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:
Representative Black moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 294 be withdrawn from the committee on Labor and Workforce Development and taken up at this time.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the motion dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
Representative Black appealed the ruling of the Chair.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled that a motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair was not in order because his ruling was not made on a point of order raised under Assembly Rule 62.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 69. Dilatory motions.
(1) When it appears to the presiding officer that any motion or procedure is being used for the purpose of delay, the presiding officer shall declare it dilatory and out of order.
(2) Two consecutive identical motions are dilatory unless significant business has intervened between the motions.
(3) Two consecutive motions to adjourn are not be in order unless other significant business has intervened between the motions or unless no other business is pending before the assembly.
(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 Rule 62 (6) Any member may appeal a ruling of the presiding officer on any point of order. When an appeal is made, the question is: "Shall the decision of the chair stand as the decision of the assembly?"
MASON'S MANUAL
Sec. 230. When an Appeal Is in Order
1. The proper method of taking exception to a ruling of a presiding officer is by appeal. All questions of order are decided by the presiding officer, subject to appeal by any member. It is the responsibility of the presiding officer to rule on points of order in a fair and impartial manner.
3. When a presiding officer rules a motion out of order and refuses to present it to the house, the proper procedure is to appeal from the presiding officer's decision. It is not proper for a member to put a question to vote which has been ruled out of order by the presiding officer.
Sec. 240. Purpose of Points of Order.
1. It is the duty of the presiding officer to enforce the rules and orders of the body without delay and without waiting to have the presiding officer's attention called to breaches of order. It is also the right of every member who notices a breach of order or of a rule to insist upon its enforcement. This is called raising a question or point of order, because the member puts to the presiding officer the question as to whether there has been a breach of order or of the rules. It is the duty of the presiding officer to maintain order and enforce the rules.
2. A point of order is the parliamentary device that is used to require a deliberative body to observe its own rules and to follow established parliamentary practice.
3. Any request for compliance with the rules is in effect a point of order and is subject to the same rules.
4. The presiding officer is not required to decide any point of order not directly presented in the proceedings of the body.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 484
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that the motion to suspend the rules and that Assembly Bill 294 be withdrawn from the committee on Labor and Workforce Development and taken up at this time was not dilatory.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 487
Representative Black withdrew his point of order that the motion to suspend the rules and that Assembly Bill 294 be withdrawn from the committee on Labor and Workforce Development and taken up at this time was not dilatory.
[Note:] This may have been a parliamentary inquiry, not a point of order.
MASON'S MANUAL
Sec. 230. When an Appeal Is in Order 8. An answer to a parliamentary inquiry is not a decision and therefore cannot be appealed.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 485
Point of order:
Representative Black moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 294 be withdrawn from the committee on Labor and Workforce Development and taken up at this time.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled the motion not timely because Assembly Bill 294 was already under advisement for a previous point of order.
Representative Black appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled that a motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair was not in order because his ruling was not made on a point of order raised under Assembly Rule 62.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 62 (6) Any member may appeal a ruling of the presiding officer on any point of order. When an appeal is made, the question is: "Shall the decision of the chair stand as the decision of the assembly?"
Assembly Rule 69. Dilatory motions. (1) When it appears to the presiding officer that any motion or procedure is being used for the purpose of delay, the presiding officer shall declare it dilatory and out of order.
(2) Two consecutive identical motions are dilatory unless significant business has intervened between the motions.
(3) Two consecutive motions to adjourn are not be in order unless other significant business has intervened between the motions or unless no other business is pending before the assembly.
(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.
MASON'S MANUAL
Sec. 149. Appeals, Points of Order, Inquiries
See also Ch. 23, Secs. 230-235, Appeals; Ch. 24, Secs. 240-246, Points of Order; and Ch. 25, Secs. 250-254, Parliamentary Inquiries and Other Requests for Information.
1. In conducting its business, a legislative body may have questions relating to policy or procedure presented to it for decision on appeals from decisions on points of order. Appeals may involve important questions of policy and, therefore, appeals may take on all of the characteristics of a main motion and are subject, in general, to the same rules.
2. Points of order are presented to the presiding officer for determination. The decision of the presiding officer on points of order may always be questioned by the body on appeal and the question decided by the body itself.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 490
Point of order:
Representative Hubler rose to the point of order that a second motion to table Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 579 was not in order under Assembly Rule 69.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 491
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Hubler that a second motion to table Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 579 was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69, citing a previous ruling from the Assembly Journal on October 31, 1985, pages 544-545.
