Representative Staskunas rose to the point of order that the motion to amend the motion that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 294 be withdrawn from the committee on Labor and Workforce Development be amended to substitute Assembly Bill 545 was not in order under Assembly Rule 15.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Representative Staskunas withdrew the point of order that the motion to amend a motion to suspend the rules and that Assembly Bill 294 be withdrawn from the committee on Labor and Workforce Development was not in order.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 15 (1) A proposal may not be withdrawn from any committee until 21 calendar days have expired since the proposal was referred to the committee. After the 21-day period, a proposal may be withdrawn either by motion or by petition, but:
Assembly Rule 65 (2) When a main question is under debate the following subsidiary motions are in order if appropriate under the rules governing motions and proposals:
(g) To amend, if the proposal or motion is amendable [rules 52 to 55 and 70 (2) and (4)].
Assembly Rule 65 (3) The motions and requests listed in subs. (1) and (2) have precedence in the order in which they are listed. While any motion or request is pending, motions or requests of the same or lower precedence are not in order, except that:
(b) Amendments to amendable motions are not in order while a question of higher precedence is pending; and
Under Assembly Rule 66, once an amendment or proposal is offered or introduced in the assembly, it belongs to the assembly. Therefore, it can be returned to the author only by permission of the assembly.
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:
(g) A request or motion by the author of a pending amendment that it be withdrawn and returned to the author.
MASON'S MANUAL
Sec. 64. Amendability of Motions
See also Ch. 38, Secs. 395-421, Motion to Amend.
1. Propositions are sometimes introduced in a form not acceptable to the body. It is essential therefore that it be possible to amend propositions in order that they state the common will of the group. There are limitations, however, on the right to amend, particularly with reference to certain procedural motions. There is a convenient rule by which it is possible to determine whether a proposal is subject to amendment. If it could properly have been submitted in a different form, it can be amended. If the proposition could not have been stated in a different form, it cannot be amended.
Sec. 178. Subsidiary Questions
Definition
1. Subsidiary questions are questions of a procedural nature relating directly to or adhering to main motions.
2. It is not usually possible for main motions to be immediately adopted or rejected upon presentation. In legislative bodies it is usually required that main motions be referred to committee and they may be amended. Debate may be limited to a certain time, or the consideration postponed from time to time. Procedural motions, by which main motions are guided through a legislative body, are a type of motion subsidiary to main motions and from this they acquire their name.
3. Subsidiary motions are most often applied to main motions, but the motion to amend may be applied to any motion which is capable of being stated in more than one form.
Sec. 490. Procedural Motions with Precedence of Main Motions
2. Generally, these motions are subject to the same rules as other simple procedural motions. They are not debatable, except sometimes limited debate is permitted on the motion to withdraw a bill from committee or discharge a committee. They are not subject to the subsidiary motions and can be renewed after a change in the parliamentary situation, but cannot be reconsidered. Unless some special rule has been adopted, they require a majority of the legal votes cast for adoption.
3. Among the more frequently used motions of this class are:
(a) Motions to withdraw from committee or discharge a committee.
Sec. 491. Withdrawing Bills from Committee
2. The motion to withdraw a question or discharge a committee from further consideration is not a suspension of the rules, and may be made without previous notice.
3. The motion, in either form, takes precedence as a main motion. It is not subject to the motions to postpone, to refer to committee, to lay on the table or to amendment.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 484
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that the motion to suspend the rules and that Assembly Bill 294 be withdrawn from the committee on Labor and Workforce Development and taken up at this time was not dilatory.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 487
Representative Black withdrew his point of order that the motion to suspend the rules and that Assembly Bill 294 be withdrawn from the committee on Labor and Workforce Development and taken up at this time was not dilatory.
[Note:] 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 October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 484
Point of order:
Representative Ladwig moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 380 be immediately messaged to the Senate.
Representative Black moved that the motion, that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 380 be immediately messaged to the Senate, be amended to substitute Assembly Bill 294 be given a second reading.
Representative Ladwig asked unanimous consent to withdraw her motion that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 380 be immediately messaged to the Senate.
Representative Cullen objected.
Representative Hubler rose to the point of order that amending a motion to substitute a different proposal is not in order under Assembly Rules or Mason's Manual, Chapter 28.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 487
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Hubler that amending a motion to substitute a different proposal is not in order under Assembly Rules or Mason's Manual, Chapter 28.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 68. Amendments to motions to be germane. Amendments to amendable motions are subject to the rules of germaneness in rule 54 as if they were amendments to proposals and amendments.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(a) One individual proposition amending another individual proposition.
MASON'S MANUAL
Sec. 64. Amendability of Motions. 1. ....There are limitations, however, on the right to amend, particularly with reference to certain procedural motions. There is a convenient rule by which it is possible to determine whether a proposal is subject to amendment. If it could properly have been submitted in a different form, it can be amended. If the proposition could not have been stated in a different form, it cannot be amended.
Sec. 282. Motion to Suspend the Rules
6. A motion to suspend the rules may not be:
(a) Amended.
(b) Debated.
(c) Laid on the table.
(d) Referred to committee.
(e) Postponed.
(f) Reconsidered or renewed for the same purpose on the same day, unless other business has intervened or there has been a change in the parliamentary situation.
A motion to suspend the rules may not have any other subsidiary motion applied to it.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 485
Point of order:
Representative Black moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 294 be withdrawn from the committee on Labor and Workforce Development and taken up at this time.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled the motion not timely because Assembly Bill 294 was already under advisement for a previous point of order.
Representative Black appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled that a motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair was not in order because his ruling was not made on a point of order raised under Assembly Rule 62.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 62 (6) Any member may appeal a ruling of the presiding officer on any point of order. When an appeal is made, the question is: "Shall the decision of the chair stand as the decision of the assembly?"
