The circumstances are identical in this situation, a hearing was scheduled for Assembly 38 to be held at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 22, 1990. The Chair agrees with the conclusion reached by the previous presiding officer and also I would like to point out that this has been the procedure followed by the Senate since Senate Rule 41 was adopted.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair, that a two-thirds vote is required on the motion to withdraw Assembly 38 and the motion raised by the Senator from the 15th is not well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1988 .......... Page: 987
[Background:] After Rep. Hauke (majority leader) moved that the assembly stand adjourned, Rep. Welch "moved that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 300 be withdrawn from the committee on Rules and taken up at this time". The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the motion out of order because a motion to adjourn was pending.
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion was proper under Assembly Rule 90 (3).
676 [Note:] Assembly Rule 90 (3) A unanimous consent request or a motion to suspend the rules may be made at any time under any order of business by a member who obtains the floor, but not while the assembly is voting.
Technically, Rep. Welch may have been correct; see also Assembly Rules 65 (1) (a) and (c) which provide that a motion to suspend the rules outranks a motion to adjourn.
However, this was the last day of the final general business floorperiod; it was Friday night, the time was almost 11:30 p.m., and the session would end at midnight. It was not likely that the Senate could establish its position on the annual budget (AB 850) by that time, and return the bill to the Assembly for concurrence in amendments.
Speaker pro tem. Clarenbach probably based his ruling on Assembly Rule 90 (4), which says that "motions to suspend the rules shall not be permitted for .... clearly dilatory purposes".
As shown be the subsequent action, the Assembly wanted to go home:
Representative Loftus moved that the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1.
The question was: Shall the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-54, noes-42.] Motion carried. The assembly stood adjourned.
1 9 8 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of May 19, 1988 .......... Page: 887
[Background:] While the Senate acted under the 4th Order of Business (reports of committees), the Majority Leader obtained unanimous consent to act on certain bills. Senator Chilsen made a regular motion that Assembly Bill 10, November 1987 Spec. Sess. [relating to obscenity, defining obscene material and obscene performance and providing penalties] be withdrawn from committee on Judiciary and Consumer Affairs and referred to committee on Senate Rules.
[Point of order:]
Senator Strohl raised the point of order that the motion was made at an inappropriate time. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of May 19, 1988 .......... Page: 889
Ruling of the chair:
The Senator from the 21st, Senator Strohl, raised the point of order that the motion made by the Senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, to withdraw a bill was not proper under the 4th Order of Business.
On page 1708, Journal of the Senate 1977 Session the Chair ruled that motions to withdraw from committee are restricted to the 8th Order of Business: Motions may be offered. The 8th order at that time is now the 14th Order of Business. It is the opinion of the Chair that motion may be only under the 14th Order of Business. Therefore the point of order is well taken.
A subsequent point of order was raised that a motion to withdraw a bill under the 10th order of business is not proper. The Senator from the 29th also questioned the purpose of the 10th Order of Business: Consideration of Motions and Resolutions."
The Historic Parliamentary purpose of an order of business such as the Senate's 10th Order was to have a proper location to list pending motions for consideration as well as Resolutions. The Senate has frequently scheduled resolutions for 10th Order. However, it has not used the 10th Order for consideration of motions. Normal Parliamentary Practice would be for a motion to be made on the 14th Order and that motion would be considered on the next day's calendar under the 10th Order of Business.
However, the practice of the Senate has been to consider motions when they are presented under the 14th Order, hence the use of the 10th Order to consider motions has not been necessary.
For the reasons stated in the previous point on this same question, the point of order is well taken.
Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate
677Senate Journal of April 20, 1988 .......... Page: 828
Senator Feingold moved that Assembly Joint Resolution 117 [relating to state income tax credits or refunds for property or sales taxes due in this state (first consideration)] be withdrawn from committee on Aging, Banking, Commercial Credit and Taxation and be referred to committee on Senate Rules.
[Point of order:]
Senator Davis raised the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 117 cannot be before the Senate since it is not part of the call of the Extraordinary Session.
[Note:] The original call of the April 1988 Extraordinary Session by the Committees on Senate and on Assembly Organization already mentioned "taxes, and property tax relief"; Senate Journal 4/18/88, at page 816.
On 4/20/88 (Senate Journal, page 825), the committees amended the call "to include consideration of a joint resolution to amend the state constitution relating to nonuniform taxation of real property classified as primary personal residence or as improvements to agricultural land and to state income tax credits for property or sales taxes due in this state (first consideration)". The second half of that sentence encompassed the content of 1987 AJR 117.
The Chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 6, 1984 .......... Page: 1197
[Motion based on misinformation:]
Representative T. Thompson moved that the rules be suspended and that the committee of conference report on Assembly Bill 706 [relating to the financial assistance program for septic tank replacement and rehabilitation] be withdrawn from the committee on Rules and taken up at this time.
Point of order:
Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order because Assembly Bill 706 was not in the committee on Rules [most likely, it was still in the Senate].
