Representative Black moved that Assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 37 be laid on the table.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 54 Assembly Rule 54 (1) General statement: The assembly may not consider any assembly amendment or assembly substitute amendment that relates to a different subject or is intended to accomplish a different purpose than that of the proposal to which it relates or that, if adopted and passed, would require a relating clause for the proposal which is substantially different from the proposal's original relating clause or that would totally alter the nature of the proposal.
(3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of June 28, 1995 .......... Page: 357
Point of order:
Representative Freese rose to the point of order that Assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 146 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f).
Speaker Prosser took the point of order under advisement.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Prosser ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Freese that Assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 146 was not germane.
Representative Freese moved that Assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 146 be laid on the table.
[Note:] The bill created the crime of causing the death to an unborn child. The substitute amendment created the crime of battery to a pregnant female resulting in great bodily harm to or death of her fetus.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane.
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
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.
Representative Plache 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-47. Motion carried.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane.
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
Assembly Journal of January 31, 1996 .......... Page: 807
Point of order:
Representative Hubler rose to the point of order that Assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 13 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54(3)(f).
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] The bill and both substitute amendments related to trespass to land.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(f) An amendment that substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
(4) Amendments that are germane include:
(b) An amendment that accomplishes the same purpose in a different manner.
(d) An amendment adding appropriations necessary to fulfill the original intent of a bill.
(e) An amendment relating only to particularized details.
1 9 9 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of September 27, 1995 .......... Page: 358
Point of order:
Senator Darling raised the point of order that Senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 554 is not germane.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point well taken.
[Note:] The bill related to interstate banking. The amendment limited customer service charges imposed by a financial institution.
SENATE RULE 50. Amendments must be germane, general statement. (1) No standing committee shall report any substitute or amendment for any proposal originating in either house referred to such committee nor shall the senate consider any substitute or amendment which relates to a different subject, is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a relating clause essentially different from the relating clause of the original proposal or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal.
(7) A substitute or amendment relating to a specific subject or to a general class is not germane to a bill relating to a different specific subject, but an amendment limiting the scope of the proposal is germane.
Senate Journal of January 11, 1996 .......... Page: 526
Point of order:
Senator Huelsman raised the point of order that Senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 404 is not germane.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point well taken.
[Note:] The bill related to homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle. The substitute amendment added provisions relating to alcohol concentrations of vehicle operators.
SENATE RULE 50. Amendments must be germane, general statement. (1) No standing committee shall report any substitute or amendment for any proposal originating in either house referred to such committee nor shall the senate consider any substitute or amendment which relates to a different subject, is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a relating clause essentially different from the relating clause of the original proposal or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal.
(7) A substitute or amendment relating to a specific subject or to a general class is not germane to a bill relating to a different specific subject, but an amendment limiting the scope of the proposal is germane.
Suspension of constitution or state law not permitted
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.
Assembly Journal of February 20, 2003 .......... Page: 75
Point of order:
Representative Schneider moved that the rules be suspended and that LRB-2058 be taken up at this time.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled that the Assembly can not take up LRB-2058 because the resolution had not been introduced.
Representative Schneider rose to the point of order that, under Assembly Rule 90, the Assembly was able to suspend the rules to take up a LRB number.
Representative Foti rose to the point of order that the Assembly would not only be suspending the rules, but also suspending 111.92, Wisconsin Statutes.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] No ruling.
111.92(1)(a)...If the committee approves the tentative agreement, it shall introduce in a bill or companion bills, to be put on the calendar or referred to the appropriate scheduling committee of each house, that portion of the tentative agreement which requires legislative action for implementation, such as salary and wage adjustments, changes in fringe benefits, and any proposed amendments, deletions or additions to existing law....
Assembly Rule 90 (1) Any assembly or joint rule may be suspended by the unanimous consent of the members present or by a two-thirds roll call vote of the members present.
Assembly Journal of May 6, 2003 .......... Page: 196
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 228 was not properly before the Assembly because the bill required a report from the joint review committee on Criminal Penalties.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken.
Representative Black 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-58, Noes-40. Motion failed.
[Note:] 13.525 Joint review committee on criminal penalties.
13.525 (5) Review of legislation relating to crimes.
(a) If any bill that is introduced in either house of the legislature proposes to create a new crime or revise a penalty for an existing crime and the bill is referred to a standing committee of the house in which it is introduced, the chairperson may request the joint review committee to prepare a report on the bill under par. (b). If the bill is not referred to a standing committee, the speaker of the assembly, if the bill is introduced in the assembly, or the presiding officer of the senate, if the bill is introduced in the senate, may request the joint review committee to prepare a report on the bill under par. (b).
(b) (intro.) If the joint review committee receives a request under par. (a) for a report on a bill that proposes to create a new crime or revise a penalty for an existing crime, the committee shall prepare a report concerning all of the following:
(d) If a bill that is introduced in either house of the legislature proposes to create a new crime or revise a penalty for an existing crime, a standing committee to which the bill is referred may not vote on whether to recommend the bill for passage and the bill may not be passed by the house in which it is introduced before the joint review committee submits a report under par. (b) or before the 30th day after a report is requested under par. (a), whichever is earlier.
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 22, 2001 .......... Page: 171
Point of order:
Representative Freese rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 1 was not properly before the Assembly under 16.47 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Speaker Jensen took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] No ruling. The bill had a fiscal estimate of approximately $2 million but did not have an emergency statement. For a bill requiring an emergency statement, the point of order would be timely in conjunction with the vote on passage or concurrence.
16.47 (2) 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.
Assembly Journal of October 25, 2001 .......... Page: 474
Point of order:
Representative Jensen rose to the point of order that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 57 from the joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions was not properly before the Assembly under s. 13.52 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Representative Duff took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of October 25, 2001 .......... Page: 474
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled the point of order well taken that a motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 57 from the joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions was not properly before the Assembly under s. 13.52 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
[Note:] 13.52(6) provides "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 and such report has been printed as an appendix to the bill and attached thereto as are amendments". The report had not been prepared.
The motion was also in violation of Assembly Rule 15 (1) (a):
Assembly Rule 15 (1) A proposal may not be withdrawn from any committee until 21 calendar days have expired since the proposal was referred to the committee. After the 21-day period, a proposal may be withdrawn either by motion or by petition, but:
(a) A bill may not be withdrawn from a joint survey committee.
1 9 9 9 A S S E M B L Y