Assembly Rule 69. Dilatory motions. (1) When it appears to the presiding officer that any motion or procedure is being used for the purpose of delay, the presiding officer shall declare it dilatory and out of order.
(2) Two consecutive identical motions are dilatory unless significant business has intervened between the motions.
(3) Two consecutive motions to adjourn are not be in order unless other significant business has intervened between the motions or unless no other business is pending before the assembly.
(4) While a motion remains undecided pending the presiding officer's ruling on a point of order taken under advisement, it is dilatory to enter a substantially similar motion on the same question, but it is proper to request an expansion of the question under advisement.
MASON'S MANUAL
Sec. 149. Appeals, Points of Order, Inquiries
See also Ch. 23, Secs. 230-235, Appeals; Ch. 24, Secs. 240-246, Points of Order; and Ch. 25, Secs. 250-254, Parliamentary Inquiries and Other Requests for Information.
1. In conducting its business, a legislative body may have questions relating to policy or procedure presented to it for decision on appeals from decisions on points of order. Appeals may involve important questions of policy and, therefore, appeals may take on all of the characteristics of a main motion and are subject, in general, to the same rules.
2. Points of order are presented to the presiding officer for determination. The decision of the presiding officer on points of order may always be questioned by the body on appeal and the question decided by the body itself.
2 0 0 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 12, 2002 .......... Page: 647
Point of order:
Senator Zien moved that Assembly Bill 675 be withdrawn from the committee Senate Organization.
Senator Chvala raised the point of order that in accordance with Senate Rule 41 the motion to withdraw from the committee on Senate Organization is not proper at this time.
The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senator Welch moved that the rules be suspended.
Point of order:
Senator Chvala raised the point of order that the motion is not proper at this time.
The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] No ruling.
The first point of order may have been based on one of the following rules:
The motion to withdraw is not listed as one of the permissible motions when a question is under debate:
Senate Rule 63. Motions in order during debate.
(1) When a question is under debate, a motion may not be received except:
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 committee on Senate Organization, however, usually does not hold hearings.
The second point of order may have been based on custom that is written into the assembly rules:
Assembly Rule 62 (3) The presiding officer may speak on points of order in preference to others and may:
(a) Immediately announce and explain a ruling on a point of order that has been raised; or
(b) Defer such ruling by taking a point of order under advisement.
1. When the point of order concerns a proposal or a question currently pending on such proposal, taking the point of order under advisement removes the proposal from further consideration until the presiding officer announces the ruling on the point of order.
2. When the point of order concerns an amendment, taking the point of order under advisement removes from further consideration until a ruling on the point of order is made only the specific amendment.
3. When the point of order concerns an amendment to an amendment, taking the point of order under advisement removes from further consideration until a ruling on the point of order is made only the amendment to the amendment, except that the original amendment is also removed from further consideration once all other amendments to the amendment have been disposed of.
4. All points of order involving amendments, or amendments to amendments, must be disposed of before the assembly proceeds to any question of lesser precedence (see rule 65).
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.
1 9 9 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 5, 1998 .......... Page: 851
Point of order:
Representative Hubler rose to the point of order that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 441 from the committee on Judiciary and refer it to the committee on Rules required a two-thirds vote under Assembly Rule 15(1). Pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, the bill died at the conclusion of the last floorperiod on March 26, 1998. When the bill was revived, pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 47, the 21day period required by Assembly Rule 15(1) would have to begin again. Therefore, the bill had only been in committee for 14 days.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken because the Assembly concurred in Senate Joint Resolution 47 which states "...the following proposals are revived for further consideration in the April 1998 extraordinary session, which consideration shall begin at the stage that the proposals had reached immediately before adjournment on March 26, 1998". Therefore, he ruled that a two-thirds vote was not needed because the 21day period required by Assembly Rule 15(1) began on July 1, 1997 when the bill was introduced and referred to the committee on Judiciary.
Representative Hubler 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-50, Noes-47. Motion carried.
[Note:] 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:
1 9 9 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 28, 1995 .......... Page: 118
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that under Assembly Rule 15 (3), a motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 3 from committee required a two-thirds vote because a vote to withdraw the bill from committee had already been taken on January 17, 1995.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Prosser ruled the point of order not well taken, because the vote taken on January 17, 1995 to withdraw Assembly Bill 3 from committee was a vote on suspension of the rules, and not on a motion allowed under Assembly Rule 15 (2).
[Note:] This may have been a parliamentary inquiry, not a point of order.
Assembly Rule 15 (3) Once a motion to withdraw a proposal from a committee which requires a vote of a majority of the members present and voting fails, all subsequent motions to withdraw that proposal from the same committee require a vote of two-thirds of the members present and voting for adoption and must be decided without debate.
Assembly Journal of April 7, 1995 .......... Page: 224
Point of order:
Representative Freese rose to the point of order that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 73 from the Joint Committee on Finance was not in order under Section 16.47(2) of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Speaker Prosser took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of April 8, 1995 .......... Page: 233
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Prosser ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Freese on Friday, April 7 that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 73 from the Joint Committee on Finance was not in order under Section16.47(2) of the Wisconsin Statutes and Assembly Rule 15(1)(b). The motion made by Representative Schneider to withdraw the bill from committee included a request for suspension of the rules and therefore was in order.
[Note:] 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:
(b) A bill requiring, but not having, an emergency statement for passage may not be withdrawn from the joint committee on finance or from the committee on rules.
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.
Tabling motion
2 0 0 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 29, 2003 .......... Page: 226
Point of order:
Representative Schneider rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 67 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
