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:
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 14, 2002 .......... Page: 786
Point of order:
Representative Carpenter moved that Assembly Bill 1, January 2002 Special Session be made a Special Order of Business at 10:00 A.M. on Friday, March 15.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the motion not in order.
[Note:] The assembly had voted on an identical motion after the bill had been given its third reading but this motion was made after the bill had passed.
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.
Special session: conduct of
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 14, 2002 .......... Page: 786
Point of order:
Representative Carpenter moved that Assembly Bill 1, January 2002 Special Session be made a Special Order of Business at 10:00 A.M. on Friday, March 15.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the motion not in order.
[Note:] The assembly had voted on an identical motion after the bill had been given its third reading but this motion was made after the bill had passed.
Special session: proposal or amendment not germane to call
2 0 0 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 20, 2003 .......... Page: 78
Point of order:
Representative Freese rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 1, January 2003 Special Session was not germane under Assembly Rule 93(1).
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Gard ruled the point of order well taken.
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-59, Noes-37. Motion carried.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 93. Special, extended, or extraordinary sessions. Unless otherwise provided by the assembly for a specific special, extended, or extraordinary session, the rules of the assembly adopted for the regular session, subject to the following modifications, apply to each special session called by the governor and to each extended or extraordinary session called by the assembly and senate committees on organization or called by a joint resolution adopted by one house and concurred in by the other house:
(1) A proposal or amendment may not be considered by the assembly unless it is germane to the session call or pertains to the organization of the legislature.
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 15, 2002 .......... Page: 851
Point of order:
Representative Freese rose to the point of order that Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, May 2002 Special Session was not germane to the Governor's Special Session call.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Jensen ruled the point of order not timely because there were still simple amendments pending to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, May 2002 Special Session. Therefore, even if the substitute amendment was not germane to the special session call at this time, it could still be amended prior to its adoption to make it germane.
[Note:] The question before the assembly at that time was adoption of an amendment, not adoption of the substitute amendment.
Assembly Rule 66 (1) In addition to the motions and requests listed in rule 65 (1) and (2), and subject to the limitations imposed by other rules, the following incidental motions, requests, and questions are in order while a proposal or question is under debate:
(a) A point of order and appeal therefrom [rule 62].
(2) The motions, requests, and questions listed in sub. (1) do not have an order of precedence, can be initiated at any time they are timely, and shall be disposed of before any question to which they relate is returned to or any other incidental motion, request, or question is entertained.
The special session rules provide: Assembly Rule 93 (1) A proposal or amendment may not be considered by the assembly unless it is germane to the session call or pertains to the organization of the legislature.
MASON'S MANUAL
Sec. 241. When Point of Order May Be Raised
See also Sec. 149, Appeals, Points of Order, Inquiries.
5. A point of order must be raised at the time the particular question is pending. It is premature to raise a point of order against an amendment when an amendment of the amendment is pending or when a motion to recommit is pending.
1 9 9 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 4, 2000 .......... Page: 949
Point of order:
Representative M. Lehman rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, May 2000 Special Session was not in order under Assembly Rule 93(1) because it was not germane to the special session call.
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled the point of order well taken.
[Note:] The bill restored the school property tax credit and the amendment provided state aid related to the use value assessment of agricultural land.
Assembly Rule 93. Special, extended, or extraordinary sessions. Unless otherwise provided by the assembly for a specific special, extended, or extraordinary session, the rules of the assembly adopted for the regular session, subject to the following modifications, apply to each special session called by the governor and to each extended or extraordinary session called by the assembly and senate committees on organization or called by a joint resolution adopted by one house and concurred in by the other house:
(1) A proposal or amendment may not be considered by the assembly unless it is germane to the session call or pertains to the organization of the legislature.
1 9 9 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of September 27, 1995 .......... Page: 507
Point of order:
Representative Plache rose to the point of order that Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, September 1995 Special Session was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of September 27, 1995 .......... Page: 508
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Plache that Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, September 1995 Special Session was not germane because the bill and the substitute amendment have virtually the same relating clause except eliminated the room tax and the highway infrastructure which, according to Assembly Rule 54(4)(c), is germane because it was limiting the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Bill 1, September 1995 Special Session created a local professional baseball park district in certain jurisdictions that is made up of multi counties contiguous to that county and that is two counties.
Assembly substitute amendment 1 also establishes a professional baseball park made up of multi counties that are contiguous and that is five counties.
Both the bill and the substitute amendment have components that deal with governance those differences that are within the components are different based on a particularized details of the jurisdictions. Both refer to jurisdiction in the plural.
Assembly Bill 1, September 1995 Special Session and Assembly substitute amendment 1 are both germane to the special session call. Where in fact, on the previous ruling dealing with the luxury box should have taken this point into consideration.
In the previous ruling of Assembly amendment 23 to Assembly substitute amendment 1, I neglected to include in that ruling that the amendment is not germane to the call under Assembly Rule 93(1) because no proposal may be considered by the Assembly unless they are germane to the session. We established that it was an expansion based on the fact we had a one tenth of one percent local taxing jurisdiction compared to the amendment that was offering to do a 5.5% in most taxing jurisdictions or most counties and was available to do in all 72 counties if there were indeed a professional type of facility that would use the luxury sky box or that type of system so it was an expansion because it not only raised it from one-tenth of one percent at a local jurisdiction but it was establishing 5.5% statewide sales tax opportunity.
Assembly amendment 23 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 also is dramatically different from the standpoint that it is an expansion, Assembly substitute amendment 1 is dealing with particularized details in the fact that we're dealing with a multi county jurisdiction in both the substitute and the bill.
