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 The Constitutional right of a state legislature to control its own procedure cannot be withdrawn or restricted by statute, but statutes may control procedure insofar as they do not conflict with the rules of the houses or with the rules contained in the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 January 27, 2004 .......... Page: 645
Point of order:
Representative Kreuser asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 214 be withdrawn from today's calendar and taken up at this time.
Representative Foti objected.
Representative Kreuser moved that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 214 be withdrawn from today's calendar and taken up at this time.
Representative Gard rose to the point of order that the motion to suspend the rules to withdraw Senate Bill 214 from today's calendar was not in order.
Assembly Journal of January 27, 2004 .......... Page: 646
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took under advisement the point of order that was raised by Representative Gard that the motion to suspend rules and take up Senate Bill 214 from today's calendar was not in order.
Assembly Journal of February 3, 2004 .......... Page: 663
Representative Foti withdrew the point of order raised on Tuesday, January 27, that a motion to suspend the rules to take up Senate Bill 214 was not in order.
[Note:] The bill, carrying or going armed with a concealed weapon, was vetoed by the governor, and the senate, but not the assembly, overrode the veto.
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 Chvala moved to suspend rules to withdraw from committee on Labor, Small Business Development and Consumer Affairs and take up Senate Bill 240.
Senator Panzer raised the point of order that the motion to withdraw from committee on Labor, Small Business Development and Consumer Affairs Senate Bill 240 was not properly before the Senate.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Erpenbach appealed the ruling of the Chair.
The question was: Shall the Decision of the chair stand as the judgement of the Senate?
The roll was taken. The vote was: Ayes-18, Noes-14. Decision of the Chair stands as the judgement of the Senate.
[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 to withdraw 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:
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 July 2, 2001 .......... Page: 358
Point of order:
Representative Duff rose to the point of order that a motion to table the motion to suspend the rules to immediately message Senate Bill 55 to the Senate was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 74 (3).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of July 26, 2001 .......... Page: 371
Representative Duff withdrew his point of order raised on Monday, July 2, that a motion to table the motion to suspend the rules to immediately message Senate Bill 55 to the Senate was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 74 (3).
Assembly Journal of July 2, 2001 .......... Page: 358
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled the point of order raised by Representative Duff that a motion to table the motion to suspend the rules to immediately message Senate Bill 55 to the Senate was not properly before the Assembly because a motion on the bill had been taken under advisement and that removed the bill from further consideration under Assembly Rule 62 (3)(b)1.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 74 (3) A motion to table may not be applied to procedural motions, except that a motion to withdraw a proposal from committee may be tabled if the motion to withdraw does not involve a suspension of the 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.
Assembly Journal of July 2, 2001 .......... Page: 358
Representative Black moved that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 55 be immediately messaged to the Senate.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled that the motion was not properly before the Assembly because there was a point of order under advisement and that removed the bill from further consideration under Assembly Rule 62 (3)(b)1.
Representative Black appealed the ruling of the Chair.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled that an appeal of the Chair was not properly before the Assembly since there was not a ruling on a point of order.
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that the motion to suspend the rules and immediately message Senate Bill 55 be to the Senate was in order.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] Rep. Black's point of order may have been a parliamentary inquiry.
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 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.
Assembly Journal of July 2, 2001 .......... Page: 358
Point of order:
Representative Krug moved that all Democratic members of the Assembly be recorded as voting Aye" on the question of shall the rules be suspended and Senate Bill 55 be immediately messaged to the Senate.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the motion not properly before the Assembly because there was no motion or vote that existed and that Representative Krug's motion was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69 (4).
Representative Krug appealed the ruling of the Chair that the motion was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69 (4).
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the appeal under advisement.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 69 (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.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 483
Point of order:
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.
