[Note:] The bill related to: recovery of enforcement costs by the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection in drainage district cases; transferring responsibility for administration of the Wisconsin consumer act; transferring responsibility for supporting the uniform commercial code statewide lien system; correcting references in certain appropriations of the department of financial institutions; the number of unclassified division administrator positions in the gaming board; reversion of transferred funds to the Wisconsin development fund; minority business early planning projects; renumbering the appropriation for administrative services for regulation of industry, safety and buildings; the Milwaukee parental choice program; collection of certain fees by the employment relations commission; payment of principal and interest on bonds issued for the clean water fund program; establishing a Mendota juvenile treatment center; a plan to assure continued funding for the mental health institutes; expanding the county department operating deficit reduction program; changing funding requirements for integrated community services; expanding types of recipients of funds distributed for consumer and family self-help and peer-support programs; transferring an appropriation for principal repayment and interest from the department of industry, labor and job development to the department of health and family services; changing references to low-income and at-risk child care funding; the use of relief block grant funds by tribal governing bodies; administration of Wisconsin works in counties having a population of 500,000 or more; state involvement with certain municipal boundary changes; refunding of municipal bonds; a performance evaluation audit of the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority; the lease agreement and affiliation agreement between the University of Wisconsin System and the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority; the contractual services agreement between the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Board and the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority; accumulated sick leave credits for the purchase of health insurance under the Wisconsin retirement system; making certain employes at the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority eligible for health insurance coverage under a plan offered by the group insurance board and requiring the group insurance board to consult with the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority in the establishment of this plan; issuance of bonds by the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority; membership of the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Board and of the board of directors of the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority; storage and management of records of the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority; applicability of municipal ordinances and regulations to certain buildings, structures and facilities constructed for the benefit or use of local professional baseball park districts; newly incorporated municipalities' populations for shared revenue distributions; local transportation aids for newly incorporated cities and villages; taxes levied by newly incorporated cities and villages; changing the name of the Kickapoo valley governing board; the effective date and initial applicability of adjustments in certain lobbying regulation fees; railroad stockholder reports; bonding authorizations for the department of health and social services; funding and authorized full-time equivalent positions for the land information board; funding, powers and duties of the Wisconsin sesquicentennial commission; prevailing hours of labor for workers employed on state or local public works projects; granting bonding authority; granting rule making authority; and making and decreasing appropriations
The amendment required prison impact assessments for bills creating a felony.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Chamber: conduct in chamber during session
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 13, 2001 .......... Page: 81
Point of order:
Representative Carpenter rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 12 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 26.
Assembly Journal of February 13, 2001 .......... Page: 82
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker pro tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] The joint resolution commended the Boy Scouts, which generated strong debate.
Assembly Rule 26 (1) The presiding officer shall preserve order, decorum, and quiet on and about the assembly floor during sessions.
Concurrence in amendment by other house: permitted procedures
1 9 9 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of November 14, 1995 .......... Page: 655
Point of order:
Representative Travis rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 69 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rules 32(1)(a), 35(1), 42(1)(a) & (3), and 52(2)(b).
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken. Under Assembly Rule 95(60) Senate amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 69 is not considered a proposal, making the point of order raised under Assembly Rule 32(1)(2) not well taken. The Senate adopted Senate amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 69 last week, making the point of order raised under Assembly Rule 35(1) not well taken. Senate amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 69 does not require a second reading reading, making the point of order raised under Assembly Rule 42(1)(a) not well taken. Senate amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 69 is only considered a proposal for the purpose of amending, making the point of order raised under Assembly Rule 52(2)(b) not well taken.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 32 (1) (a) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, messages from the senate or from the governor may be received and read, and any proposal referenced in the messages that is a senate proposal initially received for consideration of the assembly shall be referred and any other proposals referenced in the messages shall be taken up immediately unless referred by the presiding officer to a standing committee or to the calendar. Any messages from the senate referring to a senate joint resolution memorializing Congress or any branch or officer of the federal government that is received for consideration of the assembly may be read but the senate joint resolution may not be received for consideration. The senate joint resolution shall be transmitted to the senate immediately after the message is read;
Assembly Rule 35 (1) A proposal, conference committee report, or veto, except a resolution under rule 33 or 43, may not be considered until it has been made available to the members for at least 24 hours excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. If the rules are suspended for the consideration of any proposal before it is available, the proposal shall be read at length at least once before its final passage or final adoption and concurrence.
Assembly Rule 42 (1) (a) Any proposal that requires 2 or more readings shall be referred by the presiding officer or speaker to committee, or to the calendar for the 2nd legislative day following the referral, or to the committee on rules.
Assembly Rule 42 (3) (a) Beginning on inauguration day and on any day of the regular biennial session period, proposals may be introduced or offered and referred by the speaker or presiding officer if the action is not in conflict with any limitations imposed by the session schedule or otherwise agreed to by both houses.
Assembly Rule 52 (2) (b) Solely for the purpose of amending, senate amendments presented to the assembly for concurrence are treated like proposals; therefore, an amendment to a simple amendment to a senate amendment is in order.
Assembly Rule 95 (60) Proposal: A resolution, joint resolution, or bill put before the assembly for consideration.
Conference committee: procedures relating to
2 0 0 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of July 3, 2002 .......... Page: 767
Point of order:
Report of committee of conference on 2002 January Special Session Assembly Bill 1.
Motion to refer report to the Committee of Conference offered Senator Shibilski.
Ruling on the point of order:
Chair ruled the motion not in order.
Point of order:
Senator Shibilski raised the point of order that the motion to refer the report to the Committee of Conference is in order.
Ruling on the point of order:
Chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Shibilski appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question was: Shall the Decision of the chair stand as the judgement of the Senate?
The roll was taken. The vote was: Ayes-18, Noes-15. Decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the senate.
[Note:] Senate Rule 41 (2) was later amended to provide: Reference to committee is not in order after a proposal is passed or indefinitely postponed or finally disposed of by any action equivalent thereto. Questions of reconsideration, concurrence in amendments of the assembly, conference committee reports, or executive vetoes may be placed on the table, but may not be referred to committee.
There is also an assembly rule on this point: "Assembly Rule 45 (6) Except as incidental to calendar scheduling by the committee on rules, the report of a committee of conference may not be referred to committee." The senate does not have such a rule but the joint rules provide a reason why a conference committee report should not be referred to committee: "Joint Rule 3 (3) A report of a committee of conference may not be amended and may not be divided."
1 9 9 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 6, 1999 .......... Page: 383
Point of order:
Representative Hubler rose to the point of order that the committee of conference report on Assembly Bill 133 is divisible under Assembly Rule 80.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Hubler that the committee of conference report on Assembly Bill 133 is divisible.
The complete text of the Chair follows:
"The Lady from the 75th had raised a Point Of Order that didn't basically agree with the Chair declaring her motion to divide the Conference Committee Report. She raised a Point Of Order that the Conference Committee Report could be divided, as I understood it, into Sections 1, 2, and 3. I believe her original motion was to divide it into Item 3.
The Chair has spent some time trying to work through this particular Point Of Order to make sure because I am sure that the Lady will ask that it become precedent in the rulings of the Chair. So the Chair has taken some time looking at Assembly Rules, Joint Rules, Senate Rules, Mason's Manual and Jefferson's Manual to try to resolve this issue. The Lady from the 75th and the Gentleman from the 44th make the Point Of Order that we can divide it into different components based on Assembly Rule 80(4).
Assembly Rule 80(4) lists what is not divisible and because the Report On Committees doesn't happen to show up there it is the belief, I believe, of the Lady from the 75th and the Gentleman from the 44th that because it is merely not stated there, that it is divisible. One has to, I believe, look at Assembly Rule 80(1), which is "any member may request a division of simple amendments and motions involving distinct and independent propositions or concurrent action if they are severable without being rewritten or restated and the question shall be divided if each separate proposition or action to be voted on is complete and proper, regardless of the action taken on the other portions of the original question."
So the Chair looked, taking the advice that the Lady from the 75th and the Gentleman from the 44th were telling the Chair that this is a Report on the Committee On Conference. It is not an amendment, they report, because it is not specifically talked about in Assembly Rule 80(4). Therefore, it is divisible. It is the Chair's opinion, that under Assembly Rule 80(1), which governs what is divisible, this simply is not an amendment. It is not a simple amendment. Actually, if we were even to take conference amendment l, which is an amendment to the Assembly Substitute Amendment, I think members can easily see that this is just not a simple amendment. It is rather complex. It's actually a little longer than Gone With the Wind, and has quite a bit more intrigue in it, I think.
So, it is clearly, to the Chair, not a division of a simple amendment because as the Lady from the 75th and Gentleman from the 44th pointed out in their Points Of Order, that it was a report that should be divided based on the fact that it didn't show up in 80(4).
Then the Chair went one step further just to have a little more comfort because if it were an amendment, could this amendment be divided and taken up in three different components? It is the Chair's belief that under Assembly Rule 80(1), that each question if they were divided, Question l., Question 2 and Question 3 and were separate propositions or actions to be voted on, would be complete and proper regardless of the action taken on the others. And it is this Chair's opinion that they would not be, as the Chair was asking during the point of order that was being raised if Section l were adopted and Section 2 and Section 3 were not, could the bill stand on its own? The Chair's belief is, no it could not. If Section 2 were adopted but not Sections 1 and 3 the same situation. Or, if only Section 3 were adopted without negating the actions taken by the Senate and Assembly, could it stand on its own? It is the Chair's belief that it could not.
But wanting to make sure because knowing the Lady from the 75th was going to be fairly persistent and the Gentleman from the 44th is a scholar of the rules, I wanted to make sure that I wasn't not reading this properly and when one looks at the Joint Rules, Joint Rule 3(3) "approval of the Conference Report by roll call vote in each house sufficient to constitute final passage of the proposal shall be final passage of the bill or Joint Resolution in the form and with the changes proposed by the report." And the Joint Rules really are silent on whether or not we can amend the Conference Report.
So the Chair looked at Senate Rules which are somewhat more obscure than ours and really not to the point, so the Chair looked at what other rules are available to us to determine and under Assembly Rule 91(1) "in the absence of pertinent Assembly or Joint Rules questions of parliamentary procedure shall be decided according to applicable rules of parliamentary practice and Jefferson's Manual which are not inconsistent with constitutional or statutory provisions relating to the functioning of the legislature."
So, upon reading about the statutory provisions, we did a search of the Wisconsin Statutes and Constitution to see if there is something that would apply there. Of course, that didn't help us. So the Chair then referred to Jefferson's Manual. And, if members want to take a look on page 47 in the section on Conferences on page 48 as well and the ending of this regarding conference committees "and each party reports in writing to its respective house the substance of what is said on both sides and entered into the Journal."
And that is the report we have before us. "This report can not be amended or altered as that of the committee may be." So, the backup for Assembly Rules and Joint Rules was Jefferson's Manual but also wanting to make sure that that is the established precedent, I looked to Mason's Manual which is the manual we often refer to as well and under Section 770 (2) it says "in voting in a conference committee, the committee of each house votes separately. The committee on conference from each house submits its report to the house from which it was appointed, "which we have. "The report upon being received may be treated like other reports except that the report of the conference committee is usually given higher precedence."
That's why we're here at l0:00 p.m. "Under no condition, including suspension of the rules may the house alter or amend the Report of the Committee, but must adopt or refuse to adopt the report in the form submitted."
So it is the opinion of the Chair that the Lady from the 75th's Point Of Order is not well taken based on those following reasons."
[Note:] Assembly Rule 80 (4) was later amended to provide: Bills, joint resolutions, resolutions, and substitute amendments, and amendments received from the senate for assembly concurrence, may not be divided. A bill vetoed in its entirety by the governor may not be divided. A report of a committee of conference may not be divided.
Assembly Journal of October 6, 1999 .......... Page: 384
Point of order:
Representative Cullen rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 79 was privileged.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled well taken that the point of order raised by Representative Cullen that Assembly Joint Resolution 79 was privileged.
[Note:] The joint resolution provided that the conference report on 1999 AB-133 is amendable but only as to the provision converting lottery appropriations to general program revenue funding.
This may have been a parliamentary inquiry, not a point of order. A parliamentary inquiry might have informed the members whether the joint resolution was privileged. A point of order is appropriate only to obtain a decision by the presiding officer concerning a question currently before the house. Had the joint resolution been ruled not privileged, the point of order could have been made.
Assembly Rule 43 (1) Any resolution or joint resolution relating to the officers, members, former members, procedures, or organization of the assembly or legislature is privileged in that it may be offered under any order of business by a member who has the floor and may be taken up immediately before all other proposals, unless referred by the presiding officer to a standing committee or to the calendar.
Assembly Journal of October 6, 1999 .......... Page: 385
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 79 was not properly before the Assembly because a committee of conference report can not be amended.
The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Cullen appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question was: Shall the ruling of the Chair stand as the ruling of the Assembly?
The roll was taken. The vote was: Ayes-54, Noes-45. Motion carried.
[Note:] The joint resolution provided that the conference report on 1999 AB-133 is amendable but only as to the provision converting lottery appropriations to general program revenue appropriations.
Assembly Rule 52 (4) was later created to provide: An amendment to a report of a committee of conference may not be offered.
Constitutionality of proposal (chair cannot rule on)
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 484
Point of order:
Representative Carpenter rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 576 was not properly before the Assembly under Article 8, Section 10 of the Wisconsin Constitution.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] The bill created an airline loan guarantee program.
Article VIII, 10 Internal improvements. Section 10. Except as further provided in this section, the state may never contract any debt for works of internal improvement, or be a party in carrying on such works.
(2) The state may appropriate money in the treasury or to be thereafter raised by taxation for:
(b) The development, improvement and construction of airports or other aeronautical projects.
MASON'S MANUAL
Sec. 242. Limitations on Use of Points of Order
1. It is not the duty of the presiding officer to rule upon any question which is not presented in the course of proceedings. It is not the presiding officer's right to rule upon the constitutionality or legal effect or expediency of a proposed bill since that authority belongs to the house.
Sec. 578. Limitations on Presiding Officer
6. It is not the right of the presiding officer to rule upon the constitutionality of bills as that authority belongs to the house.
Debate: conduct during
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 13, 2001 .......... Page: 81
Point of order:
Representative Carpenter rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 12 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 26.
Assembly Journal of February 13, 2001 .......... Page: 82
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker pro tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] The joint resolution commended the Boy Scouts, which generated strong debate.
Assembly Rule 26 (1) The presiding officer shall preserve order, decorum, and quiet on and about the assembly floor during sessions.
Assembly Journal of May 8, 2001 .......... Page: 242
Point of order:
