Representative Krug rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 45 was not properly before the Assembly because it required an emergency statement pursuant to s.16.47 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 3, 1999 .......... Page: 93
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Krug on Tuesday, March 2, that Assembly Bill 45 was not properly before the Assembly because it required an emergency statement pursuant to s. 16.47 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
[Note:] 16.47(2) No bill containing an appropriation or increasing the cost of state government or decreasing state revenues in an annual amount exceeding $10,000 shall be passed by either house until the budget bill has passed both houses; except that the governor or the joint committee on finance may recommend such bills to the presiding officer of either house, in writing, for passage and the legislature may enact them, and except that the senate or assembly committee on organization may recommend to the presiding officer of its respective house any such bill not affecting state finances by more than $100,000 biennially. Such bills shall be accompanied by a statement to the effect that they are emergency bills recommended by the governor, the joint committee on finance, or the senate or assembly committee on organization. Such statement by the governor or joint committee on finance shall be sufficient to permit passage prior to the budget bill. Such statement by the senate or assembly committee on organization shall be effective only to permit passage by its respective house.
Assembly Journal of May 12, 1999 .......... Page: 182
Point of order:
Representative Underheim rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 7 to Assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 52 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of May 12, 1999 .......... Page: 183
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Underheim that Assembly amendment 7 to Assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 52 was not germane.
[Note:] The bill instituted graduated driver licensing. The amendment prohibited law enforcement officers from stopping or inspecting a vehicle for violations solely to determine compliance with the bill.
Assembly Rule 54 (4) Amendments that are germane include:
(e) An amendment relating only to particularized details
Assembly Journal of May 12, 1999 .......... Page: 185
Point of order:
Representative M. Lehman rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 186 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of May 19, 1999 .......... Page: 197
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative M. Lehman on Wednesday, May 12, that Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 186 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54
[Note:] The bill related to manufacturing property taxes. The amendment permitted manufacturers who file an objection to the tax to choose to not pay the tax while the objection is pending but pay interest on the amount due.
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 September 23, 1999 .......... Page: 343
Point of order:
Representative Goetsch rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 15 to Assembly Bill 465 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) and (3) (f).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of September 23, 1999 .......... Page: 344
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Goetsch that Assembly Amendment 15 to Assembly Bill 465 was not germane.
[Note:] The bill related to classification and elements of felony offenses. The amendment created restrictions on firearm possession.
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 September 23, 1999 .......... Page: 344
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 16 to Assembly Bill 465 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(b).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Representative Duff withdrew his point of order that Assembly Amendment 16 to Assembly Bill 465 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(b).
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 16 to Assembly Bill 465 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(c).
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
[Note:] The bill related to classification and elements of felony offenses. AA-16 was identical to approximately two-thirds of AA-14.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(b) A general proposition amending a specific proposition.
(c) An amendment substantially similar to an amendment already acted upon.
Assembly Journal of September 28, 1999 .......... Page: 353
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 234 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The Chair (Representative Duff) took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of September 30, 1999 .......... Page: 368
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Krug on Tuesday, September 28, that Assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 234 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f).
Representative Freese moved that Assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 234 be laid on the table. Granted.
[Note:] The bill related to grants from the Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund to candidates for supreme court justice. The amendment changed the funding source for the grants.
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 September 29, 1999 .......... Page: 356
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 315 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Speaker pro tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of November 4, 1999 .......... Page: 518
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Krug on Wednesday, September 29, that Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 315 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] The bill prohibited the Department of Transportation from disclosing information that contains personal identifiers of 10 or more people. ASA-1, offered by the standing committee, related to disclosure of personal identifiers by the department.
Assembly Journal of October 6, 1999 .......... Page: 383
Point of order:
Representative Hubler rose to the point of order that the committee of conference report on Assembly Bill 133 is divisible under Assembly Rule 80.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Hubler that the committee of conference report on Assembly Bill 133 is divisible.
The complete text of the Chair follows:
"The Lady from the 75th had raised a Point Of Order that didn't basically agree with the Chair declaring her motion to divide the Conference Committee Report. She raised a Point Of Order that the Conference Committee Report could be divided, as I understood it, into Sections 1, 2, and 3. I believe her original motion was to divide it into Item 3.
The Chair has spent some time trying to work through this particular Point Of Order to make sure because I am sure that the Lady will ask that it become precedent in the rulings of the Chair. So the Chair has taken some time looking at Assembly Rules, Joint Rules, Senate Rules, Mason's Manual and Jefferson's Manual to try to resolve this issue. The Lady from the 75th and the Gentleman from the 44th make the Point Of Order that we can divide it into different components based on Assembly Rule 80(4).
Assembly Rule 80(4) lists what is not divisible and because the Report On Committees doesn't happen to show up there it is the belief, I believe, of the Lady from the 75th and the Gentleman from the 44th that because it is merely not stated there, that it is divisible. One has to, I believe, look at Assembly Rule 80(1), which is "any member may request a division of simple amendments and motions involving distinct and independent propositions or concurrent action if they are severable without being rewritten or restated and the question shall be divided if each separate proposition or action to be voted on is complete and proper, regardless of the action taken on the other portions of the original question."
