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
[Point of order:]
Senator Davis raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 500, relating to dissolution of drainage districts] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 22, 1984 .......... Page: 762
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Wednesday, March 21, 1984 the Senator from the 11th, Senator Davis, raised a point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 500 was nongermane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Bill 500 relates to the vote requirements to terminate the operations of a drainage district. Senate substitute amendment 1 adds language relating to the organization of a drainage district in that it sets new requirements on the DNR and the boards in relation to review and reports on activities of drainage districts.
It is the opinion of the chair that the senate substitute amendment adds language relating to a different specific subject than the original bill, that it expands and not limits the scope of the original proposal and therefore in accordance with Senate Rule 50 (1), (2) and (7), it is the opinion of the Chair
that the amendment is not germane and the point of order raised by the Senator from the 11th, Senator Davis, is well taken.
Senate Journal of March 15, 1984 .......... Page: 721
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 5 to senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 180, relating to salt on highways] offered by Senator Harsdorf.
593 The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 5 to senate substitute amendment 1?
[Note:] Both the bill and S.Sub.1 dealt only with restricting the use of salt for snow removal. S.Amdt.5 proposed to authorize the use of studded snow tires for school buses.
Senator Strohl raised the point of order that senate amendment 5 to senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 709
[Background: Senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 500, "relating to extending eligibility for veterans benefits to veterans of United States military action in Lebanon and Grenada, offered by Senator Strohl.]
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1?
[Point of order:]
Senator Van Sistine raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane.
By request of Senator Strohl, with unanimous consent, senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 was returned to the author.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1?
Senator Johnston raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 15, 1984 .......... Page: 720
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Tuesday, March 13, 1984 the Senator from the 4th, Senator Johnston raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 500 was not germane. Specifically the Senator from the 4th raised the point that section 17 of the amendment relating to special license plates for prisoners of war expanded the scope of the bill. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Section 17 of the substitute amendment amends section 341.14 (6) of the statutes to add the new veteran benefit group (Lebanon and Grenada) to those already referenced for special Ex-Prisoner of War Plates. Section 341.14 (6) currently provides the special plates for all defined as "Veteran" for state benefits.
Mason's Manual Section 402 (2) reads as follows "To determine whether an amendment is germane, the question to be answered is whether the question is relevant, appropriate, and in natural and logical sequence to the subject matter of the original proposal."
It is the opinion of the chair that it is appropriate and logical to insure that all veteran benefits are extended to the new group. Therefore the point of order raised by the Senator from the 4th is not well taken and the substitute amendment is germane.
594Senate Journal of October 6, 1983 .......... Page: 389
