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:
Senator Shibilski raised the point of order that the motion to refer the report to the Committee of Conference is in order.
Ruling on the point of order:
Chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Shibilski appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question was: Shall the Decision of the chair stand as the judgement of the Senate?
The roll was taken. The vote was: Ayes-18, Noes-15. Decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the senate.
[Note:] Senate Rule 41 (2) was later amended to provide: Reference to committee is not in order after a proposal is passed or indefinitely postponed or finally disposed of by any action equivalent thereto. Questions of reconsideration, concurrence in amendments of the assembly, conference committee reports, or executive vetoes may be placed on the table, but may not be referred to committee.
There is also an assembly rule on this point: "Assembly Rule 45 (6) Except as incidental to calendar scheduling by the committee on rules, the report of a committee of conference may not be referred to committee." The senate does not have such a rule but the joint rules provide a reason why a conference committee report should not be referred to committee: "Joint Rule 3 (3) A report of a committee of conference may not be amended and may not be divided."
1 9 9 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of November 19, 1997 .......... Page: 427
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 463 was not properly before the Assembly because the bill is required to be referred to the joint committee on Finance before the Assembly can consider action on it under s. 13.093 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled the point of order not well taken because the rules and constitution do not specify that a proposal that requires action by the joint committee on Finance must go to that committee before action in either house. It just states that it must be referred to that committee before it is signed by the Governor. Therefore, if the bill does not get referred to the joint committee on Finance when it is in the Assembly, it still has ample time to get referred there after it is messaged to the Senate.
[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.
1 9 9 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of January 28, 1997 .......... Page: 49
Point of order:
Senator Welch raised the point of order that Senate Bill 2 requires an emergency statement and must be referred to the joint committee on Finance.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point well taken.
[Note:] Section 16.47, stats., provides: "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.".
Senate Journal of May 7, 1998 .......... Page: 681
Point of order:
Senator Wineke raised the point of order Assembly Bill 768 must be referred to the Joint Survey committee on Tax Exemptions.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point not well taken.
[Note:] Sec. 13.52 (6), stats., requires the referral to the joint survey committee on tax exemptions, at the time of introduction, of any "proposal which affects any existing statute or creates any new statute relating to the exemption of any property or person from any state or local taxes or special assessments."
Under s. 13.52 (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 on tax exemptions 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."
Report of standing committee, questions concerning
2 0 0 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 6, 2003 .......... Page: 196
Point of order:
