The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 100 be withdrawn from the Joint Survey committee on Tax Exemptions?
Senator Chvala raised the point of order that the motion before us may not be considered at this time because section 13.52(6) of the statutes prohibits further consideration of any proposal until such time as the Joint Survey committee on Tax Exemptions has submitted its report on the proposal.
The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] No ruling.
Under s. 13.52 (6), stats., when a proposal must be referred to the joint survey committee and has been so referred, "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."
1 9 9 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 23, 1999 .......... Page: 241
Point of order:
Representative Black rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 389 was not properly before the Assembly because the bill required a report by the joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions under s. 13.52(6) of the Wisconsin Statutes and Assembly Rule 45(4).
Speaker Jensen ruled the point of order not well taken.
Representative Bock 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-53, Noes-45. Motion carried.
[Note:] The bill required the control and ownership of electric transmission facilities by a transmission company.
Assembly Rule 45 (4) When a bill, during or after consideration by a standing committee or during consideration by the assembly, is found to be without the report of one or more joint survey committees to which it should have been referred, the bill shall be so referred by the speaker or presiding officer.
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.
Tax exemptions: withdrawing proposal from joint survey committee on
2 0 0 1 A S S E M B L Y
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
Assembly Journal of March 23, 2000 .......... Page: 814
Point of order:
Representative Carpenter rose to the point of order that a motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 801 from the joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions was not in order under s.13.52 (6) of the Wisconsin Statutes and the precedent in the ruling from Speaker Pro Tempore Freese on May 6, 1998 (1997-1998 Assembly Journal page 877).
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.
