Assembly Journal of October 25, 2001 .......... Page: 474
Ruling on the point of order:
  The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled the point of order well taken that a motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 57 from the joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions was not properly before the Assembly under s. 13.52 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
  [Note:] 13.52(6) provides "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". The report had not been prepared.

The motion was also in violation of Assembly Rule 15 (1) (a):

Assembly Rule 15 (1) A proposal may not be withdrawn from any committee until 21 calendar days have expired since the proposal was referred to the committee. After the 21-day period, a proposal may be withdrawn either by motion or by petition, but:

(a) A bill may not be withdrawn from a joint survey committee.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 483
Point of order:
  Representative Staskunas rose to the point of order that the motion to amend the motion that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 294 be withdrawn from the committee on Labor and Workforce Development be amended to substitute Assembly Bill 545 was not in order under Assembly Rule 15.
  Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
  Representative Staskunas withdrew the point of order that the motion to amend a motion to suspend the rules and that Assembly Bill 294 be withdrawn from the committee on Labor and Workforce Development was not in order.
  [Note:] Assembly Rule 15 (1) A proposal may not be withdrawn from any committee until 21 calendar days have expired since the proposal was referred to the committee. After the 21-day period, a proposal may be withdrawn either by motion or by petition, but:

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:

(g) To amend, if the proposal or motion is amendable [rules 52 to 55 and 70 (2) and (4)].

Assembly Rule 65 (3) 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:

(b) Amendments to amendable motions are not in order while a question of higher precedence is pending; and

Under Assembly Rule 66, once an amendment or proposal is offered or introduced in the assembly, it belongs to the assembly. Therefore, it can be returned to the author only by permission of the assembly.

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:

(g) A request or motion by the author of a pending amendment that it be withdrawn and returned to the author.

MASON'S MANUAL

Sec. 64. Amendability of Motions

See also Ch. 38, Secs. 395-421, Motion to Amend.

1. Propositions are sometimes introduced in a form not acceptable to the body. It is essential therefore that it be possible to amend propositions in order that they state the common will of the group. There are limitations, however, on the right to amend, particularly with reference to certain procedural motions. There is a convenient rule by which it is possible to determine whether a proposal is subject to amendment. If it could properly have been submitted in a different form, it can be amended. If the proposition could not have been stated in a different form, it cannot be amended.

Sec. 178. Subsidiary Questions

Definition

1. Subsidiary questions are questions of a procedural nature relating directly to or adhering to main motions.

2. It is not usually possible for main motions to be immediately adopted or rejected upon presentation. In legislative bodies it is usually required that main motions be referred to committee and they may be amended. Debate may be limited to a certain time, or the consideration postponed from time to time. Procedural motions, by which main motions are guided through a legislative body, are a type of motion subsidiary to main motions and from this they acquire their name.

3. Subsidiary motions are most often applied to main motions, but the motion to amend may be applied to any motion which is capable of being stated in more than one form.

Sec. 490. Procedural Motions with Precedence of Main Motions

2. Generally, these motions are subject to the same rules as other simple procedural motions. They are not debatable, except sometimes limited debate is permitted on the motion to withdraw a bill from committee or discharge a committee. They are not subject to the subsidiary motions and can be renewed after a change in the parliamentary situation, but cannot be reconsidered. Unless some special rule has been adopted, they require a majority of the legal votes cast for adoption.

3. Among the more frequently used motions of this class are:

(a) Motions to withdraw from committee or discharge a committee.

Sec. 491. Withdrawing Bills from Committee

2. The motion to withdraw a question or discharge a committee from further consideration is not a suspension of the rules, and may be made without previous notice.

3. The motion, in either form, takes precedence as a main motion. It is not subject to the motions to postpone, to refer to committee, to lay on the table or to amendment.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 484
Point of order:
  Representative Black rose to the point of order that the motion to suspend the rules and that Assembly Bill 294 be withdrawn from the committee on Labor and Workforce Development and taken up at this time was not dilatory.
  Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 487
  Representative Black withdrew his point of order that the motion to suspend the rules and that Assembly Bill 294 be withdrawn from the committee on Labor and Workforce Development and taken up at this time was not dilatory.
  [Note:] This may have been a parliamentary inquiry, not a point of order.

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 Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 484
Point of order:
  Representative Ladwig moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 380 be immediately messaged to the Senate.
  Representative Black moved that the motion, that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 380 be immediately messaged to the Senate, be amended to substitute Assembly Bill 294 be given a second reading.
  Representative Ladwig asked unanimous consent to withdraw her motion that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 380 be immediately messaged to the Senate.
  Representative Cullen objected.
  Representative Hubler rose to the point of order that amending a motion to substitute a different proposal is not in order under Assembly Rules or Mason's Manual, Chapter 28.
  Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 487
Ruling on the point of order:
  Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Hubler that amending a motion to substitute a different proposal is not in order under Assembly Rules or Mason's Manual, Chapter 28.
  [Note:] Assembly Rule 68. Amendments to motions to be germane. Amendments to amendable motions are subject to the rules of germaneness in rule 54 as if they were amendments to proposals and amendments.

Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:

(a) One individual proposition amending another individual proposition.

MASON'S MANUAL

Sec. 64. Amendability of Motions. 1. ....There are limitations, however, on the right to amend, particularly with reference to certain procedural motions. There is a convenient rule by which it is possible to determine whether a proposal is subject to amendment. If it could properly have been submitted in a different form, it can be amended. If the proposition could not have been stated in a different form, it cannot be amended.

Sec. 282. Motion to Suspend the Rules

6. A motion to suspend the rules may not be:

(a) Amended.

(b) Debated.

(c) Laid on the table.

(d) Referred to committee.

(e) Postponed.

(f) Reconsidered or renewed for the same purpose on the same day, unless other business has intervened or there has been a change in the parliamentary situation.

A motion to suspend the rules may not have any other subsidiary motion applied to it.
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 October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 490
Point of order:
  Representative Hubler rose to the point of order that a second motion to table Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 579 was not in order under Assembly Rule 69.
  Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 491
Ruling on the point of order:
  Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Hubler that a second motion to table Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 579 was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69, citing a previous ruling from the Assembly Journal on October 31, 1985, pages 544-545.
  [Note:] The ruling referred to above dealt with two motions to take from the table and noted, that under Assembly Rule 69 (2), two consecutive identical motions are dilatory unless significant business has intervened between the motions.
Assembly Journal of November 1, 2001 .......... Page: 501
Point of order:
  Representative Black rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 19 to Assembly Bill 579 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(e).
  Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of November 1, 2001 .......... Page: 510
Ruling on the point of order:
  Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Black that Assembly amendment 19 to Assembly Bill 579 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(e).
  [Note:] The bill related to certified capital companies. AA-1 reduced from 10% to 5% the credit for certified capital investments. AA-19 deleted AA-1 and increased the credit from 10% to 10.0001%.

Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:

(e) An amendment that negates the effect of another assembly amendment previously adopted.
Assembly Journal of November 6, 2001 .......... Page: 521
Point of order:
  Representative Krug rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 263 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
  The Chair (Representative Duff) took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of November 6, 2001 .......... Page: 524
Ruling on the point of order:
  The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Krug that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 263 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
  [Note:] The bill related to special events campground permits for events held on town territory. The amendment related to those events held on town, village, or city territory.

Assembly Rule 54 (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.

(4) Amendments that are germane include:

(e) An amendment relating only to particularized details.
Assembly Journal of November 6, 2001 .......... Page: 523
Point of order:
  Representative Krug rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 436 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
  The Chair (Representative Duff) took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of November 6, 2001 .......... Page: 524
Ruling on the point of order:
  The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Krug that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 436 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
  [Note:] The bill required the department of transportation to provide transportation planning services in reviewing public school construction site plans. The amendment required those services when reviewing those plans of private or public schools.

Assembly Rule 54 (4) Amendments that are germane include:

(b) An amendment that accomplishes the same purpose in a different manner.

(e) An amendment relating only to particularized details.
Assembly Journal of January 31, 2002 .......... Page: 625
Point of order:
  Representative Jensen raised a point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 2 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
  Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took that point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of January 31, 2002 .......... Page: 626
Ruling on the point of order:
  Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Jensen that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 2 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
  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-55, Noes-40. Motion carried.
  [Note:] The substitute amendment required a two-thirds majority of each house on bills increasing net revenue from sales and income and franchise taxes. The amendment added gasoline taxes to the taxes that would require a two-thirds majority to increase.

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 March 7, 2002 .......... Page: 751
Point of order:
  Representative Carpenter rose to a point of order that the vote to take up reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 872 was passed, would require a two thirds majority for the motion to prevail.
  Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 7, 2002 .......... Page: 751
Ruling on the point of order:
  Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Carpenter that the vote to take up reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 872 was passed, would require a two-thirds majority for the motion to prevail under Assembly Rule 73 (3)(a).
  [Note:] This may have been a parliamentary inquiry, not a point of order. A "parliamentary inquiry" might have informed the members as to the vote required. A "point of order" is appropriate only to obtain a decision by the presiding officer concerning an issue currently before the house. Had the resolution been adopted by a majority but less than 2/3, a point of order might have been appropriate. Because the roll had not been called, there was no issue.

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 73 (3) (a).....Any motion to reconsider such final action shall be taken up immediately if the roll call day on which it is entered is already the 2nd or a later actual day following the vote constituting final action on the proposal, but consideration of any other motion for reconsideration of such final action, entered on the roll call day following the day on which the final action was taken, shall be laid over and placed on the calendar for the first legislative day that occurs at least 2 calendar days after the decision was made.
Assembly Journal of March 14, 2002 .......... Page: 785
Loading...
Loading...