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18, 1997, the Gentleman from the 72nd had moved to suspend rule 15 (1) (a) & (5), so Assembly Bill 421 could be withdrawn from the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement and taken up.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.
[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.
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.
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:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 79 was not properly before the Assembly because a committee of conference report can not be amended.
The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Cullen 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-54, Noes-45. Motion carried.
[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 appropriations.
Assembly Rule 52 (4) was later created to provide: An amendment to a report of a committee of conference may not be offered.
Special order: scheduling proposal as
2 0 0 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 4, 2004 .......... Page: 790
Point of order:
Representative Richards rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 8 was not properly before the Assembly at this time pursuant to Assembly Rule 32 (3)(a), because Assembly Joint Resolution 66 was a special order of business at 9:00 A.M. and special orders of business shall be considered in chronological order.
[Note:] No ruling.
Assembly Rule 29 (1) (d) Following the regular orders of business, each calendar shall list all special orders of business that, at the time the calendar is compiled, have been scheduled by the assembly.
Assembly Rule 32 (3) Whenever any proposal has been made a special order of business, the assembly shall proceed to the special order at the designated time.
(a) Special orders have precedence over the regular orders of business and shall be considered in chronological order.
(b) The priority and sequence of special orders are not lost either by adjournment or by recess.
(c)Whenever one special order is under consideration, the arrival of the scheduled time for another special order does not interrupt the discussion of the special order under consideration.
Assembly Journal of March 4, 2004 .......... Page: 791
Point of order:
Representative Hubler rose to the point of order that the motion to suspend the rules and take up Senate Bill 272 required a two-thirds vote. Although the bill was made a special order of business under Assembly Rule 33, other bills were pending as special orders for an earlier time.
[Note:] No ruling.
Assembly Rule 29 (1) (d) Following the regular orders of business, each calendar shall list all special orders of business that, at the time the calendar is compiled, have been scheduled by the assembly.
Assembly Rule 32 (3) Whenever any proposal has been made a special order of business, the assembly shall proceed to the special order at the designated time.
(a) Special orders have precedence over the regular orders of business and shall be considered in chronological order.
(b) The priority and sequence of special orders are not lost either by adjournment or by recess.
(c)Whenever one special order is under consideration, the arrival of the scheduled time for another special order does not interrupt the discussion of the special order under consideration.
2 0 0 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of November 11, 2003 .......... Page: 477
Point of order:
Senator Erpenbach moved to make Senate Bill 240 a special order of business at 9:00 A.M. on the calendar of November 13, 2003.
Senator Panzer raised the point of order that the motion to make a special order of business is not proper at this time.
The Chair took the point under advisement.
Senate Journal of January 20, 2004 .......... Page: 550
Ruling on the point of order:
On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, on the 11th order of business, the Senator from the 27th moved that the rules be suspended and Senate Bill 240 be made a special order of business at 10:00 AM on the calendar of November 13, 2003.
The Senator from the 20th raised a point of order that the motion was out of order.
The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
The point is well taken. The Senate has established a clear precedent that motions concerning business that is not currently before the Senate are made under the 14th order of business.
[Note:] Senate Rule 17 (1) (n) Fourteenth order. Motions may be offered.
Senate Rule 41 (1) (a) A proposal or other matter may be rereferred at any time prior to its passage, except that a motion to withdraw from committee may not take effect during the 7 days preceding any scheduled committee hearing or the 7 days following the date on which a committee hearing is held.
The motion for a special order is not listed as in order during debate:
Senate 63. Motions in order during debate.
(1) When a question is under debate, a motion may not be received except:
