Representative Notestein rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 942 was not properly before the Assembly because pursuant to s. 13.093(2)(a) of the Wisconsin Statutes and Joint Rule 41(1)(a), a fiscal estimate is required before action by the Assembly can be taken.
Speaker Jensen took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1998 .......... Page: 754
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Notestein on Tuesday, March 24 that Assembly Bill 942 was not properly before the Assembly pursuant to s. 13.093 of the Wisconsin Statutes and Joint Rule 41(1)(a) at that time. However, since a Fiscal Estimate had been received since that time, Assembly Bill 942 was now properly before the Assembly.
[Note:] 13.093 (1) All bills introduced in either house of the legislature for the appropriation of money, providing for revenue or relating to taxation shall be referred to the joint committee on finance before being passed.
Joint Rule 41 (1) (a) All bills making an appropriation and any bill increasing or decreasing existing appropriations or state or general local government fiscal liability or revenues shall carry a fiscal estimate.
Assembly Journal of April 28, 1998 .......... Page: 815
Point of order:
Representative Huebsch rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 736 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) and Assembly 54 (5).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Huebsch that Assembly amendment 1 to Senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 736 was not germane.
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-52, Noes-46. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill made various changes to hunting and fishing regulation. Senate amendment 1 related to licenses for those eligible for social security benefits. The assembly amendment permitted applicants to refuse to provide social security numbers for religious reasons.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
(5) An amendment to an amendment must be germane to both the amendment and the original proposal.
Assembly Journal of May 5, 1998 .......... Page: 847
Point of order:
Representative R. Young rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 5 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(5).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of May 5, 1998 .......... Page: 848
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative R. Young that Assembly amendment 5 to Senate substitute amendment 1to Assembly Bill 351 was not germane.
Representative Walker moved that Assembly amendment 5 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351 be laid on the table.
[Note:] The bill related to felony sentences, parole, and community supervision. The substitute amendment also created a criminal penalties study committee. The amendment prohibited requests for funding under the bill for programs that promote, encourage, or counsels in favor of birth control, abortion, or sterilization.
Assembly Rule 54 (5) An amendment to an amendment must be germane to both the amendment and the original proposal.
Assembly Journal of May 5, 1998 .......... Page: 847
Point of order:
Representative Walker rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 2 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of May 5, 1998 .......... Page: 848
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Walker that Assembly amendment 2 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351 was not germane.
[Note:] The bill related to felony sentences, parole, and community supervision. The substitute amendment also created a criminal penalties study committee. The amendment prohibited prisoners from performing data entry services.
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 May 5, 1998 .......... Page: 847
Point of order:
Representative Walker rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 3 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of May 5, 1998 .......... Page: 848
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Walker that Assembly amendment 3 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351 was not germane.
[Note:] The bill related to felony sentences, parole, and community supervision. The substitute amendment also created a criminal penalties study committee. The amendment prohibited prisoners from telephone solicitation work.
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 May 6, 1998 .......... Page: 873
Point of order:
Representative Klusman rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 25 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 768 was not properly before the Assembly under s. 13.50(6) of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of May 6, 1998 .......... Page: 877
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Klusman that Assembly amendment 25 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 768 was not properly before the Assembly under s. 13.50(6) of the Wisconsin Statutes:
"I have reviewed Section 13.50(6)(b) which reads "No bill or amendment thereto creating or modifying any system for the retirement of public employes shall be considered by either house until the written report required by par. (a) has been submitted to the chief clerk. Each such bill shall then be referred to a standing committee in the house in which introduced. The report of the joint survey committee shall be printed as an appendix to the bill and attached thereto as are amendments."
In addition, I have reviewed the decision in State ex rel. Lafollette v. Stitt, 114 W (2d) 358, 338 NW (2d) 684 (1983), the previous rulings of the chair, 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. It appears to me, as it did in my previous ruling on Assembly bill 421 in January of this year, that the legislative intent behind the statues was to create a process that had to be followed and was not to be circumvented.
This ruling presents this institution with the same dilemma as the ruling on Assembly Bill 421. If these statues are merely rules that we can easily disregard, then long standing traditions and requirements that this institution has followed will no longer exist.
I believe, as I did earlier this year, that the previous legislatures first created statutes then 14 years later created the same as a rule because they wanted a process that would not allow for certain procedures to be bypassed. The Stitt decision 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 2/3 vote or by unanimous consent. It continues to be this chair's ruling that we do not have the authority to suspend the statutes when points of order are made. I believe the precedent that has been established by Speakers Jackamonis and Loftus, the current Chair and President Risser which occurred before and after the Stitt decision still stands.
I find the point of order well taken. We can circumvent our own rules but we cannot ignore the statutes. This decision was based on 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-52, Noes-45. 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.
1 9 9 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 11, 1997 .......... Page: 196
Point of order:
Senator Decker raised the point of order that Senate amendment 4 to Senate Bill 182 is not germane.
The Chair took the point under advisement.
Senate Journal of June 11, 1997 .......... Page: 197
Senator Decker with unanimous consent, asked to withdraw his point of order.
Senator Decker moved rejection of Senate amendment 4 to Senate Bill 182.
[Note:] The bill required instruction in public schools of the history of organized labor. The amendment added the history of farming and agricultural labor.
Once an amendment or proposal is offered or introduced in the senate, it belongs to the senate. Therefore, it can be returned to the author only by permission of the senate.
Senate Rule 99 (69) Request: A proposed action that does not require a vote because: a) unanimous consent has been asked for; or 1g) the presiding officer has the authority to take or order the requested action.
Senate Rule 99 (92) Unanimous consent: A request for a specific purpose; if an objection is not heard, it is assumed that the request has the consent of the entire body.
SENATE RULE 50. Amendments must be germane, general statement. (1) No standing committee shall report any substitute or amendment for any proposal originating in either house referred to such committee nor shall the senate consider any substitute or amendment which 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 March 19, 1998 .......... Page: 533
Point of order:
Senator Chvala raised the point of order that Senate amendment 1 to Senate Bill 389 is not germane.
The Chair took the point under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 19, 1998 .......... Page: 534
Senator Roessler, with unanimous consent, asked that Senate amendment 1 to Senate Bill 389 be withdrawn and returned to author.
[Note:] The bill provided exceptions for dental plans from certain mandated coverages. The amendment added provisions regarding policy coverages for only specified diseases and maximums for required coverages.
SENATE RULE 50. Amendments must be germane, general statement. (1) No standing committee shall report any substitute or amendment for any proposal originating in either house referred to such committee nor shall the senate consider any substitute or amendment which 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.
1 9 9 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of January 31, 1995 .......... Page: 68
Point of order:
Representative Albers rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 16 to Assembly Bill 36 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f).
The chair (Speaker Pro Tempore Freese) took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of January 31, 1995 .......... Page: 69
Ruling on the point of order:
The chair (Speaker Pro Tempore Freese) ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Albers that Assembly amendment 16 to Assembly Bill 36 was not germane.
[Note:] The bill limited medical malpractice noneconomic damage awards. The amendment eliminated the patient compensation fund peer review committee.
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 February 16, 1995 .......... Page: 99
Point of order:
Representative Walker rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 37 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f).
The chair (Speaker Pro Tempore Freese) took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling on the point of order:
The chair (Speaker Pro Tempore Freese) ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Walker that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 37 was not germane.
Representative Hubler appealed the ruling of the chair.
