Unanimous consent: member requesting must have floor
Veto review session: conduct of
Voting: member excused for cause
Withdrawal motion (from committee)
Other
________________________________________________________________________
RULINGS OF THE CHAIR, BY SUBJECT
Adjourn or recess, motion to
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 8, 2001 .......... Page: 242
Point of order:
Representative Cullen rose to a point of order on the interpretation of Assembly Rule 56 (1).
Representative Carpenter moved that the Assembly stand adjourned.
[Note:] This may have been a parliamentary inquiry, not a point of order.
Assembly Rule 56 (1) Any member who desires to speak in debate or submit any matter to the assembly shall rise in his or her assigned place and respectfully address the presiding officer. Upon being recognized, the member shall confine his or her remarks to the question before the assembly and shall avoid personalities. A member may be recognized or addressed only by the number of the member's district or by the county or municipality in which the member resides.
MASON'S MANUAL
Sec. 149. Appeals, Points of Order, Inquiries
See also Ch. 25, Secs. 250-254, Parliamentary Inquiries and Other Requests for Information.
3. A parliamentary inquiry may be directed to the presiding officer or an inquiry may be made from one member to another. While these may involve questions of concern to the members, they rarely present any question to be determined by the body.
1 9 9 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 16, 1995 .......... Page: 104
Point of order:
Representative Schneider rose to the point of order that, because the hour of 8:00 P.M. had arrived, the Assembly shall stand adjourned under Assembly Rule 28 (2).
Ruling on the point of order:
The chair (Speaker Pro Tempore Freese) ruled the point of order well taken.
[Note:] The 8:00 P.M. rule was later repealed.
Assembly Journal of October 2, 1995 .......... Page: 535
Point of order:
Representative Hubler rose to the point of order that the hour of 8:00 P.M. had arrived and the Assembly is adjourned under Assembly Rule 28 (2).
Assembly Journal of October 2, 1995 .......... Page: 535
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Hubler that the hour of 8:00 P.M. had arrived and the Assembly is adjourned under Assembly Rule 28 (2).
[Note:] The 8:00 P.M. rule was later repealed.
Assembly Journal of October 5, 1995 .......... Page: 558
Point of order:
Representative Hubler rose to the point of order that the hour of 8:00 P.M. having arrived the Assembly is adjourned under Assembly Rule 28 (2).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
The Assembly stood informal.
Representative Jensen asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 557 be laid on the table. Granted.
Representative Hubler withdrew her point of order.
[Note:] The 8:00 P.M. rule was later repealed.
Assembly Journal of October 11, 1995 .......... Page: 583
Point of order:
Representative Hubler rose to the point of order that the hour of 8:00 P.M. had arrived and that the Assembly stand adjourned under Assembly Rule 28 (2).
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
[Note:] The 8:00 P.M. rule was later repealed.
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1996 .......... Page: 1015
Point of order:
Representative Hubler rose to the point of order that the hour of 8:00 P.M. had arrived and that the Assembly stand adjourned under Assembly Rule 28 (2).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order raised by Representative Hubler that the Assembly stand adjourned under Assembly Rule 28 (2) well taken.
[Note:] The 8:00 P.M. rule was later repealed.
Assembly Journal of May 7, 1996 .......... Page: 1115
Point of order:
Representative Hubler rose to the point of order that the hour of 8:00 P.M. had arrived and that the Assembly stand adjourned under Assembly Rule 28 (2).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of May 7, 1996 .......... Page: 1116
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order raised by Representative Hubler that the Assembly stand adjourned under Assembly Rule 28 (2) well taken.
[Note:] The 8:00 P.M. rule was later repealed.
Budget bills (and budget review bills)
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 14, 2002 .......... Page: 785
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly amendment 4 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, January 2002 Special Session was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] No ruling. The bill was a 475 page multi-issue budget adjustment bill introduced at the request of the governor. The substitute amendment was a 455 page multi-issue substitute amendment offered by the joint committee on finance. The amendment authorized a decrease in the number of members on the Milwaukee board of supervisors. The amendment to the amendment permitted the decrease only if approved at a referendum and permitted the salary of the members to be decreased or the position to be made part-time.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Rule 54 (4) Amendments that are germane include:
(b) An amendment that accomplishes the same purpose in a different manner.
(e) An amendment relating only to particularized details.
Assembly Journal of March 14, 2002 .......... Page: 786
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, January 2002 Special Session was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] No ruling. The bill was a 475 page multi-issue budget adjustment bill introduced at the request of the governor. The substitute amendment was a 455 page multi-issue substitute amendment offered by the joint committee on finance. The amendment authorized a decrease in the number of members on the Milwaukee board of supervisors. The amendment to the amendment permitted the decrease only if approved at a referendum.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Rule 54 (4) Amendments that are germane include:
(b) An amendment that accomplishes the same purpose in a different manner.
