Assembly Journal of May 5, 1998 .......... Page: 847
Point of order:
Representative R. Young rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 5 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(5).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of May 5, 1998 .......... Page: 848
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative R. Young that Assembly amendment 5 to Senate substitute amendment 1to Assembly Bill 351 was not germane.
Representative Walker moved that Assembly amendment 5 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351 be laid on the table.
[Note:] The bill related to felony sentences, parole, and community supervision. The substitute amendment also created a criminal penalties study committee. The amendment prohibited requests for funding under the bill for programs that promote, encourage, or counsels in favor of birth control, abortion, or sterilization.
Assembly Rule 54 (5) An amendment to an amendment must be germane to both the amendment and the original proposal.
Germaneness: appropriation to implement intent (addition permitted)
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 15, 2001 .......... Page: 94
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 100 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken. Speaker Pro Tempore Freese cited as precedent the ruling on 1999 Assembly Bill 941 which appeared on page 921 of the Assembly Journal of April 11, 2000.
[Note:] The ruling mentioned above stated in part: "The rules clearly indicate that by adding an appropriation it does not expand the scope of the bill. This is a germane amendment. That's very clear from this Chair's perspective, under the rules."
Assembly Rule 54 (4) Amendments that are germane include:
(d) An amendment adding appropriations necessary to fulfill the original intent of a bill.
1 9 9 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of September 28, 1999 .......... Page: 353
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 234 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The Chair (Representative Duff) took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of September 30, 1999 .......... Page: 368
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Krug on Tuesday, September 28, that Assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 234 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f).
Representative Freese moved that Assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 234 be laid on the table. Granted.
[Note:] The bill related to grants from the Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund to candidates for supreme court justice. The amendment changed the funding source for the grants.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of March 29, 2000 .......... Page: 879
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that Assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 941 was not properly before the Assembly under 13.52(6), Wisconsin Statutes and was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(1).
Speaker pro tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of April 11, 2000 .......... Page: 921
Ruling on the point of order:
On Wednesday, March 29 (page 879 of the Assembly Journal), Representative Black rose to the point of order that Assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 941 was not properly before the Assembly.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken.
The full text of Speaker Pro Tempore Freese's ruling follows:
The rules clearly indicate that by adding an appropriation it does not expand the scope of the bill. This is a germane amendment. That's very clear from this Chair's perspective, under the rules.
The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from the 77th gave me the heads up on this particular point of order to be raised so that I could do a little bit of research in order to be able to act on this in a relatively timely fashion. In checking with the previous Rulings of the Chair there is no clear case on this issue at all. There is no item where we refer to changing an appropriation into a tax exemption or taking a tax exemption and changing it into something else. There just isn't a case that has ever come before the Assembly that deals with this issue, so this will be precedent ruling on this particular issue. I did consult with Peter Dykman in trying to better understand exactly where we go with this matter. His memo to me dealt with the fact that there is no clear answer to your question regarding germaneness of an amendment adding a tax exemption to a new bill.
The gentleman from the 77th pointed to Section 13.52(6), which clearly, if the bill is introduced with a tax exemption in it, it is required to go to the Joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions and there must be a report before we can take it up for consideration. Nowhere in the bill do I find a tax exemption; therefore it is not bound by Section 13.52(6).
The gentleman pointed to Assembly Rule 54(1) which related to a different subject that would require a substantial change of the relating clause making it a different subject. When I look at both the sub and the amendment, there really are five words that differ between the sub and the amendment. For the most part the relating clause is the same. The amendment deals with financial assistance for an air carrier that operates from a hub facility, creating an airport financing committee, granting rule making authority and making an appropriation. The sub deals with a property tax exemption for an air carrier that operates from a hub facility, creating an airport financing committee, granting rule making authority and making an appropriation. So the key words here are property tax exemption versus financial assistance. There is no fiscal estimate prepared for the sub, nor is one required to be prepared for the sub, but clearly there is a fiscal estimate for the bill which results in $1.5 million.
The gentleman from the 77th also pointed to Assembly Rule 54(3)(f) dealing with expanding the scope of the bill. The sub relates to a property tax exemption and the amendment to financial assistance.
And finally, the gentleman from the 77th referred to a March 1986 ruling relating to a point of order dealing with a tax exemption bill for nonprofits and then adding for profit performing arts studios to the definition. I believe that clearly in this regard a specific group of people is defined and the point of order noted that the amendment expanded the definition to a much larger group of people. The March 1986 ruling is really not comparable from the standpoint that we're dealing with an air carrier that operates from a hub facility creating an airport finance committee and granting rule making authority. The criteria in this matter is the same in both the sub and the amendment. The March 1986 ruling dealt with two different categories and I believe we aren't comparing apples to apples.
The gentleman went on in his point of order to talk about the issue of same subject of air carriers operating from a hub facility, creating an airport financing committee and granting rule making authority. On that, it is the actual assistance being changed to a property tax exemption which I see as just a particularized detail. He compared to Assembly Rule 54(4)(b), an amendment which accomplishes the same purpose in a different manner.
