Ruling of the Chair:
On Thursday, March 4, 2004, Senator Carpenter introduced Senate Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 298. Senator Welch raised a point of order that Senate Amendment 1 was not germane to Senate Bill 298. The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Rule 50 (1) requires every amendment to a proposal to be germane to that proposal. Senate Rule 50 (6) (b) states that any amendment to a proposal that relates to a subject that is different from the subject of that proposal or that is intended to accomplish a purpose that is different from the purpose of that proposal is not germane. Senate Bill 298 is remedial legislation relating to the scope of the Code of Ethics for Local Public Officials. Senate Amendment 1 relates to the duration of the sales tax that is financing Miller Park construction costs. It is the opinion of the chair that Senate Amendment 1 relates to a subject that is different from the subject of Senate Bill 298 and that Senate Amendment 1 is intended to accomplish a purpose that is different from the purpose of Senate Bill 298. As a result, Senate Amendment 1 is not germane to Senate Bill 298.
Senator Carpenter 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-15. Decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate.
[Note:] The bill placed directors and officers of local professional baseball park districts and local cultural arts districts under the code of ethics for local public officials. The amendment sunsets the local professional baseball park district sales taxes.
Senate Rule 50. Substitute amendments and amendments must be germane. (1) Every substitute amendment and amendment to a proposal must be germane to that proposal.
(6) The following substitute amendments or amendments are not germane:
(b) A substitute amendment or amendment to a proposal that relates to a subject that is different from the subject of that proposal, that is intended to accomplish a purpose that is different from the purpose of that proposal, that negates that proposal entirely, or that substitutes another proposal pending before the senate.
Senate Journal of March 11, 2004 .......... Page: 721
Point of order:
Senator Panzer raised the point of order that Senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 119 was not germane.
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-15. Decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate.
[Note:] The bill related to the reporting of information by nonresident registrants under the campaign finance law. The amendment modified the definition of "political purpose" in regard to communications within 60 days before an election.
Senate Rule 50. Substitute amendments and amendments must be germane.
(6) The following substitute amendments or amendments are not germane:
(b) A substitute amendment or amendment to a proposal that relates to a subject that is different from the subject of that proposal, that is intended to accomplish a purpose that is different from the purpose of that proposal, that negates that proposal entirely, or that substitutes another proposal pending before the senate.
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 15, 2001 .......... Page: 94
Point of order:
Representative Kaufert rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 100 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 because it made the effective date of Assembly Bill 100 contingent upon Assembly Bill 53 being enacted into law.
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-56, Noes-40. Motion carried.
[Note:] There is no specific germaness rule on the issue of making the effective date of one bill contingent upon another bill being enacted into law. The following frequently cited rules may have been cited to support the ruling:
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.
(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 March 6, 2001 .......... Page: 122
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 5 to Assembly Bill 18 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
The Chair (Representative Duff) took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 6, 2001 .......... Page: 122
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Black that Assembly amendment 5 to Assembly Bill 18 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
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-54, Noes-42. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill related to reporting by nonresidents under the campaign finance law and the amendment to prohibited contributions and disbursements.
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.
(3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of March 22, 2001 .......... Page: 167
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 49 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 Krug 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-56, Noes-43. Motion carried.
[Note:] The joint resolution extended the floorperiod for consideration of two bills and the amendment added a third bill.
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 October 23, 2001 .......... Page: 462
Point of order:
Representative Stone rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 8 to Assembly Bill 576 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 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-54, Noes-42. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill created an airline loan guarantee program and the amendment permitted the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority to purchase and hold stock of certain airline companies.
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.
(3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
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: 485
Point of order:
Representative Foti rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 199 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Black appealed the ruling of the chair.
The question was: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the decision of the Assembly?
The roll was taken. The vote was: Ayes-54, Noes-42. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill related to vehicle owner liability for violation of traffic laws regarding railroad crossings. The amendment related to employment discrimination assessments and created a wage disparity study.
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.
(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 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 January 24, 2002 .......... Page: 602
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 726 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 Black appealed the ruling of the Chair.
Representative Foti in the chair.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese in the chair.
Representative Foti in the chair.
