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
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 25 to Assembly Amendment 2 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 Assembly Bill 133 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(c) and (5).
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled the point of order not well taken.
The Chair ruled as follows:
"Assembly amendment 25, which prohibited constitutional officers, except the governor, from having their likeness on an outdoor sign, sought to replace language in Assembly amendment 2 prohibiting constitutional officers, except the governor, from using state funds to place their likeness on a billboard.
Assembly amendment 25 is not a substantial expansion of Assembly amendment 2 because it amended and modified the same section, subject and related to the particularized details included in Assembly amendment 2. The amendment also did not substantially expand the scope of the original proposal, a multi-subject executive budget bill, because it merely adds to the directives and requirements to state agencies and constitutional officers that are typically included in budget bills."
Representative Meyer 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-45. Motion carried.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(e) An amendment that negates the effect of another assembly amendment previously adopted.
(5) An amendment to an amendment must be germane to both the amendment and the original proposal.
Assembly Journal of September 23, 1999 .......... Page: 341
Point of order:
Representative Goetsch rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 5 to Assembly Bill 465 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) and (3) (f).
