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.
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-48. Motion carried.
[Note:] The substitute amendment amended the campaign finance law. The amendment permitted only candidates and personal campaign committees to make campaign expenditures.
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 Duff rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 3 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 3 to Assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 37 was not germane.
Representative Boyle 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-50, Noes-48. Motion carried.
[Note:] The substitute amendment amended the campaign finance law. The amendment placed limits expenditures from campaigns receipts of campaigns for the office of representative to the assembly and covered representatives under the state campaign fund during primary elections.
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 Kunicki rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 4 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 taken under advisement.
Assembly Journal of February 16, 1995 .......... Page: 100
Ruling on the point of order:
The chair (Speaker Pro Tempore Freese) ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Kunicki that Assembly amendment 4 to Assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 37 was not germane.
[Note:] The substitute amendment amended the campaign finance law. The amendment increased campaign expenditure limits and provided for their adjustment for inflation in the future.
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 17, 1995 .......... Page: 105
Point of order:
Representative Kunicki rose to the point of order that the Assembly was not properly in session under Assembly Rule 29 (3). The Assembly Calendar of Friday, February 17 was distributed at 8:50 P.M. on Thursday, February 16, therefore violating the rule that requires the calendar to be distributed at least eighteen hours before the Assembly can proceed to the calendar.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 29 (3) A calendar, except a calendar for a Saturday, Sunday, or state holiday specified in section 230.35 (4) (a) of the statutes, shall be provided to each member at least 12 hours before the calendar is to be acted upon during the last week of the last general-business floorperiod preceding the veto review session and 18 hours before the calendar is to be acted upon at other times.
Assembly Journal of March 7, 1995 .......... Page: 136
Point of order:
Representative Goetsch rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 159 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 7, 1995 .......... Page: 137
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Goetsch that Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 159 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f).
Assembly Journal of March 9, 1995 .......... Page: 143
Ruling on the point of order:
On Tuesday, March 7, 1995, Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised on March 7, 1995 by Representative Goetsch that Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 159 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f):
"The chair is prepared to rule on Assembly amendment 2. A point of order was raised by the gentleman from the 39th that Assembly amendment 2 expanded the scope of the bill under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f), and looking through the amendment as well as the original bill, the gentleman from the 39th's remarks are accurate. Also, it expands the relating clause and so, therefore, I find that the point of order is well taken."
[Note:] The bill related to committing a violent crime at or near a school. The amendment permitted the disclosure of law enforcement agency records relating to a pupil to a school administrator.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane.
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of March 7, 1995 .......... Page: 137
Point of order:
Representative Harsdorf rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 5 to Assembly Bill 159 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 7, 1995 .......... Page: 138
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Harsdorf that Assembly amendment 5 to Assembly Bill 159 was not germane under Assembly Rules 54(3)(f).
