Privileged resolution
2 0 0 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 20, 2003 .......... Page: 75
Assembly Journal of February 20, 2003 .......... Page: 75
Point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese stated that the question before the Assembly was passage of Assembly Bill 3.
Representative Black rose to the point of order that the pending question before the Assembly was not passage of Assembly Bill 3 because there was a pending privileged resolution which takes precedence.
Representative Gard requested a call of the Assembly. There were sufficient seconds.
Representative Gard asked unanimous consent that the call of the Assembly be lifted. Granted.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese stated that the question before the Assembly was passage of Assembly Bill 3.
Representative Black rose to the point of order that the pending question before the Assembly was not passage of Assembly Bill 3 under Assembly Rule 65 (1)(i) because there was a pending privileged resolution which takes precedence.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order out of order because he already ruled that the resolution was not privileged.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 65 (1) When a main question is under debate the following privileged motions and requests are in order if appropriate under the rules governing motions, requests, and proposals:
Assembly Rule 65 (1) (i) To offer and ask consideration of a privileged resolution [rules 33 and 43].
1 9 9 9 A S S E M B L Y
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.
1 9 9 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 16, 1995 .......... Page: 315
Point of order:
Representative Kunicki rose to the point of order that the motion to table Assembly Resolution 25 was not in order under Assembly Rule 33 (3).
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 33 (3) Any resolution offered by the committee on rules to make a proposal a special order is privileged and may be received under any order of business. Such a resolution shall be taken up and acted upon immediately, ahead of all other proposals. The question before the assembly is adoption of the resolution. The only motion in order with regard to any such resolution is the motion to reject. Debate on the questions of adoption and rejection is limited to 5 minutes each.
Proceedings of other house given full faith and credit in this house
1 9 9 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of November 14, 1995 .......... Page: 655
Point of order:
Representative Travis rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 69 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rules 32(1)(a), 35(1), 42(1)(a) & (3), and 52(2)(b).
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken. Under Assembly Rule 95(60) Senate amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 69 is not considered a proposal, making the point of order raised under Assembly Rule 32(1)(2) not well taken. The Senate adopted Senate amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 69 last week, making the point of order raised under Assembly Rule 35(1) not well taken. Senate amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 69 does not require a second reading reading, making the point of order raised under Assembly Rule 42(1)(a) not well taken. Senate amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 69 is only considered a proposal for the purpose of amending, making the point of order raised under Assembly Rule 52(2)(b) not well taken.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 32 (1) (a) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, messages from the senate or from the governor may be received and read, and any proposal referenced in the messages that is a senate proposal initially received for consideration of the assembly shall be referred and any other proposals referenced in the messages shall be taken up immediately unless referred by the presiding officer to a standing committee or to the calendar. Any messages from the senate referring to a senate joint resolution memorializing Congress or any branch or officer of the federal government that is received for consideration of the assembly may be read but the senate joint resolution may not be received for consideration. The senate joint resolution shall be transmitted to the senate immediately after the message is read;
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 Rule 42 (1) (a) Any proposal that requires 2 or more readings shall be referred by the presiding officer or speaker to committee, or to the calendar for the 2nd legislative day following the referral, or to the committee on rules.
Assembly Rule 42 (3) (a) Beginning on inauguration day and on any day of the regular biennial session period, proposals may be introduced or offered and referred by the speaker or presiding officer if the action is not in conflict with any limitations imposed by the session schedule or otherwise agreed to by both houses.
Assembly Rule 52 (2) (b) Solely for the purpose of amending, senate amendments presented to the assembly for concurrence are treated like proposals; therefore, an amendment to a simple amendment to a senate amendment is in order.
Assembly Rule 95 (60) Proposal: A resolution, joint resolution, or bill put before the assembly for consideration.
Reconsideration motion
2 0 0 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 2, 2004 .......... Page: 772
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that the motion to reconsider the vote by which Assembly amendment 7 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 792 was adopted was not timely under Assembly Rule 73.
Representative Montgomery withdrew his motion to reconsider the vote by which Assembly amendment 7 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 792 was adopted.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 73 (2) (a) A motion to reconsider any decision, other than passage of or concurrence in a proposal, may only be entered after the question to which the motion relates has been decided and must be entered either: 1) before the relating clause of the next proposal is read by the clerk, the next order of business is announced by the presiding officer, or other business is begun; or 2) on the 7th order of business on the 2nd legislative day thereafter.
(b) For any decision other than passage, adoption, concurrence, indefinite postponement, rejection, or nonconcurrence, the motion for reconsideration shall be considered when the proposal is next regularly scheduled for consideration.
(4) (a) A motion to reconsider the decision on an amendment shall be placed on the same calendar as the motion to reconsider the final 2nd reading stage decision on the proposal to which the amendment relates, regardless of when made. The failure of any calendar that has been provided to members to show a motion to reconsider a decision on an amendment does not prevent the consideration of the motion under the proper order of business on that calendar day.
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 25, 2001 .......... Page: 473
Point of order:
Representative Carpenter rose to the point of order that a motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 576 was engrossed was in order under Assembly Rule 73.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] No ruling. 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 November 1, 2001 .......... Page: 501
Point of order:
Representative Ziegelbauer rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 19 to Assembly Bill 579 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 73 (9).
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken because, after the motion for reconsideration of engrossment prevailed, there were no restrictions on the introduction of amendments.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 73 (9) only applies to the time the motion is pending, not after the motion prevails.
Assembly Rule 73 (9) When a motion to reconsider has been entered to return a proposal to the amendable stage, while the motion is pending, any member may offer new amendments to that proposal before the vote on the motion to reconsider. Any such new amendments shall be provided to the members.
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.
Referral motion (to committee)
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 1, 2001 .......... Page: 58
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 3 was not properly before the Assembly because it must be referred to the joint committee on Finance before being passed by the Assembly.
The Chair (Representative Albers) took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of February 1, 2001 .......... Page: 59
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Black that Assembly Bill 3 was not properly before the Assembly because it must be referred to the joint committee on Finance before being passed by the Assembly. Speaker Pro Tempore Freese reaffirmed previous rulings and cited a ruling from the Assembly Journal of October 15, 1987 (page 424).
[Note:] The Assembly Journal of October 15, 1987, states: Sec. 13.093 (1), stats., reads: "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." The word "passed" probably means final passage by both houses.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 483
Point of order:
Representative Carpenter rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 576 was not properly before the Assembly because it was required to be referred to the joint committee on Finance under section 13.093, Wisconsin Statutes.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] Section 13.093 (1), stats., has been interpreted by presiding officers as not requiring referral in the first house because the statute uses "before being passed".
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.
2 0 0 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of July 3, 2002 .......... Page: 767
Point of order:
Report of committee of conference on 2002 January Special Session Assembly Bill 1.
Motion to refer report to the Committee of Conference offered Senator Shibilski.
Ruling on the point of order:
Chair ruled the motion not in order.
Point of order:
