The Chair ruled the point well taken.
Senator Jauch 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-16, Noes-15. The decision stands.
[Note:] The bill related to the definition of small telecommunication utility. The amendment created a sales tax exemption for central office telecommunication equipment.
SENATE RULE 50. Amendments must be germane, general statement. (1) No standing committee shall report any substitute or amendment for any proposal originating in either house referred to such committee nor shall the senate consider any substitute or amendment which relates to a different subject, is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a relating clause essentially different from the relating clause of the original proposal or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal.
(7) A substitute or amendment relating to a specific subject or to a general class is not germane to a bill relating to a different specific subject, but an amendment limiting the scope of the proposal is germane.
Senate Journal of March 9, 1995 .......... Page: 123
Point of order:
Senator Weeden raised the point of order that Senate amendment 2 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 89 is not germane.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point well taken.
Senator Adelman appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question was: Shall the decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate?
The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: ayes, 17; noes, 15; absent or not voting.
The decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate.
[Note:] The substitute amendment related to the sale and purchase of reformulated gasoline. The amendment required the department of administration to submit proposed legislation for the compensation of owners of 2-cycle engines that had been damaged by reformulated gasoline.
SENATE RULE 50. Amendments must be germane, general statement. (1) No standing committee shall report any substitute or amendment for any proposal originating in either house referred to such committee nor shall the senate consider any substitute or amendment which relates to a different subject, is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a relating clause essentially different from the relating clause of the original proposal or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal.
(7) A substitute or amendment relating to a specific subject or to a general class is not germane to a bill relating to a different specific subject, but an amendment limiting the scope of the proposal is germane.
Senate Journal of March 9, 1995 .......... Page: 123
Point of order:
Senator Schultz raised the point of order that Senate amendment 4 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 89 is not germane.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point well taken.
Senator Adelman appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question was: Shall the decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate.
The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: ayes, 17; noes, 15; absent or not voting.
The decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate.
[Note:] The substitute amendment related to the sale and purchase of reformulated gasoline. The amendment created a 10% income tax credit to taxpayers in Wisconsin's severe ozone nonattainment zone.
SENATE RULE 50. Amendments must be germane, general statement. (1) No standing committee shall report any substitute or amendment for any proposal originating in either house referred to such committee nor shall the senate consider any substitute or amendment which relates to a different subject, is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a relating clause essentially different from the relating clause of the original proposal or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal.
(7) A substitute or amendment relating to a specific subject or to a general class is not germane to a bill relating to a different specific subject, but an amendment limiting the scope of the proposal is germane.
Senate Journal of June 20, 1995 .......... Page: 250
Point of order:
Senator A. Lasee raised the point of order that Senate amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 48 is not germane.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point well taken.
Senator Jauch 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-17, Noes-16. Decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate.
[Note:] The joint resolution commended Wisconsin's dairy industry. The amendment inserted another resolved clause stating that the state will enforce Wisconsin's milk price discrimination statute.
SENATE RULE 50. Amendments must be germane, general statement. (1) No standing committee shall report any substitute or amendment for any proposal originating in either house referred to such committee nor shall the senate consider any substitute or amendment which relates to a different subject, is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a relating clause essentially different from the relating clause of the original proposal or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal.
(7) A substitute or amendment relating to a specific subject or to a general class is not germane to a bill relating to a different specific subject, but an amendment limiting the scope of the proposal is germane.
Senate Journal of October 5, 1995 .......... Page: 386
Point of order:
Senator Schultz raised the point of order that Senate amendment 10 to September 1995 Special Session Assembly Bill 1 is not germane.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point well taken.
Senator Wineke 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-17, Noes-14. The decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate.
[Note:] The bill created a local professional baseball park district. The amendment imposed a sales tax on luxury boxes, skyboxes, and club seats.
SENATE RULE 50. Amendments must be germane, general statement. (1) No standing committee shall report any substitute or amendment for any proposal originating in either house referred to such committee nor shall the senate consider any substitute or amendment which relates to a different subject, is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a relating clause essentially different from the relating clause of the original proposal or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal.
(7) A substitute or amendment relating to a specific subject or to a general class is not germane to a bill relating to a different specific subject, but an amendment limiting the scope of the proposal is germane.
Senate Journal of March 21, 1996 .......... Page: 694
Point of order:
Senator Zien raised the point of order that Senate amendment 3 to Senate Bill 602 is not germane.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point well taken.
Senator Wineke 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-17, Noes-16. Decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate.
[Note:] The bill related to contracts for confinement of prisoners out of state. The amendment directed the department of corrections to evaluate the impact of penalty enhancers and minimum mandatory sentences on prison populations.
SENATE RULE 50. Amendments must be germane, general statement. (1) No standing committee shall report any substitute or amendment for any proposal originating in either house referred to such committee nor shall the senate consider any substitute or amendment which relates to a different subject, is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a relating clause essentially different from the relating clause of the original proposal or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal.
(7) A substitute or amendment relating to a specific subject or to a general class is not germane to a bill relating to a different specific subject, but an amendment limiting the scope of the proposal is germane.
Senate Journal of March 26, 1996 .......... Page: 717
Point of order:
Senator Petak raised the point of order that Senate amendment 5 to Senate Bill 449 is not germane.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point well taken.
Senator Grobschmidt 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-17, Noes-16. The decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate.
[Note:] The bill related to the maximum benefit and contribution limits under the Wisconsin Retirement System. The amendment repealed the 5-year vesting requirement to receive an annuity under the Wisconsin Retirement System.
SENATE RULE 50. Amendments must be germane, general statement. (1) No standing committee shall report any substitute or amendment for any proposal originating in either house referred to such committee nor shall the senate consider any substitute or amendment which relates to a different subject, is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a relating clause essentially different from the relating clause of the original proposal or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal.
(7) A substitute or amendment relating to a specific subject or to a general class is not germane to a bill relating to a different specific subject, but an amendment limiting the scope of the proposal is germane.
Point of order based on incorrect information
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
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 March 7, 2002 .......... Page: 751
Point of order:
Representative Carpenter rose to a point of order that Speaker Pro Tempore Freese should have recognized Representative Young prior to Representative Ladwig. Representative Young was standing immediately following the vote of passage on Assembly Bill 872.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese stated that it has been a precedent of the Assembly that the Chair will recognize members of leadership prior to other members of the Assembly. (Assembly Rule 91).
Representative Carpenter withdrew his point of order.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 56 (2) When 2 or more members rise at the same time, the presiding officer shall announce the order that the members may speak. Any such decision is final.
Assembly Rule 91 (2) Established precedents of both houses, long-established custom, opinions of the attorney general interpreting rules and precedents, and other leading parliamentary authorities such as Mason's manual may be used in the interpretation of both the assembly rules and the rules in Jefferson's manual.
The precedent of the Assembly that the Chair will recognize members of leadership prior to other members of the Assembly is a Wisconsin addition to the basic practice noted by Mason's Manual:
MASON'S MANUAL
Sec. 91. Recognition of Members
3. The following rules should guide the presiding officer in determining whom to recognize:
(a) The first member rising and requesting recognition is entitled to the floor over others.
(b) When two or more members ask recognition at the same time, the one first rising is entitled to prior recognition.
(c) When two or more members arise at the same time, the one first addressing the presiding officer is entitled to be first recognized.
(d) The presiding officer has the authority to designate the member who is first to speak, subject only to points of order and appeals in case of flagrant or persistent unfairness.
4. In recognizing members, it is the custom for the presiding officer to alternate between those favoring and those opposing the pending question.
5. The presiding officer has the right to inquire for what purpose a member arises to ascertain whether the member proposes business which is in order or a motion which has a higher precedence.
Point of order: general
2 0 0 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 20, 2003 .......... Page: 75
Point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese stated that the question before the Assembly was passage of Assembly Bill 3.
Representative Black rose to the point of order that the pending question before the Assembly was not passage of Assembly Bill 3 because there was a pending privileged resolution which takes precedence.
Representative Gard requested a call of the Assembly. There were sufficient seconds.
Representative Gard asked unanimous consent that the call of the Assembly be lifted. Granted.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese stated that the question before the Assembly was passage of Assembly Bill 3.
Representative Black rose to the point of order that the pending question before the Assembly was not passage of Assembly Bill 3 under Assembly Rule 65 (1)(i) because there was a pending privileged resolution which takes precedence.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order out of order because he already ruled that the resolution was not privileged.
