The legislature recognized the problem with an outright restriction on its ability to pass appropriation bills prior to passage of the budget bill. Early in the 1951 session the 1949 law was modified to remove the outright restriction on the passage of appropriation bills prior to the budget bill and allow for the passage of any appropriation bill that was recommended for passage by the Joint Committee on Finance. There was no requirement of an emergency statement until 1957 when the language was amended to provide for the "emergency statement" procedure, as we know it today.
Therefore, of the original purposes outlined by the Legislative Council for restricting the consideration of appropriation bills prior to the passage of the budget, only the education of members and the heightened awareness of the fiscal impact survived. The first law enacted was an outright prohibition on the consideration of such bills prior to passage of the budget. This was repealed after only one session. The language in force today clearly is to heighten the awareness of the membership and the public that the proposal has a definite fiscal impact that may not be part of the biennial budget bill.
The authority of the Assembly to act without an emergency statement arose in a point of order raised in 1995 on Assembly 73, in which the question was raised as to the authority of the Assembly to withdraw a proposal from the Joint Committee on Finance when an emergency statement was required. The motion was to suspend the rules to withdraw AB 73 and take it up immediately. The Speaker, Representative Prosser, ruled that since the motion was to suspend the rules, the motion was valid. This clearly demonstrates that Speaker Prosser believed that one house of the legislature could act on a proposal requiring an emergency statement by suspending the rules, therefore giving credence to the authority of each house to determine its own rules of procedure.
I have found numerous occasions where a proposal has been passed by one house or the other without the required emergency statement.
The failure of the legislature to follow the procedures outlined in ss 16.47(2) does not invalidate the act. I will not quote from the various case history and parliamentary manuals on this subject as I believe it is widely understood that the Constitution grants the authority to each house of the legislature to determine its own rules of procedure and that the legislature may not bind or restrict itself or its successors as to the procedure to be followed in the passage of legislation.
The statutes are silent as it relates to the authority of the Senate Finance Committee to issue an emergency statement.
To determine what authority the Senate Finance Committee has relating to emergency statements, one needs to understand the purpose of the statements. Clearly, since 1957, when the concept of the emergency statement was placed in our statutes, its sole purpose was to make certain that the members of the legislature and the public were aware that a proposal was going to have significant impact on state finances. The law does not require any other special action to be taken other than to provide notice to an "emergency". From the history of this section of the statutes, it appears that the term "emergency" was taken from the original bill of 1949, which gave authority to the Governor to propose an "emergency" executive budget bill. There is no definition as to what constitutes an "emergency". The 1951 act only gave an exemption to the prohibition on the passage of appropriation bills, if the Joint Committee on Finance recommended the bills for passage.
The history of the Senate Committee on Finance indicates that under Senate Rule 20(4)(b), the Senate Committee on Finance has the authority to report any proposal to the Senate that the Joint Committee fails to.
The Senate Finance Committee has on occasion taken action to report proposals to the Senate. It is well established that the Senate Finance Committee has the authority to act when the Joint Committee on Finance fails to do so, for whatever reason.
On October 17, 1973, Senator Hollander raised the point of order that the Senate Finance Committee has full control over Senate proposals. The Chair ruled that the Senate Committee on Finance has full jurisdiction over bills and joint resolutions under the control of the Senate, which are referred to the Joint Committee on Finance. The Chair furthers stated: "To rule otherwise would allow the Assembly members of the Joint Committee on Finance to control the independent operation of the Senate and would violate the basic concept of bicameralism".
This Presiding Officer, while serving as Minority Leader of this Senate, raised a point of order on October 25, 1973, questioning the authority of the Senate Finance Committee to report a proposal to the Senate that had been referred to the Joint Committee on Finance.
The Chair ruled the point of order well taken and stated that only the Joint Committee on Finance could have jurisdiction over legislation referred to the Joint Committee. The ruling of the Chair was appealed, and on a vote of 8 ayes and 23 noes, the ruling was not held as the judgement of the Senate. From that time forward, it has been the determination of this Senate that Senate Rule 20(4)(b) grants authority to the Senate Finance Committee to act on proposals referred to the Joint Committee on Finance.
The Senate Rules were amended by 1975 Senate Resolution 21. The resolution had bipartisan authors and a relating clause of "relating to senate committee procedures." The rule change was a direct result of the rulings of the Chair in the previous session.
It should be noted that the Joint Committee on Finance in the early 70's consisted of 9 members of the Assembly and 5 Senators. The split party control and the disproportionate representation of the Senate on the Joint Committee were a major reason for the actions taken by the Senate Finance Committee.
It is interesting to note that in the 75 Session, democrats controlled both houses of the legislature, yet the Senate, with strong bipartisan support, wanted to make it very clear, in the rules, that the Senate Finance Committee had jurisdiction and the authority to report proposals that had been referred to the Joint Committee on Finance, without restriction.
The statutes require no special action other than to include in their report to the house a recommendation that a proposal be passed and that a statement be made to the effect that they are emergency bills. It is clear that the Senate Finance Committee has the authority to report a proposal to the full Senate. The Committee has the same resources available to it as does the Joint Committee to determine the fiscal impact of proposals, and is clearly in a position to fulfill the requirements set forth in ss. 16.47(2).
The intent of the Senate Rule 20(4)(b) is clear in that it was adopted to allow the Senate to take action on any proposal that the Joint Committee on Finance has failed to report. It is also clear to the Chair that it was the intent and purpose of the Senate in the early 70's to grant full authority to act to the Senate Finance Committee. Furthermore, as stated by a previous presiding officer, to not allow the Senate Finance Committee to act would grant the authority to the Assembly Co-Chair, the authority to block the independent operation of the Senate.
