Wisconsin Legislature: 1995 to 2004

Representative Travis withdrew his point of order.

Representative Travis asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 768 be referred to the joint survey committee on Retirement Systems. Granted.

Representative Travis asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 768 be withdrawn from the joint survey committee on Retirement Systems and taken up at this time. Granted.

[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.

Retirement systems: report by joint survey committee on

2 0 0 3 A S S E M B L Y

Assembly Journal of January 30, 2003 .......... Page: 40

Parliamentary inquiry:

Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled on a parliamentary inquiry made by Representative Miller on Tuesday, January 28.

Answer to parliamentary inquiry:

Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled as follows: "On Tuesday of this week Representative Miller regarding the rules and statutes that govern this Assembly made a parliamentary inquiry. I have given this much thought since I have ruled on this issue before. I think it is important to recognize that under Article IV, section 8, of the Wisconsin Constitution, the assembly is the sole and absolute decision maker on Assembly proceedings that are not set out in the Wisconsin or federal constitution. It is within the Assembly's power under Article IV, section 8, of the constitution, to permit or refuse to permit the suspension or modification of a rule of proceedings set forth in the statutes just as it can of a rule of proceedings set forth in the rules pamphlet.

In Mason's manual section 2 refers to the right to regulate procedure. The Constitutional right of a state legislature to control its own procedure cannot be withdrawn or restricted by statute, but statutes may control procedure insofar as they do not conflict with the rules of the houses or with the rules contained in the constitution. Section 3 states that the State Constitution is a limitation rather than a grant of legislative power. If not expressly or implicitly withheld, the whole legislative power of the state is committed to the legislature.

It appears that the updating of legislative proceedings in the statutes have not kept up to the updating of legislative proceedings in the rules pamphlets. The statutes appear to reflect an earlier view of the powers that are to be exercised by the assembly officers.

On January 15, 1998 I had to rule on a point of order whether the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 421 from the joint survey committee on Retirement Systems was not in order. Section 13.50 (6) was created in 1963 as Chapter 153, laws of 1963 as 13.44 (9) with the 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). I ruled that when the Statute and the rule are the same that we could suspend the rule but not the statute. If the rule and constitution were the same but the statute was different, the constitution and rule would be the precedent. If the rule and the statute were not the same, it would require a point of order to clarify which one has precedent at the time on an individual basis."

[Note:] Article IV, 7 Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance. Section 7. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.

1 9 9 9 A S S E M B L Y

Assembly Journal of June 29, 1999 .......... Page: 250

Point of order:

Representative Foti rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 133 was not properly before the Assembly because there was no report on the amendment from the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems under 13.50(6)(b), Wisconsin Statutes.

Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.

Assembly Journal of June 29, 1999 .......... Page: 269

Point of order:

Representative Travis rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 133 was not properly before the Assembly under s. 13.50 of the Wisconsin Statutes.

The Assembly stood informal.

Representative Travis asked unanimous consent that his point of order be withdrawn.

Representative Ward objected.

Representative Travis asked unanimous consent that his point of order be withdrawn. Granted.

Assembly Journal of October 6, 1999 .......... Page: 381

Point of order:

Representative Duff rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 5 to Assembly Bill 495 was not properly before the Assembly because it required a report from the joint survey committee on Retirement Systems.

Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken.

[Note:] The bill related to Wisconsin Retirement System benefit improvements. The amendment lowered the amount of the benefit improvements contained in the bill.

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 A S S E M B L Y

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.

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.

Rules: adoption or amendment of

2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y

Assembly Journal of January 30, 2001 .......... Page: 37

Point of order:

Representative Carpenter rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 16 was not properly before the Assembly because the Assembly Rules had not been adopted.

Ruling on the point of order:

The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled the point of order not well taken.

[Note:] Assembly Rule 92. Continuity of assembly rules. The rules of the assembly remain in effect until amended or rescinded by the assembly. At the beginning of a new biennial session, the rules of the assembly in effect at the conclusion of the preceding regular session remain in force until superseded by assembly rules adopted in the new session of the legislature.

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.

Assembly Journal of October 6, 1999 .......... Page: 385

Point of order: