Assembly Journal of March 30, 2000 .......... Page: 898
Representative Jensen asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 860 be taken up at this time. Granted.
Assembly Bill 860
Relating to: references to the Internal Revenue Code for income tax and franchise tax purposes, withholding income taxes from the amount paid to purchase the assignment of a lottery prize and requiring the lottery administrator to report to the department of revenue the federal income tax number of an assignee.
Representative Hahn asked unanimous consent that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 860 be withdrawn and returned to the author. Granted.
[Note:] The bill updated reference in the statutes to the Internal Revenue Code. The amendment added individual income tax modifications for medical insurance premiums.
Assembly Journal of March 29, 2000 .......... Page: 880
Point of order:
Representative Meyer rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 942 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 35.
The Chair (Representative Duff) took the point of order under advisement.
Representative Meyer withdrew his point of order that Assembly Bill 942 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 35.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 35 (1) A proposal, conference committee report, or veto, except a resolution under rule 33 or 43, may not be considered until it has been made available to the members for at least 24 hours excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. If the rules are suspended for the consideration of any proposal before it is available, the proposal shall be read at length at least once before its final passage or final adoption and concurrence.
Assembly Journal of May 2, 2000 .......... Page: 938
Point of order:
Representative Jensen rose to the point of order that the motion to take up Senate Bill 320 was not properly before the Assembly because the bill had died pursuant to Joint Rule 83 and Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 30, 2000, when the last general business floorperiod ended.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] There was no ruling on the point of order.
Joint Rule 83 (4) At the conclusion of the last general-business floorperiod scheduled by the session schedule for the spring of the even-numbered year, any bill or joint resolution not yet agreed to by both houses, and any resolution not yet passed by the house of origin, is adversely disposed of for the biennial session and recorded as "failed to pass," "failed to adopt," or "failed to concur."
1999 Senate Joint Resolution 1 Section 1 (2) (p) Last general-business floorperiod. The last general-business floorperiod commences on Tuesday, March 7, 2000, at 10 a.m., and, unless adjourned earlier, ends on Thursday, March 30, 2000.
Assembly Journal of May 2, 2000 .......... Page: 938
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that the motion to take up Assembly Bill 781 was not properly before the Assembly because the bill had died pursuant to Joint Rule 83 and Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 30, 2000, when the last general business floorperiod ended.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] There was no ruling on the point of order.
Joint Rule 83 (4) At the conclusion of the last general-business floorperiod scheduled by the session schedule for the spring of the even-numbered year, any bill or joint resolution not yet agreed to by both houses, and any resolution not yet passed by the house of origin, is adversely disposed of for the biennial session and recorded as "failed to pass," "failed to adopt," or "failed to concur."
1999 Senate Joint Resolution 1 Section 1 (2) (p) Last general-business floorperiod. The last general-business floorperiod commences on Tuesday, March 7, 2000, at 10 a.m., and, unless adjourned earlier, ends on Thursday, March 30, 2000.
1 9 9 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of November 9, 1999 .......... Page: 334
Point of order:
Senator Chvala raised the point of order that Senate amendment 5 to Senate Bill 277 is not germane.
The Chair took the point of order on Senate amendment 5 to Senate Bill 277 under advisement.
Senate Journal of November 11, 1999 .......... Page: 344
Ruling of the Chair:
The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the Senator Chvala on Tuesday, November 9, that Senate amendment 5 to Senate Bill 277 is not germane. It is the opinion of the Chair that Senate amendment 5 incorporates the language of Senate Bill 178 and clearly expands the purpose of the bill. Therefore, pursuant to Senate Rule 50 the Chair rules that Senate amendment 5 is not germane and the point of order is well taken.
[Note:] The bill related to: the lease and acquisition of privately built correctional facilities; fiscal estimates for bills containing criminal penalty provisions; the provision of medical services to prisoners; correctional institution placements of prisoners by the department of corrections; the effective date of various changes to felony penalties and to the structure of sentences of imprisonment in felony cases; and providing penalties.
The amendment added: contract authority of the department of corrections; prisoner access to personal information of persons who are not prisoners; requiring prisoners conducting telephone solicitations or answering toll-free telephone numbers to identify themselves as prisoners.
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.
(6) An amendment otherwise germane which adds or repeals material previously adopted or rejected by the senate in another bill is germane. An identical amendment or an amendment identical in effect to one previously rejected as another amendment to the same bill or identical to a proposal currently before the senate is not germane, but such amendments are germane if not identical with prior rejected amendments to the same bill or proposals currently before the senate.
(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.
The germaness rule regarding incorporating another senate proposal was restated in 2003 to read: "Senate Rule 50 (6) (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 January 25, 2000 .......... Page: 393
Point of order:
Senator Chvala raised the point of order that a motion to suspend the rules, withdraw from committee on Agriculture, Environmental Resources and Campaign Finance Reform is an inappropriate motion at this time.
The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of February 1, 2000 .......... Page: 413
Ruling of the Chair:
On Tuesday, January 25, 2000, the Senator from the 14th, Senator Welch, moved that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 273 be withdrawn from the Committee on Agriculture, Environmental Resources and Campaign Finance Reform and taken up at this time.
The Senator from the 16th raised a point of order that the motion was out of order at this time.
The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Mason's Manual, Section 282(2) speaks to this circumstance. It reads in part:
"A motion to suspend the rule may be made either under the order of business of motions and resolutions or under the order of business which relates to the matter proposed to be considered under suspension of the rules".
The Senate has established a clear precedent over the past 20 years or more that motions to withdraw a proposal from committee are to be made under the 14th Order of Business, Motions may be offered. One of the most recent written rulings on this was in the 1982 session, when the Senator from the 14th, at that time, Senator Lorge, moved that Senate Bill 493 be withdrawn from committee and taken up immediately. A point of order was raised that the motion was not properly before the Senate. The Chair ruled the point well taken, based on previous rulings the precedent of the Senate was well established that motions to withdraw bills is restricted to the 14th order of business.
It is clear to the Chair, that although the general belief is that a motion to suspend the rules may be made at anytime, that is true only under the order of business which relates to the matter proposed to be considered. Mason's Manual, section 282(1) also states that a motion to suspend the rules may be made at anytime when no question is pending. The motion by the Senator from the 14th, was made while a question relating to Assembly Joint Resolution 48 was pending. Also, the motion related to a Senate Bill. Senate bills are considered under the 11th Order of Business, the Senate was on the 12th Order of Business when the motion was entered.
The precedent of the Senate is very clear, motions related to the withdrawal of proposals from committee are to be made on the 14th Order of Business. The motion offered by the Senator from the 14th was not in compliance with Section 282 of Mason's Manual, now therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order raised by the Senator from the 16th, Senator Chvala, is well taken.
[Note:] The motion to withdraw is not listed as one of the permissible motions when a question is under debate:
Senate Rule 63. Motions in order during debate.
(1) When a question is under debate, a motion may not be received except:
Senate Rule 17 (1) (n) Fourteenth order. Motions may be offered.
1 9 9 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 15, 1997 .......... Page: 157
Point of order:
Representative Freese rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 8 to Assembly Bill 287 was not germane under Assembly Rules 54 (1) and (3)(f).
The Chair (Representative Duff) took the point of order under advisement.
Representative Freese withdrew his point of order that Assembly amendment 8 to Assembly Bill 287 was not germane.
Representative Freese moved that Assembly amendment 8 to Assembly Bill 287 be laid on the table.
[Note:] The bill stated that to increase the rate of the state sales tax that each house of the legislature needed a two-thirds vote. The amendment exempted corporate franchise tax increases for corporations with total gross receipts of $1,000,000,000 from the two-thirds vote.
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 November 18, 1997 .......... Page: 411
Point of order:
Representative Foti rose to the point of order that the motion to suspend Assembly Rules 15(1)(a) and 15(5) and withdraw Assembly Bill 421 from the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems and taken up at this time was out of order under s. 13.50 (6) of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of January 15, 1998 .......... Page: 493
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Foti on Tuesday, November 18, 1997, that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 421 from the joint survey committee on Retirement Systems was not in order.
On November 18, 1997, the Gentleman from the 72nd had moved to suspend rule 15 (1) (a) & (5), so Assembly Bill 421 could be withdrawn from the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement and taken up. The Gentleman from the 38th raised a point of order that this motion was not in order per Wisconsin Statutes Section 13.50 (6).
The Gentleman from the 72nd then rose on the point of order and cited from the previous rulings of the chair three cases where precedent had been established.
On October 28, 1983, Speaker Loftus ruled a motion out of order under section 13.50 (6) of the Wisconsin Statutes. (Note: Under s. 13.50 (6), stats., when a proposal must be referred to the Joint Survey Committee and has been so referred, "such proposal shall not be considered further by either house until the Joint Survey Committee 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".) On October 6, 1981, Speaker Jackamonis ruled a similar motion out of order citing section 13.50 of the Wisconsin Statutes. On February 2, 1982, President Risser ruled on a point of order citing the same statutes.
Representative Schneider believed all three of these rulings came before the decision in State ex rel. Lafollette v. Stitt, 114 W (2d) 358, 338 NW (2d) 684 (1983). That case stands for the proposition that the court will invalidate legislation only for constitutional violations, not for violations of legislative rules in the statutes or elsewhere. Representative Schneider went on to propose that section 13.50 (6) is nothing more than a legislative rule like 15 (1) (a) & (5) or Joint rule 96 and they can all be suspended. Representative Schneider presented to the chair a memorandum from Peter Dykman, Acting Chief of the Legislative Reference Bureau in support of his contention that this particular statute was merely a rule and it could be suspended.
As presiding officer I took the point of order under advisement. Since then I have read the Stitt opinion, the previous rulings of the chair, as well as Masons manual, and assembly rule books dating as far back as 1943. I also looked at the relevant Wisconsin Statutes, when they were created and their correlation to the rules of the Legislature. Section 13.50 (6) was created in 1963 as Chapter 153, laws of 1963 as 13.44 (9) with exact wording as it appears today. In 1977, through Assembly Resolution 6, assembly rule 26 was first created which is our current rule 15 (1). It appears to me that the legislative intent behind the statutes was to create a process that had to be followed and was not to be circumvented.
I then looked at the sequencing of the previous rulings along with the Supreme Court decision. The Jackamonis and Risser decision were handed down prior to the Supreme Court Decision and the Loftus decision came after the Supreme Court decision.
This ruling presents this institution with a dilemma. If these statutes are merely rules that we can easily disregard, then long standing traditions and requirements that this institution has followed will cease to exist. For example, we would no longer need to have appropriation bills referred to the Joint Committee on Finance, in fact we would no longer even be required to have a Joint Committee on Finance. Legislation submitting referenda to the voters would no longer need to contain the precise wording of the question which is submitted to the voters. The required General Fund Balance in the statutes could simply be ignored. Legislation that spends money could be passed at any time, even before the budget passes.
A question remains as to why previous legislatures first created statutes then 14 years later created the same as a rule. I believe they wanted a process that would not allow for certain procedures to be bypassed. The Stitt decision I believe merely supports the notion that it is for the Legislature to decide and enforce its own rules. We clearly have the authority to suspend our own rules with a 2/3rds vote or by unanimous consent. It is this chairs ruling that we do not have the authority to suspend statutes when points of order are made. I believe the precedent that has been established by Speakers Jackamonis and Loftus and President Risser which occurred before and after the Stitt decision still stands.
As a cosponsor of the bill, it would be very desirable for me to simply disregard these previous rulings and help the bill become law. However, I believe strongly in the institution and its precedents, and therefore I must find the point of order well taken. It is clear to me that we can ignore our own rules but we cannot suspend statutes. This decision was based on these three previous rulings and the precedent that was established by placing both legislative statutes and rules as an order of process for legislation to pass.
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-51, Noes-46. Motion carried.
[Note:] 13.50(6)(b) No bill or amendment thereto creating or modifying any system for the retirement of public employees shall be considered by either house until the written report required by par. (a) and the actuarial opinion ordered under par. (am), if any, have been submitted to the chief clerk. Each such bill or amendment shall then be referred to a standing committee of the house in which introduced. The report of the joint survey committee and actuarial opinion, if any, shall be printed as an appendix to the bill and attached thereto as are amendments.
Assembly Journal of November 19, 1997 .......... Page: 427
Point of order:
Representative Notestein rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 6 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 463 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
Speaker pro tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of November 19, 1997 .......... Page: 430
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Notestein that Assembly amendment 6 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 463 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f).
[Note:] The bill established juvenile court jurisdiction over pregnant women who abuse alcohol or controlled substances to a severe degree. The amendment defined unborn child as from time of fertilization to time of birth.
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 November 19, 1997 .......... Page: 428
Point of order:
Representative Ladwig rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 14 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 463 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
Speaker pro tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of November 19, 1997 .......... Page: 430
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Ladwig that Assembly amendment 14 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 463 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f).