In addition, as supported by case history, parliamentary manuals and as demonstrated by the ruling by the Speaker in the Assembly, the Senate has the authority to determine its own rules of procedure, even if they conflict with an existing statute, as long as they don't conflict with the Constitution or infringe on the rights of individual members.
Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure states in section 3, paragraph 2:
The house and senate may pass an internal operating rule for its own procedure that is in conflict with a statute formerly adopted.
In Section 2, paragraph 3, Mason's also states:
Rules of procedure fulfill another purpose in protecting the rights of members. Individual members, for example, are entitled to receive notices of meetings and the opportunity to attend and participate in the deliberations of the group. Minorities often require protection for unfair treatment on the part of the majority, and even the majority is entitled to protection from obstructive tactics on the part of minorities.
I am reminded of a quote from Cushing's Legislative Assemblies, "Elements of the Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies in the United States of America:
The great purpose of all rules and forms, says Cushing, is to subserve the will of the assembly rather than to restrain it; to facilitate and not to obstruct the expression of its deliberate sense.
Clearly the Senate has the authority, through its adopted rules, to authorize a committee to report a proposal in the same manner prescribed by law for a Joint Committee.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair, that Senate Rule 20(4)(b) grants to the Senate Finance Committee the full authority of the Joint Finance Committee as it relates to the reporting of proposals referred by the Senate, to include the recommending of passage of a proposal with emergency statement attached.
The Chair rules the point not well taken.
Senator Welch appeals 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:] Senate Rule 20 (4) (a) The members of the senate committee on finance are the senate members of the joint committee on finance.
(b) When the joint committee on finance fails to report a proposal referred to it by the senate, the proposal may be returned to the senate by the senate committee on finance.
Senate Journal of October 16, 2001 .......... Page: 406
Point of order:
Senator Chvala raised the point of order that Senate amendment 1 to Senate Bill 279 was not germane.
Ruling on the point of order:
Chair ruled the point well taken.
Senator Lazich appeals the ruling of the chair.
The question was: Shall the decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate?
The roll was taken. The vote was: Ayes-18, Noes-15. The decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate.
[Note:] The bill eliminated legislative partisan caucus staffs. The amendment also eliminated the positions at the legislative partisan caucus staffs.
SENATE RULE 50. Amendments must be germane, general statement. (1) A standing committee may not report any substitute or amendment for any proposal originating in either house and referred to the committee and the senate may not consider any substitute or amendment that relates to a different subject, is intended to accomplish a different purpose, 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 January 22, 2002 .......... Page: 518
Point of order:
Senator M. Meyer raised the point of order that Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 379 was not germane.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Lazich appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question was: Shall the Decision of the Chair stands 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:] The bill related to: banning human cloning and the sale or purchase of an ovum, embryo, or fetus for the purpose of cloning a human, prohibiting the use of state funds for cloning, and providing penalties.
The substitute amendment related to: prohibiting human cloning, prohibiting the use of state funds for human cloning, and providing penalties.
SENATE RULE 50. Amendments must be germane, general statement. (1) A standing committee may not report any substitute or amendment for any proposal originating in either house and referred to the committee and the senate may not consider any substitute or amendment that relates to a different subject, is intended to accomplish a different purpose, 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 July 3, 2002 .......... Page: 767
Point of order:
Report of committee of conference on 2002 January Special Session Assembly Bill 1.
Motion to refer report to the Committee of Conference offered Senator Shibilski.
Ruling on the point of order:
Chair ruled the motion not in order.
Point of order:
Senator Shibilski raised the point of order that the motion to refer the report to the Committee of Conference is in order.
Ruling on the point of order:
Chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Shibilski 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:] Senate Rule 41 (2) was later amended to provide: Reference to committee is not in order after a proposal is passed or indefinitely postponed or finally disposed of by any action equivalent thereto. Questions of reconsideration, concurrence in amendments of the assembly, conference committee reports, or executive vetoes may be placed on the table, but may not be referred to committee.
There is also an assembly rule on this point: "Assembly Rule 45 (6) Except as incidental to calendar scheduling by the committee on rules, the report of a committee of conference may not be referred to committee." The senate does not have such a rule but the joint rules provide a reason why a conference committee report should not be referred to committee: "Joint Rule 3 (3) A report of a committee of conference may not be amended and may not be divided."
1 9 9 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of January 26, 1999 .......... Page: 41
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 51 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Schneider 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-43. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill addressed year 2000 computer problems. The amendment created a crime of making untrue, deceptive, or misleading statements regarding year 2000 readiness of computer devices.
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 January 26, 1999 .......... Page: 41
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 51 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Schneider 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-43. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill addressed year 2000 computer problems. The amendment placed restrictions on the sale of computer devices that lack year 2000 readiness.
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 Journal of June 23, 1999 .......... Page: 241
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 389 was not properly before the Assembly because the bill required a report by the joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions under s. 13.52(6) of the Wisconsin Statutes and Assembly Rule 45(4).
Speaker Jensen ruled the point of order not well taken.
Representative Bock 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-53, Noes-45. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill required the control and ownership of electric transmission facilities by a transmission company.
Assembly Rule 45 (4) When a bill, during or after consideration by a standing committee or during consideration by the assembly, is found to be without the report of one or more joint survey committees to which it should have been referred, the bill shall be so referred by the speaker or presiding officer.
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 Journal of June 29, 1999 .......... Page: 257
