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:
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 April 7, 1995 .......... Page: 228
Point of order:
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Hubler that Assembly members may be referred to by name when reading from a document that is currently under debate, because under Assembly Rule 56(1), a 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."
Representative Hubler appealed the ruling of the chair.
Representative Hubler withdrew her point of order to refer to members of the Assembly by name when reading from a printed document currently before the Assembly.
[Note:] This may have been a parliamentary inquiry, not a point of order.
Delayed calendar: sequence of completion
1 9 9 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 28, 1996 .......... Page: 1067
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 375 was not properly before the Assembly because under Assembly Rule 29(4), the Assembly must complete action on all proposals on a delayed calendar before continuing on today's calendar.
Ruling on the point of order:
The chair (Representative Duff) ruled the point of order not well taken, because under Assembly Rule 32 (1), the regular order of business may be interrupted or changed at the discretion the presiding officer.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 29 (4) Unless otherwise ordered, after completion of the 4th order of business on the calendar for the current date, and before consideration of the 5th and succeeding orders on that calendar, unfinished matters entered under orders of business on previous calendars shall be taken up and completed in order by order of business and calendar date.
Assembly Rule 32 (1) was later amended to read:
Assembly Rule 32. Variations in the regular order; special orders. The regular order of business may be interrupted or changed under the following conditions:
(1) At the discretion of the presiding officer, at any time during the session except while the assembly is voting, but only under the following conditions:
Dilatory procedures
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of July 2, 2001 .......... Page: 358
Point of order:
Representative Krug moved that all Democratic members of the Assembly be recorded as voting Aye" on the question of shall the rules be suspended and Senate Bill 55 be immediately messaged to the Senate.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the motion not properly before the Assembly because there was no motion or vote that existed and that Representative Krug's motion was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69 (4).
Representative Krug appealed the ruling of the Chair that the motion was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69 (4).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the appeal under advisement.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 69 (4) While a motion remains undecided pending the presiding officer's ruling on a point of order taken under advisement, it is dilatory to enter a substantially similar motion on the same question, but it is proper to request an expansion of the question under advisement.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 483
Point of order:
