Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the chair could not break the tie vote on the previous question, as the chair originally submitted the question to the body because it was in doubt.
The chair put the question of the previous appeal of the ruling of the chair to the senate.
As it relates to the ruling that a division of the question was not in order, the question was: Shall the ruling of the chair stand as the decision of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-16, noes-16, lieutenant governor voted "aye" to break tie.]
So the ruling of the chair was sustained.
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 934 be withdrawn from the committee on Industry, Labor, Taxation and Banking and laid on the table. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-16, noes-16, lieutenant governor voted "aye" to break tie.]
So the motion prevailed. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senate Journal of March 20, 1974 .......... Page: 2504
Senator McKenna moved that Senate Bill 934 be taken from the table and considered for action at this time.
Senator Johnson raised the point of order that this required a suspension of the rules.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator J. D. Swan appealed the ruling of the chair. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-15, noes-17.] So the ruling of the chair was not sustained.
Senate Journal of February 28, 1974 .......... Page: 2329
[Point of order:]
560 Senator Whittow raised the point of order that the agreement under senate rule 76 was amendable. ( The chair ruled the point of order well taken, but any amendment that would
advance a bill ordinarily requiring a two-thirds vote, would itself require a two-thirds vote to adopt.
Senate Journal of March 27, 1974 .......... Page: 2604
[Point of order:]
Senator M. Swan raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 934 was already on the select list and was presently before the senate. This would negate the requirement for a motion to take from the table. ( The chair ruled the point of order well taken as this was the precedent set on Senate Bill 261 on page 2505 of the senate journal.
Special session: conduct of
1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 8, 1990 .......... Page: 818
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion to place Assembly Bill 200 [relating to prohibiting bovine growth hormone] after Senate Bill 344 would need a two-thirds vote.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] A request to delay consideration of one proposal from its place on the calendar to a later position on the same calendar, following the consideration of a specific other proposal, is a motion to postpone, to be decided by majority vote.
In special or extraordinary session, A.Rule 93 (5) prohibits motions "to postpone a proposal to a day or time certain"; consequently, in special or extraordinary session placing consideration of one proposal after consideration of another requires unanimous consent or a two-thirds vote.
Generally, and whether or not there is a written rule, advancing the consideration of a proposal ahead of its status under the rules requires a two-thirds vote, but delaying consideration to a later time, or refusing to consider, can be done by majority vote.
Ruling of the chair [p. 823]:
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Welch that since the motion to place a bill after another bill was not specifically listed in the Assembly Rules as a proper motion it would take a suspension of the rules and a two-thirds vote.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 22, 1986 .......... Page: 1114-15
Point of order:
561 Representative R. Travis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to Assembly Bill 13, May 1986 Spec. Sess., [relating to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, drugs or both, administrative and court-ordered revocation of operating privileges and chemical tests for intoxication, making an appropriation and granting rule-making authority] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) [expansion of scope] and Assembly Rule 93 (1) [scope of session call exceeded].
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
[Note:] The bill provided for administrative or court-ordered driver's license revocation for drunk driving.
A.Amdt.5 increased, by $650,000, the state appropriation to the public defender board for investigators and private bar attorneys to handle some of the anticipated workload.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order on assembly amendment 5 to Assembly Bill 13, May 1986 Spec. Sess., not well taken.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 4, 1982 .......... Page: 3430
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 1, Second April 1982 Special Session, [relating to establishing a special order of business for Tuesday, May 4, 1982] was not properly before the assembly because it did not comply with Assembly Rule 33 (4) and (6) [resolution for special order of business].
[Note:] A special session operates under accelerated procedures codified in A.Rule 93. Under A.Rule 93 (4), in special session any measure referred to a calendar may be taken up immediately by majority vote.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that Assembly Resolution 1 was introduced under Assembly Rule 93 and did not need to comply with the requirements of Assembly Rule 33.
Assembly Journal of November 4, 1981 .......... Page: 1709
Point of order:
Representative Looby rose to the point of order that members of the Legislature were not properly notified of the calling of a special session.
The speaker took the point of order under advisement. [It appears that no ruling was given.]
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of January 22, 1980 .......... Page: 1848
Point of order:
562 Representative Wahner rose to the point of order that the hour of 10:00 A.M. had arrived and, therefore, the assembly was in extraordinary session.
Representative Shabaz stated that the assembly was in special session pursuant to Article IV, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Wahner that the assembly was in extraordinary session. He ruled that a regular session or an extraordinary session called by the legislature takes precedence over a special session called by the governor and cited two precedents as the basis for his ruling: 1) the June 19, 1962 ruling of senate president pro tempore Panzer and, 2) the December 10, 1963 ruling of assembly speaker Haase.
Representative Shabaz appealed the ruling of the chair. Representative Shabaz moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 1, January 1980 Special Session be withdrawn from the committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety and taken up at this time.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the motion out of order.
The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the assembly?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-59,noes-36.] Motion carried.
The assembly recessed the special session and went into extraordinary session pursuant to the speaker's ruling.
Assembly Journal of January 22, 1980 .......... Page: 1859
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the hour of 2:01 P.M. had arrived and the assembly was in special session.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken for the same reasons stated in the ruling he made earlier today [see ruling on page 1848].
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of December 17, 1973 .......... Page: 5
[Memorial to congress: not considered in special session]
Senate Resolution 1, 1973 Special Session [relating to organization of the senate for the 1973 special session]: ...."they are changed by the following special rules:
(1) No memorials to congress shall be considered by the senate."
Senate Journal of December 17, 1973 .......... Page: 11
[Point of order:]
Senator M. Swan asked unanimous consent to introduce a joint resolution memorializing Congress.
Senator LaFave raised the point of order that under the rules adopted for the special session no memorializations of Congress could be introduced by members.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
563 Senator Dorman 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 required and the vote
was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-22, noes-7.] So the ruling of the chair was sustained.
Special session: proposal or amendment not germane to call
1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of December 21, 1989 .......... Page: 569
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 13, Oct. 1989 Spec. Sess., as amended by the senate, [relating to funding for a 2nd-dose immunization series for measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and making an appropriation] was not germane to the call of the Oct. 1989 Spec. Sess. under Assembly Rule 93.
[Note:] The governor's original call convening the October 1989 special session, dated 9/29/89, mentioned only problems related to drug abuse and illegal drugs. A bill on measles immunization would have been outside the scope of that call.
On December 15, Gov. Tommy Thompson issued a supplementary call (S.Jour., p. 578) adding 2 more items to the special session agenda. The first of these items was: "To enact legislation to provide funding for vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella".
As introduced, Oc9-SB 13 merely increased an existing appropriation by $2,000,000. As reported by the joint finance committee (S.Sub-2) and amended and passed by the senate, Oc9-SB 13 still included that appropriation and, in addition, contained provisions on the implementation of the vaccination program, possible federal funding, and a report on available health insurance coverage for required immunizations.
In setting the agenda for a special session, the governor can only outline the issues. The specific detail of dealing with each issue is the prerogative of the legislature.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of November 10, 1989 .......... Page: 525
Point of order:
564 Representative Travis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 15 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 12, Oct. 1989 Spec. Sess. [relating to grants to school districts; grants to vocational, technical and adult education districts; grants for before-school, after-school and summer school programs and services; head start programs and head start day care programs; grants to limit violence and abuse of controlled substances in neighborhoods; community-based efforts to prevent drug and alcohol abuse; distribution of information with marriage licenses; foster grandparent
program; grants for certain community-wide activities to combat alcohol and other drug abuse; drug abuse prevention and education program grants for American Indians; youth aids allocations; children-in-crisis program; treatment programs and other services to certain families and training of health care professionals and other social service workers; the treatment alternative program; domestic abuse shelter programs; day treatment for Hispanic persons and establishing a Spanish language center for day treatment; providing funds to counties for alcohol and other drug abuse treatment programs; imposing a tax on controlled substances and allocating the revenue; declaring a building or structure used in illegal drug manufacture or delivery a nuisance and subject to abatement and sale; expanding the Kettle Moraine correctional institution, granting bonding authority and revising the 1989-91 state building program; establishing a challenge incarceration program; toll-free hotlines and reward programs; establishing a state crime laboratory in Wausau; establishing a home detention program; probationers and parolees; treatment programs for prisoners; payments to counties for persons held pending disposition of probation or parole revocation; community corrections treatment programs; services for women probationers and parolees; juvenile correctional institutions and youth aids; an early intervention program for high-risk youths; an intensive aftercare pilot program; drug law enforcement; grants to local law enforcement agencies; grants to cities and counties for payment of law enforcement costs; funding drug identification and interdiction; circuit court branches; granting rule-making authority; providing penalties; and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
565 [Note:] AB 12, Oct. 1989 Spec.Sess., in its relating clause listed 37 different subjects. "Community equity funding", the subject of A.Amdt-15 was not among them. Consequently, A.Amdt-15 expanded the scope of the multi-issue proposal, and was not germane.
A.Sub.Amdt-1 to Oc9-AB 12 (below) was the joint finance committee's substitute for the bill. Its relating clause listed 48 subjects.
Although a proposal's title is often helpful information in determining the germaneness of an amendment, and the change from 37 to 48 subjects easily created the suspicion that A.Sub.Amdt-1 might represent a substantial expansion of the proposal's scope. However, the final decision must be based on the content of the proposal itself.
The broad purpose of the bill was to deal with drug abuse and illegal drugs. Of the bill's 37 subjects, 6 were not referenced in the title of the joint finance substitute - generally, they reappeared in about a dozen phrases indicating that the substitute accomplished "the same purpose in a different manner [germane; A.Rule 54 (4) (b)].
Several of the new phrases in the title of the substitute dealt with a study, an audit, or even a "task force" - all intended to monitor the performance of the new programs on drug abuse and illegal drugs. Others dealt with the specifics of program administration (creating a division of narcotics and dangerous drugs; hotline for perinatal referral and information; state standards for drug abuse treatment programs) or with a consequence of illegal drugs convictions (immunity for forced testimony; selling property seized in drug arrests). Amendments "relating only to particularized details" are germane [A.Rule 54 (4) (e)].
Finally, each of the subjects included in the substitute amendment also had to fit, and did fit, within the special session agenda set by Gov. Tommy Thompson proclamation convening the special session (A.Jour. 10/10/89, p. 343).
Assembly Journal of November 10, 1989 .......... Page: 528
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 12, Oct. 1989 Spec. Sess., was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3).
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of December 21, 1989 .......... Page: 589
[Point of order:]
Senator Davis raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 as introduced and as amended was not germane [to Oct. 1989 Spec. Sess. Senate Bill 13, relating to funding for a 2nd-dose immunization series for measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and making an appropriation]. [Intervening text omitted.]