So the Chair looked, taking the advice that the Lady from the 75th and the Gentleman from the 44th were telling the Chair that this is a Report on the Committee On Conference. It is not an amendment, they report, because it is not specifically talked about in Assembly Rule 80(4). Therefore, it is divisible. It is the Chair's opinion, that under Assembly Rule 80(1), which governs what is divisible, this simply is not an amendment. It is not a simple amendment. Actually, if we were even to take conference amendment l, which is an amendment to the Assembly Substitute Amendment, I think members can easily see that this is just not a simple amendment. It is rather complex. It's actually a little longer than Gone With the Wind, and has quite a bit more intrigue in it, I think.
So, it is clearly, to the Chair, not a division of a simple amendment because as the Lady from the 75th and Gentleman from the 44th pointed out in their Points Of Order, that it was a report that should be divided based on the fact that it didn't show up in 80(4).
Then the Chair went one step further just to have a little more comfort because if it were an amendment, could this amendment be divided and taken up in three different components? It is the Chair's belief that under Assembly Rule 80(1), that each question if they were divided, Question l., Question 2 and Question 3 and were separate propositions or actions to be voted on, would be complete and proper regardless of the action taken on the others. And it is this Chair's opinion that they would not be, as the Chair was asking during the point of order that was being raised if Section l were adopted and Section 2 and Section 3 were not, could the bill stand on its own? The Chair's belief is, no it could not. If Section 2 were adopted but not Sections 1 and 3 the same situation. Or, if only Section 3 were adopted without negating the actions taken by the Senate and Assembly, could it stand on its own? It is the Chair's belief that it could not.
But wanting to make sure because knowing the Lady from the 75th was going to be fairly persistent and the Gentleman from the 44th is a scholar of the rules, I wanted to make sure that I wasn't not reading this properly and when one looks at the Joint Rules, Joint Rule 3(3) "approval of the Conference Report by roll call vote in each house sufficient to constitute final passage of the proposal shall be final passage of the bill or Joint Resolution in the form and with the changes proposed by the report." And the Joint Rules really are silent on whether or not we can amend the Conference Report.
So the Chair looked at Senate Rules which are somewhat more obscure than ours and really not to the point, so the Chair looked at what other rules are available to us to determine and under Assembly Rule 91(1) "in the absence of pertinent Assembly or Joint Rules questions of parliamentary procedure shall be decided according to applicable rules of parliamentary practice and Jefferson's Manual which are not inconsistent with constitutional or statutory provisions relating to the functioning of the legislature."
So, upon reading about the statutory provisions, we did a search of the Wisconsin Statutes and Constitution to see if there is something that would apply there. Of course, that didn't help us. So the Chair then referred to Jefferson's Manual. And, if members want to take a look on page 47 in the section on Conferences on page 48 as well and the ending of this regarding conference committees "and each party reports in writing to its respective house the substance of what is said on both sides and entered into the Journal."
And that is the report we have before us. "This report can not be amended or altered as that of the committee may be." So, the backup for Assembly Rules and Joint Rules was Jefferson's Manual but also wanting to make sure that that is the established precedent, I looked to Mason's Manual which is the manual we often refer to as well and under Section 770 (2) it says "in voting in a conference committee, the committee of each house votes separately. The committee on conference from each house submits its report to the house from which it was appointed, "which we have. "The report upon being received may be treated like other reports except that the report of the conference committee is usually given higher precedence."
That's why we're here at l0:00 p.m. "Under no condition, including suspension of the rules may the house alter or amend the Report of the Committee, but must adopt or refuse to adopt the report in the form submitted."
So it is the opinion of the Chair that the Lady from the 75th's Point Of Order is not well taken based on those following reasons."
[Note:] Assembly Rule 80 (4) was later amended to provide: Bills, joint resolutions, resolutions, and substitute amendments, and amendments received from the senate for assembly concurrence, may not be divided. A bill vetoed in its entirety by the governor may not be divided. A report of a committee of conference may not be divided.
Assembly Journal of October 6, 1999 .......... Page: 384
Point of order:
Representative Cullen rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 79 was privileged.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled well taken that the point of order raised by Representative Cullen that Assembly Joint Resolution 79 was privileged.
[Note:] The joint resolution provided that the conference report on 1999 AB-133 is amendable but only as to the provision converting lottery appropriations to general program revenue funding.
This may have been a parliamentary inquiry, not a point of order. A parliamentary inquiry might have informed the members whether the joint resolution was privileged. A point of order is appropriate only to obtain a decision by the presiding officer concerning a question currently before the house. Had the joint resolution been ruled not privileged, the point of order could have been made.
Assembly Rule 43 (1) Any resolution or joint resolution relating to the officers, members, former members, procedures, or organization of the assembly or legislature is privileged in that it may be offered under any order of business by a member who has the floor and may be taken up immediately before all other proposals, unless referred by the presiding officer to a standing committee or to the calendar.
Assembly Journal of November 9, 1999 .......... Page: 534
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 580 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 35 (1).
Speaker pro tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of November 10, 1999 .......... Page: 547
Ruling on the point of order:
