[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
[Point of order:]
Senator Otte raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 26, relating to liability for nonmoving traffic violations with rented or leased vehicles] was not germane.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senator Otte raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
[Note:] The senate substitute repeated the provisions of the assembly-passed version and, in addition, included a procedure for rental agency recovery of parking fines from the person who rented the vehicle.
S.Amdt.1 to the substitute attempted to cancel outstanding parking warrants dated prior to July 1, 1982.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 19, 1982 .......... Page: 2879
Point of order:
Representative DeLong rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 968 [relating to extending the sunset provision on the employer's power to elect to provide for early retirement for teachers under the state teachers retirement system] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope] because it included persons in the Milwaukee Teachers Retirement System. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] The original bill extended the sunset from 1983 to 1989; A.Sub.1 extended the sunset for one year only but was drafted with greater precision to correct all statute subdivisions involved.
Assembly Journal of March 23, 1982 .......... Page: 2887
Representative DeLong asked unanimous consent to withdraw his point of order on assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 968. Granted.
Assembly Journal of March 16, 1982 .......... Page: 2716
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 2 to Senate Bill 70 [relating to payment of contractors under public works contracts] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1982 .......... Page: 2976
[Ruling on the point of order of 3/16/82]:
595 During the assembly debate on SB 70, Representative Loftus raised the point of order that Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 to that measure was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f). That rule provides that an amendment is not germane if it substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
As passed by the senate, SB 70 establishes provisions governing periodic payment to contractors under public works contracts. That proposal would require public works contracts to specify the day of the month on which each monthly estimate is to be provided by the contractor and the name of the person to whom it is to be delivered. Payment to the contractor is due 30 days after the estimate is received and the final payment under the contract is to be made within 60 days after completion of the project. The proposal also specifies the percentage of each periodic payment which may be retained to assure prompt and adequate completion of the project.
Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 to SB 70 also relates to the periodic payment of contractors under public works contracts. However, instead of mandating the specific provisions which must be included in contracts governing these periodic payments, the substitute provides permissive authority for the
state and other public bodies to include their own provisions which govern periodic payments. The scope of both proposals is the same. Both are limited in their extent and application to the subject of contracts providing for periodic payment; while the specific provisions of each are obviously different, the substitute does not address a broader area than does the senate version and consequently does not run afoul of Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
In addition, the substitute amendment is germane under the provision of Assembly Rule 54 (4) (b), as an amendment which accomplishes the same purpose as the original proposal in a different manner. The purpose of SB 70 is to specify provisions which must be included in public works contracts. As was pointed out by Rep. Plewa in discussion concerning the point of order, SB 70 establishes (1) a =_maximum percentage of each periodic payment which the public body =_may retain and (2) establishes a =_maximum length of time within which the public body must make payment. However, under the original proposal the state or municipality retains a considerable amount of flexibility and may elect not to retain anything out of each periodic payment or may retain less than 5% of each payment as the work progresses. In addition, the contract may provide for partial payment as the work progresses. In addition, the contract may provide for partial payments within any time period shorter than 30 days and may provide for final payment within any time period less than 60 days. Thus, under the main proposal, the discretion of the state or municipality to specify such provisions in the public works contracts is maintained although limited.
Similarly, Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 to SB 70 authorizes municipalities to include provisions within their public works contracts which govern periodic payments. It details the type of provisions which may be included, while removing the limitations contained in SB 70. It therefore accomplishes the same purpose as the original, however in a different fashion.
596 While Representative Loftus also raised the point that Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 expanded the scope of the main proposal because it newly amended secs. 59.96 (6) (m) and 62.15 (10), I would note that the senate version also addresses these sections in making cross-reference changes under sec. 4 of that bill. The changes which Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 makes in those sections of the statutes are really unnecessary to accomplish the intent of the substitute and were only technical modifications made by the drafter similar to the cross-reference changes of SB 70.
Provisions contained in a contract under Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 relating to periodic payments would continue to apply to contracts under 59.96 (6) (m) and 62.15 (10) in the same fashion as would the provisions established by SB 70. This is merely a particularized detail contained in the amendment which under Rule 54 (4) (e) would not cause the amendment to be nongermane.
In sum, I believe that Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 to SB 70 is germane under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (b) as an amendment which accomplishes the same purpose as the original proposal although in a different manner and the different provisions of the two proposals are nothing more than particularized details acceptable under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (e). As a result, the assembly should not be precluded by Assembly Rule 54 (1) from considering it.
Assembly Journal of March 4, 1982 .......... Page: 2494
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 583 [relating to compulsory motor vehicle
