Representative Carpenter appealed the ruling of the Chair.
Representative Carpenter withdrew his motion.
Representative Jensen asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 536 be withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance and placed on the calendar of Monday, May 13. Granted.
[Note:] The joint resolution placed on the ballot an advisory referendum asking whether the state should continue to provide property tax relief by paying two-thirds of the costs of local school costs without raising sales or income taxes. The amendment substituted "increasing state taxes" for "raising sales or income taxes".
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Motions: proper time for making
2 0 0 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 2, 2004 .......... Page: 772
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that the motion to reconsider the vote by which Assembly amendment 7 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 792 was adopted was not timely under Assembly Rule 73.
Representative Montgomery withdrew his motion to reconsider the vote by which Assembly amendment 7 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 792 was adopted.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 73 (2) (a) A motion to reconsider any decision, other than passage of or concurrence in a proposal, may only be entered after the question to which the motion relates has been decided and must be entered either: 1) before the relating clause of the next proposal is read by the clerk, the next order of business is announced by the presiding officer, or other business is begun; or 2) on the 7th order of business on the 2nd legislative day thereafter.
(b) For any decision other than passage, adoption, concurrence, indefinite postponement, rejection, or nonconcurrence, the motion for reconsideration shall be considered when the proposal is next regularly scheduled for consideration.
(4) (a) A motion to reconsider the decision on an amendment shall be placed on the same calendar as the motion to reconsider the final 2nd reading stage decision on the proposal to which the amendment relates, regardless of when made. The failure of any calendar that has been provided to members to show a motion to reconsider a decision on an amendment does not prevent the consideration of the motion under the proper order of business on that calendar day.
2 0 0 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of November 11, 2003 .......... Page: 477
Point of order:
Senator Chvala moved to suspend rules to withdraw from committee on Labor, Small Business Development and Consumer Affairs and take up Senate Bill 240.
Senator Panzer raised the point of order that the motion to withdraw from committee on Labor, Small Business Development and Consumer Affairs Senate Bill 240 was not properly before the Senate.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Erpenbach 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-14. Decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate.
[Note:] Senate Rule 17 (1) (n) Fourteenth order. Motions may be offered.
Senate Rule 41 (1) (a) A proposal or other matter may be rereferred at any time prior to its passage, except that a motion to withdraw from committee may not take effect during the 7 days preceding any scheduled committee hearing or the 7 days following the date on which a committee hearing is held.
The motion to withdraw is not listed as in order during debate:
Senate 63. Motions in order during debate.
(1) When a question is under debate, a motion may not be received except:
Senate Journal of November 11, 2003 .......... Page: 477
Point of order:
Senator Erpenbach moved to make Senate Bill 240 a special order of business at 9:00 A.M. on the calendar of November 13, 2003.
Senator Panzer raised the point of order that the motion to make a special order of business is not proper at this time.
The Chair took the point under advisement.
Senate Journal of January 20, 2004 .......... Page: 550
Ruling on the point of order:
On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, on the 11th order of business, the Senator from the 27th moved that the rules be suspended and Senate Bill 240 be made a special order of business at 10:00 AM on the calendar of November 13, 2003.
The Senator from the 20th raised a point of order that the motion was out of order.
The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
The point is well taken. The Senate has established a clear precedent that motions concerning business that is not currently before the Senate are made under the 14th order of business.
[Note:] Senate Rule 17 (1) (n) Fourteenth order. Motions may be offered.
Senate Rule 41 (1) (a) A proposal or other matter may be rereferred at any time prior to its passage, except that a motion to withdraw from committee may not take effect during the 7 days preceding any scheduled committee hearing or the 7 days following the date on which a committee hearing is held.
The motion for a special order is not listed as in order during debate:
Senate 63. Motions in order during debate.
(1) When a question is under debate, a motion may not be received except:
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 8, 2001 .......... Page: 137
Point of order:
Representative Freese rose to the point of order that the motion of nonconcurrence in Senate Bill 2 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 65 (2) and (3) because there were pending amendments.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled the point of order well taken.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 65 (2) When a main question is under debate the following subsidiary motions are in order if appropriate under the rules governing motions and proposals:
Assembly Rule 65 (3) (intro.) The motions and requests listed in subs. (1) and (2) have precedence in the order in which they are listed. While any motion or request is pending, motions or requests of the same or lower precedence are not in order, except that:
Assembly Journal of March 13, 2001 .......... Page: 142
Point of order:
Representative Freese rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 1 was not properly before the Assembly under 16.47 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Speaker Jensen took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 22, 2001 .......... Page: 171
Ruling on point of order:
Speaker Jensen ruled that the point of order, raised on Tuesday, March 13, by Representative Freese that Senate Bill 1 was not properly before the Assembly under 16.47 of the Wisconsin Statutes, was not timely.
[Note:] For a bill requiring an emergency statement, the point of order would be timely in conjunction with the vote on passage or concurrence.
16.47 (2) 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. For a bill requiring referral to the joint finance committee, the point of order would be timely in conjunction with the vote on passage or concurrence. The statutory rule requires only one referral between the 2 houses.
Assembly Journal of July 2, 2001 .......... Page: 358
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that a motion to table the motion to suspend the rules to immediately message Senate Bill 55 to the Senate was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 74 (3).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of July 26, 2001 .......... Page: 371
Representative Duff withdrew his point of order raised on Monday, July 2, that a motion to table the motion to suspend the rules to immediately message Senate Bill 55 to the Senate was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 74 (3).
Assembly Journal of July 2, 2001 .......... Page: 358
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point of order raised by Representative Duff that a motion to table the motion to suspend the rules to immediately message Senate Bill 55 to the Senate was not properly before the Assembly because a motion on the bill had been taken under advisement and that removed the bill from further consideration under Assembly Rule 62 (3)(b)1.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 74 (3) A motion to table may not be applied to procedural motions, except that a motion to withdraw a proposal from committee may be tabled if the motion to withdraw does not involve a suspension of the rules.
Assembly Rule 62 (3) The presiding officer may speak on points of order in preference to others and may:
(a) Immediately announce and explain a ruling on a point of order that has been raised; or
(b) Defer such ruling by taking a point of order under advisement.
1. When the point of order concerns a proposal or a question currently pending on such proposal, taking the point of order under advisement removes the proposal from further consideration until the presiding officer announces the ruling on the point of order.
Assembly Journal of July 2, 2001 .......... Page: 358
Representative Black moved that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 55 be immediately messaged to the Senate.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled that the motion was not properly before the Assembly because there was a point of order under advisement and that removed the bill from further consideration under Assembly Rule 62 (3)(b)1.
Representative Black appealed the ruling of the Chair.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled that an appeal of the Chair was not properly before the Assembly since there was not a ruling on a point of order.
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that the motion to suspend the rules and immediately message Senate Bill 55 be to the Senate was in order.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] Rep. Black's point of order may have been a parliamentary inquiry.
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 Rule 62 (3) The presiding officer may speak on points of order in preference to others and may:
(a) Immediately announce and explain a ruling on a point of order that has been raised; or
(b) Defer such ruling by taking a point of order under advisement.
1. When the point of order concerns a proposal or a question currently pending on such proposal, taking the point of order under advisement removes the proposal from further consideration until the presiding officer announces the ruling on the point of order.
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 March 14, 2002 .......... Page: 786
Point of order:
Representative Carpenter moved that Assembly Bill 1, January 2002 Special Session be made a Special Order of Business at 10:00 A.M. on Friday, March 15.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the motion not in order.
[Note:] The assembly had voted on an identical motion after the bill had been given its third reading but this motion was made after the bill had passed.
Assembly Journal of May 15, 2002 .......... Page: 851
Point of order:
Representative Freese rose to the point of order that Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, May 2002 Special Session was not germane to the Governor's Special Session call.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Jensen ruled the point of order not timely because there were still simple amendments pending to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, May 2002 Special Session. Therefore, even if the substitute amendment was not germane to the special session call at this time, it could still be amended prior to its adoption to make it germane.
[Note:] The question before the assembly at that time was adoption of an amendment, not adoption of the substitute amendment.
Assembly Rule 66 (1) In addition to the motions and requests listed in rule 65 (1) and (2), and subject to the limitations imposed by other rules, the following incidental motions, requests, and questions are in order while a proposal or question is under debate:
(a) A point of order and appeal therefrom [rule 62].
(2) The motions, requests, and questions listed in sub. (1) do not have an order of precedence, can be initiated at any time they are timely, and shall be disposed of before any question to which they relate is returned to or any other incidental motion, request, or question is entertained.
The special session rules provide: 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.
MASON'S MANUAL
Sec. 241. When Point of Order May Be Raised
See also Sec. 149, Appeals, Points of Order, Inquiries.
5. A point of order must be raised at the time the particular question is pending. It is premature to raise a point of order against an amendment when an amendment of the amendment is pending or when a motion to recommit is pending.
