1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 13, 1986 .......... Page: 866
Point of order:
Representative Wood rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 216 [relating to a property tax exemption for nonprofit theaters] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f).
[Note:] By proposing an exemption for both nonprofit theaters and "performing arts studios", the substitute amendment substantially expanded the scope of the proposal.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 18, 1985 .......... Page: 518
Point of order:
Representative Neubauer rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 8, September 1985 Spec. Sess. [relating to making an appropriation for funding for Forward Wisconsin, inc], was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
588 [Note:] The bill, conforming to item 7 of the special session call (A.Jour. 9/26/85, p. 356), was limited to increasing the state contribution to Forward Wisconsin, inc.
A.Sub.1 proposed to reorganize the state's department of development to obtain, by reduced DOD operations, funds to be allocated to Forward Wisconsin.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 22, 1986 .......... Page: 919
[Point of order:]
Senator Stitt raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 20, May 1986 Spec. Sess., relating to operating motor vehicles, blood alcohol concentration, operating privileges and providing penalties] was not germane.
[Note:] S.Sub.1, offered by the committee to which the bill had been referred, differed from the original only in matters of detail.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senate Journal of May 22, 1986 .......... Page: 915
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 1, May 1986 Spec. Sess., relating to raising the legal drinking age to 21] was not germane.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] Although S.Sub.1 would have permitted certain individuals at least 19 years of age to consume alcohol on certain premises, the overall intent of the substitute amendment was to raise the legal drinking age to 21.
S.Sub.2 [below], on the other hand, would have kept the legal drinking age at 19, requiring the 21-year age only for individuals not in possession of a valid Wisconsin photo ID or driver's license.
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 4, 1984 .......... Page: 1145
Point of order:
589 Representative Kunicki rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 485 [relating to health maintenance organizations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] 1983 Senate Bill 485 dealt only with the operational procedures of HMOs; the A.Sub.1 dealt with required access of certain provider groups - dentists, optometrists, pharmacists, podiatrists - to participation in HMOs, PPOs and cooperative association health care plans. The bill touched cooperative association health care plans only to include them in the definition of HMOs; the amendment covered provider participation in all cooperative association health care plans, PPOs and HMOs.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 20, 1984 .......... Page: 983
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 663 [relating to the individual and corporate surtaxes, the homestead credit, the required general fund balance, reducing the bonding authority for highway projects, income tax exemptions, income and franchise tax deductions for intercorporate dividends and for insurers' loss carry-backs, property tax statements, the definition of the internal revenue code for purposes of the income, franchise, inheritance and minimum taxes, required health insurance coverage, income tax exemptions, utility taxes on telephone companies, decreasing the primary guaranteed valuation, providing penalties and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
[Motion to suspend germaneness rule:]
Representative R. Travis moved that Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) be suspended to allow consideration of assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 663.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the motion out of order.
Point of order:
Representative R. Travis rose to the point of order that the motion to suspend Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) was proper. The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken because assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 663 was not before the assembly.
Assembly Journal of March 7, 1984 .......... Page: 893
Point of order:
Representative Crawford rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 595 [relating to groundwater management, creating a council, granting rule-making authority, imposing penalties and making appropriations] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope] because it added many sections that were not included in the original bill.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken because substitute amendments were held to the less strict standards of germaneness contained in Assembly Rule 54 (1) [title, nature of proposal].
Assembly Journal of May 24, 1983 .......... Page: 220
Point of order:
590 Representative D. Travis rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 450 [relating to applicability of the Wisconsin environmental protection act and a schedule for the establishment of any new Milwaukee correctional institution, judicial review of related decisions and injunctive and other relief and right of first acquisition of abandoned railroad property] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) and (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope] because it increases bonding authority and sets a specific site for the location of a prison.
Representative D. Travis also rose to the point of order that the bill was not properly before the assembly under section 13.49 (6) of the Wisconsin Statutes.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that the bill was properly before the assembly because section 13.49 (6) of the Wisconsin Statutes did not require the referral of substitute amendments to the Joint Survey Committee on Debt Management.
The speaker also ruled that the substitute was germane under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (d) [adding appropriations necessary to fill original intent].
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 4, 1984 .......... Page: 849
[Point of order:]
The question was: Adoption of senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 256, relating to a revision of the obscenity law and the penalty for its violation]?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane.
By request of Senator Cullen, with unanimous consent, he withdrew his point of order.
By request of Senator Chilsen, with unanimous consent, senate substitute amendment 1 was returned to the author.
The question was: Adoption of senate substitute amendment 2?
Senate Journal of April 4, 1984 .......... Page: 850
[Point of order:]
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of April 6, 1984 .......... Page: 873
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Wednesday, April 4, 1984, the senator from the 15th, Senator Cullen, raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 to Senate Bill 256 was not germane.
The senator from the 15th raised the point that senate substitute amendment 2 was identical in effect to Senate Bill 114 and senate substitute amendment 1.
Upon reading of the substitute, the entire first page and 18 lines of the 25 lines of material on the 2nd page are identical to Senate Bill 114 and senate substitute amendment 1. Lines 19 and 20 on page 2 set out a new prohibitive practice not identified in senate substitute amendment 1 or Senate Bill 114; however, the practice is covered under current law. Lines 23 thru 25 on page 2 further define lines 10 and 11 on page 2.
591 It appears to the chair that the senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, is attempting to bring forth the same language as Senate Bill 114 and senate substitute amendment 1, by
adding some new material to the amendment that is already current law. The chair has serious questions about this practice; however, when the question of germaneness is close, Mason's Manual Sec. 401 (5) states in part: "The Presiding officer should never rule an amendment out of order unless he is certain that it is." ( Therefore, the chair is going to rule the point of order not well taken and the amendment is germane.
Senate Journal of March 28, 1984 .......... Page: 801
[Point of order:]
Senator Norquist raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 812, relating to the establishment of school district programs for school age mothers, granting rule-making authority and making an appropriation] was not germane.
[Note:] The bill provided for state-aided programs, to be approved by the state superintendent, for school age mothers. S.Amdt.1 prohibited superintendent approval of any program providing "referral or counseling for abortions".
S.Amdt.2, below, had a similar prohibiting effect.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-17, noes-14]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 2 offered by Senator Chilsen.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 2?
Senator Norquist moved rejection of senate amendment 2.
The question was: Rejection of senate amendment 2?
Senator Norquist raised the point of order that senate amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 812 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Lorge appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-13]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
Senate Journal of March 28, 1984 .......... Page: 801
[Point of order:]
Senate substitute amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 58, relating to eligibility of employes affected by lockouts for unemployment compensation benefits] offered by Senator Harsdorf.
The question was: Adoption of senate substitute amendment 1?
Senator Theno raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane.
592 [Note:] While the bill provided unemployment compensation benefits for employes affected by lockouts (thus deciding an issue), S.Sub.1 substituted a study by the council on unemployment compensation (with a possible report one year later).
In terms of deciding the issue itself, adoption of the substitute would have had the same effect (maintaining the status quo) as defeat of the bill. Consequently, the substitute attempted to "totally alter the nature of the original proposal" in violation of S.Rule 50 (1), and in violation of the rights of the authors of the proposal to have the issue considered and decided on its merits.
The approach was a common procedural error: if the legislature requires more information to decide an issue, then it is appropriate to re-refer the proposal to a standing committee for that information, but it is not appropriate to change the nature of the proposal itself. For a joint interim study by the 2 houses, the proper vehicle is a joint resolution requesting the legislative council to study the subject matter of the proposal.
(It appears that there has not been a contrary ruling since 7/18/63 [see Sen.Jour. p. 1620]. At that time, pres. pro tem. Sen. Frank Panzer had allowed a substitute amendment replacing decision with study, but the senate then rejected the substitute.)
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of March 21, 1984 .......... Page: 750
