1979 adoption of the assembly rules (A.Res. 7) which created the following rule:
"The entering of a motion for reconsideration does not impair the effectiveness of any adopted resolution relating to the officers, members, procedures or organization of the assembly."]
