The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 10, 1982 .......... Page: 2229
Point of order: Senator Cullen moved a call of the senate. [Display of roll call omitted; present-33, absent-0, with leave-0.]
667 The question was: Shall the bill [Senate Bill 3, (April 1982) Special Session, relating senate and assembly districts and matters pertaining to the decennial legislative redistricting] pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call not recorded here; shown 6/14/82 on page 2239.]
Prior to the closing of the roll call, the Senator from the 15th Senate District, Senator Cullen, raised the point of order that the Senator from the 31st Senate District, Senator Harnisch, was recorded as having voted while the senate was under call, but was not currently in his chair. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of June 14, 1982 .......... Page: 2239
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Thursday, June 10, the Senator from the 15th, Senator Cullen, raised the point of order that the Senator from the 31st, Senator Harnisch, is recorded as having voted while the Senate was under call, but was not currently in his seat. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
At the time the point of order was raised the president took note that the Senator from the 31st, Senator Harnisch, was not present. In order for the Senate to transact business under call, all members must be present. All business in reference to the question on which the call was placed should have ceased at the time it was noted that not all members were present. The chair, immediately following the time the point of order was taken under advisement, noticed that the Senator from the 31st returned to the chambers. It is the opinion of the chair that the point of order is well taken. However, since the Senator of the 31st had returned the vote is considered valid.
The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-20, noes-13.] Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the senate refused to pass the vetoed bill notwithstanding the objections of the Governor.
Senate Journal of May 26, 1982 .......... Page: 2149
Point of order:
Senator Cullen moved that the question to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor Senate Bill 3, (April 1982) Special Session [relating senate and assembly districts and matters pertaining to the decennial legislative redistricting] be laid on the table.
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the motion to table Senate Bill 3, (April 1982) Special Session was not proper. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of May 28, 1982 .......... Page: 2181
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On May 26 Senator Chilsen, Senator from the 29th, raised a point of order that a motion to table Senate Bill 3, April (1982) Special Session, was not proper.
It is the opinion of the chair that Senate Rule 41 (2) is very explicit in covering this situation. The rule states that "questions of reconsideration, concurrence in amendments of the other house or executive vetoes may be placed on the table but shall in no case be referred to any committee."
Therefore, the point of order is not well taken.
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 3, April (1982) Special Session be laid on the table?
668 By request of Senator Cullen, with unanimous consent, he withdrew his motion to lay Senate Bill 3, April (1982) Special Session on the table.
The question was: Shall the bill pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor? [Intervening text omitted.]
Senator Cullen moved that Senate Bill 3, April (1982) Special Session be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 3, April (1982) Special Session be laid on the table?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-20, noes-12.] So the motion prevailed.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 28, 1980 .......... Page: 3477
[Background:] Representative Kincaid asked unanimous consent to introduce a resolution. Representative Shabaz objected.
Point of order:
Representative Kincaid rose to the point of order that the introduction of a resolution was in order during the veto review session. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] It appears that no ruling was given. There is no record of any resolution or joint resolution introduced by Representative Kincaid in the 1979 Session on or after May 28, 1980; however, based on the drafting record of June 1980 Special Session Senate Joint Resolution 4, it is likely that Rep. Kincaid's proposal became A.Amdt.1 to that joint resolution (to grant Wisconsin final decision-making authority on the siting of a radioactive waste-depository in this state).
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 18, 1979 .......... Page: 853
[Point of order:]
Senate Bill 79 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1979 legislature, and making appropriations].
Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that consideration of the Item Vetoes [listing] presented to the Chief Clerk be considered the order of the day. Senator Krueger objected.
Senator Krueger asked unanimous consent that Item 2-A be placed at the foot of the calendar. Senator Bablitch objected.
Senator Krueger moved that Item 2-A be placed at the foot of the calendar.
The question was: Shall Item 2-A be placed at the foot of the calendar?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-11, noes-21.] So the motion did not prevail.
669 Senator Bablitch asked unanimous consent that consideration of the Item Vetoes [listing] presented to the Chief Clerk be considered as the order of the day. Senator Murphy objected.
Senator Bablitch moved that consideration of the Item Vetoes [listing] presented to the Chief Clerk be considered as the order of the day.
Senate Journal of October 18, 1979 .......... Page: 854
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that it would take a two-thirds vote to consider the Item Vetoes presented to the Chief Clerk as the order of the day.
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
Senate Rules are silent on the order in which partial vetoes of a bill are to be considered. However, Senate Rule 47 (4) does state that the Senate by majority vote may direct the consideration of amendments. It is the chair's opinion that partial vetoes may be treated as amendments and the Senate may by majority vote direct the order of consideration.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Bidwell appealed the ruling of the chair. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-12.] More than a majority of the Senate having voted in the affirmative the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the Senate.
The question was: Shall consideration of the Item Vetoes as presented to the Chief Clerk be considered as the order of the day? The motion prevailed.
1 9 7 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 30, 1977 .......... Page: 975
[Display of roll call (on page 962) omitted: ayes-20; noes-13. Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the senate refused to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor the vetoed part of the bill: Senate Bill 77, relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1977 legislature, and making appropriations.]
[Point of order:]
Senator Petri moved that the rules be suspended and the vote on item V-A, section 1610h be reconsidered.
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion was not proper. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] Apparently, there was no ruling on the validity of the motion to reconsider the vote on the partial veto. Reconsideration of vetoes is expressly prohibited by 1977 Senate Rule 67 (7):
.... "Action on executive vetoes .... shall in no case be subject to a motion for reconsideration".
However, in the printed history of 1977 SB 77 (p. 456), the motion was entered as a "Motion to expunge the record and reconsider the vote on Item V-A".
670Voting: member excused for cause
1 9 7 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 22, 1975 .......... Page: 610
Point of order:
Representative Dorff rose to the point of order that Representative Matty should excuse himself from voting [on Assembly Bill 73; relating to deer hunting party permits and providing a penalty] under Assembly Rule 77m because he is an officer of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress.
The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Withdrawal motion (from committee)
1 9 8 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 6, 1990 .......... Page: 772
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the Chair is frustrating the will of the majority by permitting a motion to suspend the rules and withdraw a bill [Senate Bill 18] be withdrawn from from committee to be tabled. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 15, 1990 .......... Page: 861
Ruling of the chair:
On Tuesday, March 6, 1990, the Senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, raised the point of order that in accordance with Senate Rule 93 (5), a motion to table a motion to withdraw a bill from committee was out of order. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Rule 93(5) reads as follows: No motion shall be entertained to postpone action to a day or time certain.
The motion to table does postpone action, however, it does not postpone action until a day or time certain. The purpose of the rule is not to postpone "definitely." A motion to table or postpone "indefinitely" is in order.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order raised by the Senator from the 29th is not well taken and the motion to table is properly before the Senate.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
The question was: Shall the motion to withdraw Senate Bill 18 from the committee on Judiciary and Consumer Affairs and refer to the committee on Senate Rules be laid on the table?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: ayes, 20; noes, 13 [display of roll call vote omitted]. Tabled.
671Senate Journal of February 27, 1990 .......... Page: 745
[Point of order:]
Senator Ulichny raised the point of order as to the applicability of the provisions of Senate Rule 41 to the motion made by Senator Chilsen to withdraw Assembly Bill 38 from the committee on Education, Economic Development, Financial Institutions and Fiscal Policies and refer to the committee on Senate Rules after completion of the public hearing schedule for March 5, 1990.
The Chair took the point under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 6, 1990 .......... Page: 770
Ruling of the chair:
On Tuesday, February 27, 1990, the Senator from the 4th, Senator Ulichny, raised a point of order relating to the applicability of the provisions of Senate Rule 41(a) as it relates to the motion made by the Senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, to withdraw Assembly Bill 38 from the Committee on Education, Economic Development, Financial Institutions and Fiscal Policies and be referred to the Committee on Rules after the public hearing scheduled for March 5, 1990. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
The Senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, made the request that the Chair examine the provisions of Senate Rule 41(a) which states, "except that in no case shall a motion to withdraw from committee take effect prior to a committee hearing if such has been scheduled when the motion to withdraw is made during the week in which the bill, resolution or other matter is scheduled for a public hearing". The Senator from the 29th placed particular emphasis on the words "take effect".
An understanding of general parliamentary procedure as it relates to withdrawal of bills is necessary to interpret the provisions of Senate Rule 41(a).
The first reference manual used by the State Senate is Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure. Section 491 reads as follows: "When a legislative body wishes to give consideration to or act upon a bill or other matter which has been referred to a committee, a motion may be made to withdraw the matter from the committee, or to discharge the committee from further consideration of the matter referred to it". Also, in Section 491(5), the manual reads: "A motion to discharge a committee or withdraw a bill requires a majority vote, or the action may be taken by unanimous consent".
Jefferson's Manual does not have specific provisions permitting the withdrawing of bills from committee. The House of Representatives has derived its power to withdraw from Section 26d of Jefferson's Manual which provides for the House to order a committee to meet and report back on a bill.
