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."]
547Assembly Journal of January 21, 1975 .......... Page: 89
Point of order:
Representative Sensenbrenner rose to the point of order that a roll call was required on adoption of Assembly Resolution 9 [rules change: eating or drinking in assembly chamber] pursuant to Assembly Rule 92.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 8, 1975 .......... Page: 455
[Background: Senator Knowles asked unanimous consent that Senate Resolution 10 be laid aside so that Senate Resolution 9 could be considered for action. Senator Risser objected.]
[Point of order:]
Senator Knowles raised the point of order that Senate Resolution 9 was privileged, and pursuant to the rules has laid over the required one week. Therefore, the resolution should be before the senate body. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of April 15, 1975 .......... Page: 500
On April 8, 1975, Senator Robert Knowles raised the point of order that Senate Resolution 9 (relating to a change in the Senate Rules) was privileged and pursuant to the rules has laid over the required one week, therefore, the resolution should be before the Senate body. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
The Senator from the 10th apparently is viewing Senate Rule 69 entitled "Privileged Question" as the basis for his point of order. This rule states that "any motion or resolution relating to the organization or procedure of the senate .... shall be privileged and need not lie over for consideration."
Even to casual reviewer of the Senate Rules it is clear that Senate Rule 69 under the heading of "General Procedure - order in debate" does not stand alone as an entity unto itself when involving the matter of rules. The Senate body in its wisdom adopted a specific Chapter (Chapter 10) entitled Rules to deal with the matter of creating, amending or repealing rules, suspending rules and publishing of senate rule.
Senate Rule 90 of Chapter 10 states that: "After the rules have been established at the commencement of the legislative biennium, any resolution to change the rules shall lay over one week."
Neither under Senate Rule 90 or 69 is there any requirement that a resolution pertaining to "Rules" or "Privileged Question" be acted upon within a specific time frame.
Senate Rule 69 states the motion or resolution "need not lie over" but does not require action by any specified time.
Senate Rule 90 states the rules "shall lie over one week" but does not require action by any specified time.
Once the required lay over period has passed, the Senate body may, pursuant to the rules, take the necessary action to bring the matter before the Senate body should the Senate so desire.
The point of order that the rules must automatically come before the Senate body because the required lay over time has elapsed is not well taken pursuant to Senate Rule 90.
548 Respectfully submitted,
MARTIN J. SCHREIBER
Lieutenant Governor
Senate Journal of April 1, 1975 .......... Page: 364
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen moved that Senate Joint Resolution 9 [relating to members representing the senate on committees] be withdrawn from the committee on Senate Organization and placed on the calendar.
Senator Risser raised the point of order that pursuant to senate rule 90 the measure [Senate Joint Resolution 9] must lay over one week. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of April 3, 1975 .......... Page: 425
State of Wisconsin Office of the Lieutenant Governor
To the Honorable, The Senate:
On April 1, I took under advisement a point of order by Senator Risser regarding whether a proposed rule change to eliminate secret meetings must lay over seven calendar days.
Pursuant to the Rules of Procedure adopted by this body, Chapter 10, Section 90 ".... any resolution to change the rules shall lay over one week." I have no choice but to rule that the proposed change "shall" lay over one week.
However, as presiding officer of this body, I must say that I can neither condone nor accept this concept of secret meetings. I find them contrary to the principles of accountability and openness upon which our democratic system is based.
Simply stated, the proposed rule change now before the body is inadequate and ineffective. Therefore, I urge that the entire Senate body act with all deliberate speed to clearly delineate its concept of openness in government and begin development of both rules and legislation which will ensure that all decisions will be made in full public view.
Respectfully submitted
MARTIN J. SCHREIBER
Lieutenant Governor
Senator Chilsen moved that the rules be suspended to withdraw Senate Resolution 9 from the committee on Senate Organization and consider it for action at this time.
The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-12, noes-16.] Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative the motion did not prevail.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 9, 1974 .......... Page: 71
