Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Carpenter 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-50, Noes-43. Motion carried.
[Note:] The joint resolution revived over 125 proposals for consideration in an extraordinary session called by the organization committees. The amendment added a proposal to the list in the joint resolution but it was not in the call of the extraordinary session.
Assembly Rule 93 (1) A proposal or amendment may not be considered by the assembly unless it is germane to the session call or pertains to the organization of the legislature.
Assembly Journal of April 21, 1998 .......... Page: 804
Point of order:
Representative Foti rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 5 to Senate Joint Resolution 47 was not germane under Assembly Rule 93 (1).
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Plouff 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-51, Noes-42. Motion carried.
[Note:] The joint resolution revived over 125 proposals for consideration in an extraordinary session called by the organization committees. The amendment added a proposal to the list in the joint resolution but it was not in the call of the extraordinary session, and expanded the call of the extraordinary session to cover the additional proposal.
Assembly Rule 93 (1) A proposal or amendment may not be considered by the assembly unless it is germane to the session call or pertains to the organization of the legislature.
Assembly Journal of April 21, 1998 .......... Page: 804
Point of order:
Representative Foti rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 6 to Senate Joint Resolution 47 was not germane under Assembly Rule 93 (1).
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Robson 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-50, Noes-43. Motion carried.
[Note:] The joint resolution revived over 125 proposals for consideration in an extraordinary session called by the organization committees. The amendment added a proposal to the list in the joint resolution but it was not in the call of the extraordinary session, and expanded the call of the extraordinary session to cover the additional proposal.
Assembly Rule 93 (1) A proposal or amendment may not be considered by the assembly unless it is germane to the session call or pertains to the organization of the legislature.
Assembly Journal of April 21, 1998 .......... Page: 804
Point of order:
Representative Foti rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 7 to Senate Joint Resolution 47 was not germane under Assembly Rule 93 (1).
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
[Note:] The joint resolution revived over 125 proposals for consideration in an extraordinary session called by the organization committees. The amendment added a proposal to the list in the joint resolution but it was not in the call of the extraordinary session.
Assembly Rule 93 (1) A proposal or amendment may not be considered by the assembly unless it is germane to the session call or pertains to the organization of the legislature.
Assembly Journal of April 21, 1998 .......... Page: 806
Point of order:
Representative Foti rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 8 to Senate Joint Resolution 47 was not germane under Assembly Rule 93 (1).
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
[Note:] The joint resolution revived over 125 proposals for consideration in an extraordinary session called by the organization committees. The amendment added a proposal to the list in the joint resolution but it was not in the call of the extraordinary session.
Assembly Rule 93 (1) A proposal or amendment may not be considered by the assembly unless it is germane to the session call or pertains to the organization of the legislature.
Assembly Journal of April 28, 1998 .......... Page: 823
Point of order:
Representative Foti rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 130 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 93 (1) and Joint Rule 81 (2).
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Hubler 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-52, Noes-46. Motion carried.
[Note:] The joint resolution revived two proposals for consideration in extraordinary session. It was offered in the extraordinary session and was not offered by one of the committees permitted to offer proposals in extraordinary session.
Assembly Rule 93 (1) A proposal or amendment may not be considered by the assembly unless it is germane to the session call or pertains to the organization of the legislature.
Joint Rule 81 (2) (b) Any extended floorperiod or extraordinary session shall be limited to the business specified in the action by which it is authorized.
(c) Following the official call of any special or extraordinary session, the joint committee on employment relations or on legislative organization, the committees on organization in each house, and any committee of either house so authorized under the rules thereof, may introduce or offer proposals germane to the call, and such proposals may be numbered, referred to committee, and reproduced in advance of the special or extraordinary session under the customary procedures of each house.
Finance: referral of proposal to joint committee on
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 1, 2001 .......... Page: 58
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 3 was not properly before the Assembly because it must be referred to the joint committee on Finance before being passed by the Assembly.
The Chair (Representative Albers) took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of February 1, 2001 .......... Page: 59
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Black that Assembly Bill 3 was not properly before the Assembly because it must be referred to the joint committee on Finance before being passed by the Assembly. Speaker Pro Tempore Freese reaffirmed previous rulings and cited a ruling from the Assembly Journal of October 15, 1987 (page 424).
[Note:] The Assembly Journal of October 15, 1987, states: Sec. 13.093 (1), stats., reads: "All bills introduced in either house of the legislature for the appropriation of money, providing for revenue or relating to taxation shall be referred to the joint committee on finance before being passed." The word "passed" probably means final passage by both houses.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 483
Point of order:
Representative Carpenter rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 576 was not properly before the Assembly because it was required to be referred to the joint committee on Finance under section 13.093, Wisconsin Statutes.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] Section 13.093 (1), stats., has been interpreted by presiding officers as not requiring referral in the first house because the statute uses "before being passed".
13.093(1) All bills introduced in either house of the legislature for the appropriation of money, providing for revenue or relating to taxation shall be referred to the joint committee on finance before being passed.
1 9 9 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of November 19, 1997 .......... Page: 427
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 463 was not properly before the Assembly because the bill is required to be referred to the joint committee on Finance before the Assembly can consider action on it under s. 13.093 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled the point of order not well taken because the rules and constitution do not specify that a proposal that requires action by the joint committee on Finance must go to that committee before action in either house. It just states that it must be referred to that committee before it is signed by the Governor. Therefore, if the bill does not get referred to the joint committee on Finance when it is in the Assembly, it still has ample time to get referred there after it is messaged to the Senate.
[Note:] 13.093 (1) All bills introduced in either house of the legislature for the appropriation of money, providing for revenue or relating to taxation shall be referred to the joint committee on finance before being passed.
1 9 9 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of January 28, 1997 .......... Page: 49
Point of order:
Senator Welch raised the point of order that Senate Bill 2 requires an emergency statement and must be referred to the joint committee on Finance.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point well taken.
[Note:] Section 16.47, stats., provides: "No bill containing an appropriation or increasing the cost of state government or decreasing state revenues in an annual amount exceeding $10,000 shall be passed by either house until the budget bill has passed both houses; except that the governor or the joint committee on finance may recommend such bills to the presiding officer of either house, in writing, for passage and the legislature may enact them, and except that the senate or assembly committee on organization may recommend to the presiding officer of its respective house any such bill not affecting state finances by more than $100,000 biennially. Such bills shall be accompanied by a statement to the effect that they are emergency bills recommended by the governor, the joint committee on finance, or the senate or assembly committee on organization. Such statement by the governor or joint committee on finance shall be sufficient to permit passage prior to the budget bill. Such statement by the senate or assembly committee on organization shall be effective only to permit passage by its respective house.".
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.
