Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order well taken.
[Note:] 13.52(6) Report. Upon the introduction in either house of the legislature of any proposal which affects any existing statute or creates any new statute relating to the exemption of any property or person from any state or local taxes or special assessments, such proposal shall at once be referred to the joint survey committee on tax exemptions by the presiding officer instead of to a standing committee, and 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. Such printing shall be in lieu of inclusion in the daily journal of the house in which the bill was introduced.
Timeliness of point of order
2 0 0 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 20, 2003 .......... Page: 75
Assembly Journal of November 13, 2003 .......... Page: 544
Point of order:
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese stated, had a point of order been raised when Assembly Joint Resolution 52 was before the Assembly on Wednesday, November 12, he would have ruled the joint resolution out of order under Assembly Rule 39 (1) because it contained language calling on the Wisconsin congressional delegation. Because no point of order was raised at that time, Speaker Pro Tempore Freese stated that the adoption of the joint resolution was proper.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 39 (1) Except as otherwise provided in joint rule 83 (2) and this subsection, any member or standing committee may introduce or offer proposals in the assembly on any day of the biennial legislative session. No member or standing committee may offer any assembly joint resolution or resolution memorializing Congress or any branch or officer of the federal government.
Assembly Journal of March 2, 2004 .......... Page: 772
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that the motion to reconsider the vote by which Assembly amendment 7 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 792 was adopted was not timely under Assembly Rule 73.
Representative Montgomery withdrew his motion to reconsider the vote by which Assembly amendment 7 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 792 was adopted.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 73 (2) (a) A motion to reconsider any decision, other than passage of or concurrence in a proposal, may only be entered after the question to which the motion relates has been decided and must be entered either: 1) before the relating clause of the next proposal is read by the clerk, the next order of business is announced by the presiding officer, or other business is begun; or 2) on the 7th order of business on the 2nd legislative day thereafter.
(b) For any decision other than passage, adoption, concurrence, indefinite postponement, rejection, or nonconcurrence, the motion for reconsideration shall be considered when the proposal is next regularly scheduled for consideration.
(4) (a) A motion to reconsider the decision on an amendment shall be placed on the same calendar as the motion to reconsider the final 2nd reading stage decision on the proposal to which the amendment relates, regardless of when made. The failure of any calendar that has been provided to members to show a motion to reconsider a decision on an amendment does not prevent the consideration of the motion under the proper order of business on that calendar day.
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 8, 2001 .......... Page: 137
Point of order:
Representative Freese rose to the point of order that the motion of nonconcurrence in Senate Bill 2 was not properly before the Assembly under Assembly Rule 65 (2) and (3) because there were pending amendments.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair (Representative Duff) ruled the point of order well taken.
[Note:] 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:
Assembly Rule 65 (3) (intro.) 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:
Assembly Journal of March 13, 2001 .......... Page: 144
Point of order:
Representative Freese rose to the point of order that the motion to withdraw Senate Bill 1 from committee was not in order while a previous point of order on the bill was under advisement.
Speaker Jensen took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of March 22, 2001 .......... Page: 167
Representative Freese withdrew his point of order raised on Tuesday, March 13, that the motion to withdraw Senate Bill 1 from committee was not in order while a previous point of order was already under advisement.
[Note:] 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: 484
Point of order:
Representative Carpenter rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 576 was not properly before the Assembly because the bill was currently under advisement for a previous point of order.
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 62 (3) (b) 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.
MASON'S MANUAL
Sec. 230. When an Appeal Is in Order
5. While an appeal is pending, a point of order on any other question is not in order but a point of order relating to the appeal may be raised. And if the determination of the appeal is dependent on this point, it may be decided by the presiding officer. This second decision is also subject to appeal. There is an early precedent in Congress that there can be no appeal from a second decision while the other appeal is pending, but that the correctness of the ruling can be brought up when no other business is pending. The presiding officer is subject to censure by the house if the ruling be irregular.
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.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 487
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that the motion to suspend the rules and Assembly Bill 294 be withdrawn from the committee on Labor and Workforce Development and taken up at this time was in order.
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.
[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.
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 November 4, 1999 .......... Page: 516
Point of order:
Representative Krug rose to the point of order that Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly amendment 1 to Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 325 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (d) (1).
Speaker pro tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] The bill related to the liability of local governmental units for damages caused by lack of repairs of highways. The amendment corrected a cross reference.
Assembly Rule 54 (3) Assembly amendments that are not germane include:
(d) An amendment: 1) amending a statute or session law when the purpose of the bill is limited to repealing the law; or 2) repealing a statute or session law when the purpose of the bill is limited to amending the law.
Assembly Journal of November 4, 1999 .......... Page: 516