(e) An amendment relating only to particularized details.
2 0 0 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 13, 2001 .......... Page: 72
Point of order:
Senator Welch raised the point of order that Senate Bill 1 requires an Emergency Statement and is not properly before the Senate.
Ruling on the point of order:
Senate Bill 1 was referred to the Joint Committee on Finance on January 25, 2001. The Senate Co-Chair of the Joint Committee has attempted to schedule a meeting; however, the Assembly Co-Chair has refused to concur with a meeting schedule.
There are two issues involved prior to consideration of Senate Bill 1 by the full Senate:
1. The first is the requirement for an "emergency statement" as required by ss. 16.47(2).
2. The authority of the Senate Committee on Finance to report the proposal to the Senate when the proposal was referred to the Joint Committee on Finance by the Senate.
Section 16.47(2) of the statutes requires that prior to passage of the biennial budget bill, any proposal which impacts state finances by an amount exceeding $10,000 requires an emergency statement before either house of the legislature may take a vote on final passage of the proposal.
The fiscal impact information provided by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau indicates a cost of $16 Million in fiscal year 2001-02 and approximately $106 million in fiscal year 2002-03. Clearly, in accordance with ss 16.47(2), the bill requires an emergency statement.
A brief history of the "emergency statement" requirement is in order at this time. The concept was developed as the result of one of the first Legislative Council Study Committees on the Budgetary Procedure. The Legislative Council by its resolution establishing the subcommittee advised that the subcommittee "consider the feasibility of including all appropriations in a single bill". The report of the subcommittee stated: "Studies bring out an alarming trend of the large number of separately enacted appropriation bills, including the executive budget bill. The last three sessions show 84 bills in the 1943, 85 bills in 1945 and 110 bills in 1947." The subcommittee also stated: "It is often questionable whether or not all the members of the legislature have a clear picture of the financial condition of the state. Nor do they know whether or not the appropriation bills being acted upon fit into a sound pattern for the state's financial welfare."
The subcommittee reviewed a recommendation of a prior committee on the budget, chaired by the late Senator Melvin R. Laird Sr. That recommendation was to employee 5 budget assistants to advise the legislature on fiscal policy. Senator Laird was quoted as saying: "Budgetary systems are concerned with the coordination of public finances into financial plans. It is apparent that with technical assistance given, the budget can be evaluated and considered in a better legislative light."
The Legislative Council Subcommittee recommended the adoption of a proposal that would accomplish the goal of informing the members of the legislature on fiscal matters and provide for speedy and effective consideration of appropriation bills.
Assembly Bill 11 was introduced into the 1949 Legislative Session, relating to a state fiscal policy and appropriation procedures. The bill as originally introduced clearly restricted the legislature's ability to act on appropriation bills. One provision of the proposal read as follows: "No appropriation bill shall be passed by either house until the executive budget bill has passed both houses; except that the governor may recommend the enactment of an emergency executive budget bill which shall continue in effect only until the executive bill becomes effective or until the next succeeding July 1, whichever is later. There was additional language in the bill to provide for the Joint Committee on Finance to report and propose a Joint Resolution on the fiscal condition, and a requirement that appropriation bills provide a source of revenue, this last provision did not become law.
The proposal recommended by the Legislative Council was viewed by the media as; "suggestions which should make future budget requests considerably more honest". (State Journal "Under the Dome" by Sanford Goltz, date unknown)
The legislature recognized the problem with an outright restriction on its ability to pass appropriation bills prior to passage of the budget bill. Early in the 1951 session the 1949 law was modified to remove the outright restriction on the passage of appropriation bills prior to the budget bill and allow for the passage of any appropriation bill that was recommended for passage by the Joint Committee on Finance. There was no requirement of an emergency statement until 1957 when the language was amended to provide for the "emergency statement" procedure, as we know it today.
Therefore, of the original purposes outlined by the Legislative Council for restricting the consideration of appropriation bills prior to the passage of the budget, only the education of members and the heightened awareness of the fiscal impact survived. The first law enacted was an outright prohibition on the consideration of such bills prior to passage of the budget. This was repealed after only one session. The language in force today clearly is to heighten the awareness of the membership and the public that the proposal has a definite fiscal impact that may not be part of the biennial budget bill.
The authority of the Assembly to act without an emergency statement arose in a point of order raised in 1995 on Assembly 73, in which the question was raised as to the authority of the Assembly to withdraw a proposal from the Joint Committee on Finance when an emergency statement was required. The motion was to suspend the rules to withdraw AB 73 and take it up immediately. The Speaker, Representative Prosser, ruled that since the motion was to suspend the rules, the motion was valid. This clearly demonstrates that Speaker Prosser believed that one house of the legislature could act on a proposal requiring an emergency statement by suspending the rules, therefore giving credence to the authority of each house to determine its own rules of procedure.
