Representative T. Thompson asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that the speaker rule on the germaneness of assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 prior to the consideration of the amendments to assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 14. Granted.
Representative Shoemaker rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Representative Becker asked unanimous consent that the assembly stand recessed for ten minutes. Granted. [Intervening text omitted.]
The speaker [Loftus] ruled well taken the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1984 .......... Page: 1049
[Timeliness of point of order:]
The question was: Shall the vote by which Senate Bill 281 [relating to authorizing credit unions to act as depositories for public funds and designating the higher education corporation as a public depositor] was ordered to a third reading be reconsidered? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-53, noes-45.] Motion carried.
Representative Schneider asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "No" on the previous question. Granted.
Point of order:
Representative Potter rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely.
The question was: Shall the vote by which assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 was rejected be reconsidered? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-51, noes-47.] Motion carried.
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1984 .......... Page: 1050
Point of order:
Representative Potter rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The chair [Speaker Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely.
Assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 offered by Representative Johnson.
658 Representative Tesmer moved rejection of assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 be rejected? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-37, noes-59.] Motion failed.
Representative Roberts asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "No" on the previous question.
Granted.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 be adopted? Motion carried.
Point of order:
Representative Potter rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] A.Amdt.2 removed the income tax-exempt status from the income which any credit union might derive from acting as a state or local public funds depository.
The chair [Speaker Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken and the amendment germane under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (e) [relating only to particularized detail].
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 4, 1982 .......... Page: 2505
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 250 [relating to access to public records, creating an open records board, granting rule-making authority, making appropriations and providing a penalty] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) and (3) (f).
[Note:] The point of order would have to be raised when the pending question is adoption of the substitute. Instead, it was raised while the assembly was considering amendments.
Although the journal records the official offering of A.Amdt.2 after the above point of order was raised, it is likely that copies of A.Amdt.2 and many additional amendments had already been xeroxed and distributed.
The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] ruled the point of order not timely under Assembly Rule 62 (4) [timely only if raised before question is decided] and Assembly Rule 66 [incidental motions, requests and questions in order during debate] because the assembly had not completed action on amendments to the substitute.
Assembly Journal of February 16, 1982 .......... Page: 2202
659 [Background: when the assembly reached AB 600, "relating to requiring the use of child restraint systems in motor vehicles, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty", the calendar already showed A.Sub.1 by Reps. D. Travis and Ulichny, A.Sub.2 by the Committee on Children and Human Development, and 8 amendments to A.Sub.2.
Reps. D. Travis and Ulichny offered A.Sub.3. Under A.Rule 55 (1) (b), A.Sub.3 could be considered only "if no other substitute amendment has been adopted".]
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 600 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 600 had not been acted upon.
Assembly Journal of February 16, 1982 .......... Page: 2208
[Intervening business. The question was: Shall assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 600 be adopted? Motion carried.]
Point of order:
Representative Wood rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 600 was not germane under Assembly Rule 53 (3) (f).
The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] ruled the point of order not timely under Assembly Rule 54 (2) [a question of germaneness .... "shall not be in order once an amendment has been adopted"].
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 29, 1981 .......... Page: 1076
Point of order:
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, Senate Bill 493 [relating to compulsory motor vehicle insurance, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty] was referred to joint committee on Finance.
Senator Lorge moved that Senate Bill 493 be withdrawn from joint committee on Finance and considered at this time.
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion was not properly before us. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of January 27, 1982 .......... Page: 1341
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Thursday, October 29, 1981 Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that Senate Bill 493 be referred to the joint committee on Finance and the bill was so referred.
Before the next bill was called Senator Lorge moved that the bill be withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance and considered immediately.
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion was not properly before the Senate.
A similar point of order was raised by Senator Sensenbrenner on February 14, 1978. The chair's ruling stated in part:
"The chair recalls that in past sessions, operating under similar rules, motions to withdraw from committee have been made at other times than the eighth order.
660 In this case the chair finds no written rule either allowing or forbidding the Senator to make a motion to withdraw from committee at the time he made it. But there is strong precedent this session, enunciated as recently as last week by the majority leader, that
motions to withdraw bills from committee will be restricted to the eighth order of business."
A rule change has since moved the order of business "Motions" from the eighth order to the fourteenth order. It is the opinion of the chair that based on this past ruling and our precedent of the past several sessions that the point of order raised by the Senator of the 24th, Senator Bablitch, is well taken, and the motion should be made on the fourteenth order of business.
Senator Lorge appealed the ruling of the chair. By request of Senator Chilsen, with unanimous consent, the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair was laid on the table.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of September 21, 1977 .......... Page: 2174
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 559 [relating to miscellaneous changes in the tax credit, agreements, planning and zoning requirements for farmland preservation enacted by chapter 29, laws of 1977 and making an appropriation] was not properly before the assembly because the bill had been acted on by the senate prior to receipt of a fiscal estimate as required by Joint Rule 49 and Wisconsin Statutes 13.10.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not timely. [It was also an improper challenge of the proceedings in the other house.]
Assembly Journal of September 7, 1977 .......... Page: 1910
Point of order:
[Assembly Bills 953 to 958 introduced and referred to calendar.]
Representative Olson rose to the point of order that Assembly Bills 953, 954, 955, 956, 957 and 958 were not properly before the assembly because they were introduced as the result of an illegal strike by state employes.
[Note:] The 6 bills had already been referred to calendar. Consequently, they were not "before the assembly" when the point of order was raised.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not timely.
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 16, 1976 .......... Page: 3339
Point of order:
Representative Sicula rose to the point of order that he was allowed to raise a point of order on the germaneness of assembly amendment 6 to Senate Bill 255 while the roll call was being taken under Assembly Rule 9 (2) [point of order may be raised at any time except while motion to adjourn is before the assembly].
661 [Note:] The issue was settled in the 1977 adoption of the assembly rules (A.Res. 6) which created the following rule:
"Any interruption of a roll call vote, from the time the voting machine is opened or the calling commenced to the announcement of the official totals by
the presiding officer, shall be out of order except to raise a point of order concerning the taking of the vote."
The chair ruled that interruption of a roll call was not permitted under Assembly Rule 15 (5) (c) and the point of order was not well taken.
Assembly Journal of March 4, 1976 .......... Page: 3126
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 52 was not in order under Assembly Rule 17m (4).
[Note:] Special orders had to be set for a time at least 24 hours following adoption of the resolution, but were usually considered much later than the stated time.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not timely.
Assembly Journal of September 23, 1975 .......... Page: 1973
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration [of the vote on bill passage] was not in order because a vote on suspension of the rules to message Assembly Bill 277 constituted intervening business under Assembly Rule 74.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of July 10, 1975 .......... Page: 1429
Point of order:
Representative Norquist asked unanimous consent that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 462 [relating to prohibiting counties, cities, villages, towns and public school districts from imposing residency requirements on certain employes] be revived. Representative Barczak objected.
Representative Norquist moved that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 462 be revived.