Representative T. Thompson withdrew his motion. [Intervening text omitted.]
Assembly Journal of April 6, 1984 .......... Page: 1199
Representative T. Thompson moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 706 be withdrawn from the committee on Rules and taken up at this time.
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 706 was in the committee on Rules. The speaker took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that Assembly Bill 706 was not in the committee on Rules [it was still on a senate message, waiting to be read in] and the point of order not well taken.
678Assembly Journal of April 4, 1984 .......... Page: 1122
[Tabling motion, inappropriate under suspension of rules:]
Representative T. Thompson moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 815 [relating to the availability of dental, optometric, pharmaceutical and podiatric services under health care plans] be withdrawn from the committee on Health and Human Services and referred to the calendar.
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 815 be withdrawn from the committee on Health and Human Services and referred to the committee on Rules. Representative T. Thompson objected.
Representative Johnson moved that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 815 from the committee on Health and Human Services and refer it to the calendar be laid on the table.
Point of order:
Representative Merkt rose to the point of order that the motion to table was not in order under Assembly Rule 74 (3).
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of February 28, 1984 .......... Page: 788
[Motion to withdraw from standing committee:]
Representative Rogers moved that Assembly Rule 15 (1) and (5) be suspended and that Assembly Bill 148 [relating to prohibiting abortions in public hospitals except to save the life of the pregnant woman and requiring the reporting of these abortions] be withdrawn from the Joint Committee on Finance and taken up at this time.
Representative Loftus moved that the motion be laid on the table.
Point of order:
Representative Rogers rose to the point of order that the motion to table was not in order under Assembly Rule 74 (3) because the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 148, which had not been in the Joint Committee on Finance for 21 calendar days, required a suspension of the rules.
Representative Loftus withdrew his motion to table. [Recess to 3:15 p.m.]
The assembly reconvened. Speaker pro tempore Clarenbach in the chair.
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 148 be withdrawn from the Joint Committee on Finance and taken up at this time? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-52, noes-44.] Motion failed.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 6, 1984 .......... Page: 879
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 114 [relating to use of flashing red warning lights on school busses] be withdrawn from committee on Senate Organization and be considered at this time. Senator Cullen objected.
Senator Chilsen moved that Assembly Bill 114 be withdrawn from committee on Senate Organization and be considered at this time.
679 Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that suspension of the rules was proper at any time.
[Note:] The point of order reflected the confusion of the moment. It is true that a motion to suspend the rules can be made at any time by a senator who has the floor. However, in the present case suspension of the rules had failed because unanimous consent had been objected to; not, because the entering of a motion had been refused.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 7, 1982 .......... Page: 3305
Motion:
Representative Thompson asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 712 [relating to senate and assembly districts] be made a special order of business at 4:00 P.M. today.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the request out of order because Senate Bill 712 was in a conference committee.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 23, 1982 .......... Page: 1790
Point of order:
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that pursuant to Senate Rule 41 the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 621 [relating to prohibiting 3rd trimester abortions in public hospitals except to save the life of the mother and regulating other abortions in public hospitals, providing aid to women who suffer from certain diseases exacerbated by pregnancy or delivery, providing care for certain diseases of children and making an appropriation] from committee on Human Services and refer to committee on Senate Organization was not properly before us at this time.
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
A similar point of order was raised on March 25, 1976 on Assembly Bill 421. On page 2165 of the Journal of the Senate March 25, 1976, the ruling reads: "As it relates to the point of order raised on Assembly Bill 421, the chair ruled that pursuant to Senate Rule 41, a bill could not be withdrawn from committee when a public hearing has already been scheduled. Any attempt to do so would require a suspension of the rules and a two-thirds vote."
On page 540 of the Journal of the Senate March 16, 1971, Senator from the 14th, Senator Lorge, proposed this rule in Senate Resolution 13. The analysis reads: "This proposal would prevent a motion to recall a bill from committee from taking effect prior to hearing if such has been scheduled".
680 Members have raised the question of the definition of a week. The chair has reviewed the rules and has found no definition of a week by our rules; however, the Index to the Senate Rules and Senate Rule 31 (4) states that Webster's New International Dictionary
will be the standard for language usage. Webster's New International Dictionary defines a week as: "any 7 consecutive days."
A hearing is scheduled on the matter for Monday, March 29, 1982. Therefore, based on past precedent and the definition of a week, it is the opinion of the chair that in accordance with Senate Rule 41 (a) the bill cannot be withdrawn at this time and the point of order raised by the Senator of the 24th, Senator Bablitch, is well taken.
[Tabling of appeal:]
Senator Lorge appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate?
Senator Bablitch moved that the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair be laid on the table. The question was: Shall the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair be laid on the table?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-15.] So the motion prevailed.
Senate Journal of October 30, 1981 .......... Page: 1099
Point of order:
Senator Opitz asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 45 [relating to exempting interspousal transfers from inheritance taxes] be withdrawn from the committee on State and Local Affairs and Taxation and referred to committee on Senate Organization.