I'm glad that the gentleman allowed me the opportunity to do a little bit of research beforehand. Unfortunately the research is not crystal clear. I would point out that there was a point of order raised regarding 1991 Assembly Bill 485. I had an opportunity to have Assembly Bill 485 messaged to me as well as the amendment that brought forth the point of order. The ruling was made by Speaker Pro Tempore David Clarenbach on a point of order dealing with Assembly Bill 485 offered by Representative Kunicki and Representative Prosser. The bill included language on tax exemptions, providing a property tax exemption, sales tax exemption, issuing bonds, economic development authority, and a whole series of items. An amendment offered by Representative Wineke would have added a new component dealing with the lease of sky boxes or private luxury boxes by professional sports teams, an item not touched upon in the original bill. The Speaker Pro Tempore at that point in time ruled that the point of order was not well taken. And that ruling, in and of itself, doesn't give us a clear direction on the matter raised by the gentleman from the 77th either. It does show that there are enough examples on both sides of the matter, but no clear controlling legal authority.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order raised by the gentleman from the 77th is not well taken. It is indeed an amendment that accomplishes the same purpose in a different manner. It's providing thereabouts $1.5 million in assistance to an air carrier that operates from a hub facility in Wisconsin. So I would make the ruling that the point of order is not well taken.
When a member raises a point of order, they will use a variety of criteria in the point of order and I may not necessarily agree with all the criteria. You will have, from time to time, sections of the statutes that are clearly different as in the example I gave of 1991 Assembly Bill 485. The components that were being added dealt with the lease of sky boxes or private luxury boxes -- a whole series of different statutes. Now you might have a bill that deals specifically with personal care and it deals with all of those relating issues and then an amendment that would add abortion but does not include a personal care component which goes into a whole different set of statutes. That would be a substantial expansion of the scope of the bill because it doesn't conform with the same statutes, or even the same subject matter. But there will be times-it is this Chair's opinion-and there's ample precedent that has been established, that by simply changing and going into a different section of statutes does not preclude an amendment from being germane. It's just a different area of the statutes. It will be unclear and it will really be based on the actual amendment in the bill that will be before us as to whether it will be germane or not germane based on the subject matter of the statutes. We are able now with new technology to determine whether or not the statutes relate or not with just a click of the computer mouse."
[Note:] 13.52(6) Report. Upon the introduction in either house of the legislature of any proposal which affects any existing statute or creates any new statute relating to the exemption of any property or person from any state or local taxes or special assessments, such proposal shall at once be referred to the joint survey committee on tax exemptions by the presiding officer instead of to a standing committee, and such proposal shall not be considered further by either house until the joint survey committee on tax exemptions has submitted a report, in writing, setting forth an opinion on the legality of the proposal, the fiscal effect upon the state and its subdivisions and its desirability as a matter of public policy and such report has been printed as an appendix to the bill and attached thereto as are amendments. Such printing shall be in lieu of inclusion in the daily journal of the house in which the bill was introduced.
Assembly Rule 54 (1) General statement: The assembly may not consider any assembly amendment or assembly substitute amendment that relates to a different subject or is intended to accomplish a different purpose than that of the proposal to which it relates or that, if adopted and passed, would require a relating clause for the proposal which is substantially different from the proposal's original relating clause or that would totally alter the nature of the proposal.
Assembly Rule 54 (4) Amendments that are germane include:
(d) An amendment adding appropriations necessary to fulfill the original intent of a bill.
(e) An amendment relating only to particularized details.
Germaneness: substantially expanding scope of proposal (not permitted)
2 0 0 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of January 28, 2003 .......... Page: 33
Point of order:
Representative Freese rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 1 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Gard ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Black 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-59, Noes-38. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill prohibited official action in return for providing or withholding political contributions. The amendment prohibited the payment of attorney fees for public officials accused of violations of the ethics code.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(a) One individual proposition amending another individual proposition.
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of February 21, 2003 .......... Page: 83
Point of order:
Representative Jensen rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 41 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f).
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese 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-57, Noes-36. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill established legislative approval of Indian gaming compacts. The substitute amendment also required legislative approval of proposed Indian gaming establishments located on certain Indian trust lands.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of March 12, 2003 .......... Page: 107
Point of order:
Representative Foti rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 144 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Foti that Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 144 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Representative Boyle 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-60, Noes-38. Motion carried.
[Note:] The substitute amendment limited the governor's authority to negotiate Indian Gaming Compacts. The amendment dealt with the licensing and regulation of amusement devices under the state lottery.
Assembly Rule 54 (1) General statement: The assembly may not consider any assembly amendment or assembly substitute amendment that relates to a different subject or is intended to accomplish a different purpose than that of the proposal to which it relates or that, if adopted and passed, would require a relating clause for the proposal which is substantially different from the proposal's original relating clause or that would totally alter the nature of the proposal.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(a) One individual proposition amending another individual proposition.
(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 12, 2003 .......... Page: 111
Point of order:
Representative Foti rose to the point of order that Assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 144 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
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-58, Noes-38. Motion carried.
[Note:] The substitute amendment limited the governor's authority to negotiate Indian Gaming Compacts. The substitute amendment also dealt with the licensing and regulation of amusement devices under the state lottery.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(a) One individual proposition amending another individual proposition.
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Rule 54 (4) Amendments that are germane include:
(e) An amendment relating only to particularized details.
Assembly Journal of March 18, 2003 .......... Page: 131
Point of order:
