1 9 9 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of January 25, 2000 .......... Page: 393
Point of order:
Senator Chvala raised the point of order that a motion to suspend the rules, withdraw from committee on Agriculture, Environmental Resources and Campaign Finance Reform is an inappropriate motion at this time.
The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of February 1, 2000 .......... Page: 413
Ruling of the Chair:
On Tuesday, January 25, 2000, the Senator from the 14th, Senator Welch, moved that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 273 be withdrawn from the Committee on Agriculture, Environmental Resources and Campaign Finance Reform and taken up at this time.
The Senator from the 16th raised a point of order that the motion was out of order at this time.
The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
Mason's Manual, Section 282(2) speaks to this circumstance. It reads in part:
"A motion to suspend the rule may be made either under the order of business of motions and resolutions or under the order of business which relates to the matter proposed to be considered under suspension of the rules".
The Senate has established a clear precedent over the past 20 years or more that motions to withdraw a proposal from committee are to be made under the 14th Order of Business, Motions may be offered. One of the most recent written rulings on this was in the 1982 session, when the Senator from the 14th, at that time, Senator Lorge, moved that Senate Bill 493 be withdrawn from committee and taken up immediately. A point of order was raised that the motion was not properly before the Senate. The Chair ruled the point well taken, based on previous rulings the precedent of the Senate was well established that motions to withdraw bills is restricted to the 14th order of business.
It is clear to the Chair, that although the general belief is that a motion to suspend the rules may be made at anytime, that is true only under the order of business which relates to the matter proposed to be considered. Mason's Manual, section 282(1) also states that a motion to suspend the rules may be made at anytime when no question is pending. The motion by the Senator from the 14th, was made while a question relating to Assembly Joint Resolution 48 was pending. Also, the motion related to a Senate Bill. Senate bills are considered under the 11th Order of Business, the Senate was on the 12th Order of Business when the motion was entered.
The precedent of the Senate is very clear, motions related to the withdrawal of proposals from committee are to be made on the 14th Order of Business. The motion offered by the Senator from the 14th was not in compliance with Section 282 of Mason's Manual, now therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order raised by the Senator from the 16th, Senator Chvala, is well taken.
[Note:] 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.
1 9 9 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of November 18, 1997 .......... Page: 411
Point of order:
Representative Foti rose to the point of order that the motion to suspend Assembly Rules 15(1)(a) and 15(5) and withdraw Assembly Bill 421 from the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems and taken up at this time was out of order under s. 13.50 (6) of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of January 15, 1998 .......... Page: 493
Ruling on the point of order:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Foti on Tuesday, November 18, 1997, that the motion to withdraw Assembly Bill 421 from the joint survey committee on Retirement Systems was not in order.
On November 18, 1997, the Gentleman from the 72nd had moved to suspend rule 15 (1) (a) & (5), so Assembly Bill 421 could be withdrawn from the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement and taken up. The Gentleman from the 38th raised a point of order that this motion was not in order per Wisconsin Statutes Section 13.50 (6).
The Gentleman from the 72nd then rose on the point of order and cited from the previous rulings of the chair three cases where precedent had been established.
On October 28, 1983, Speaker Loftus ruled a motion out of order under section 13.50 (6) of the Wisconsin Statutes. (Note: Under s. 13.50 (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 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".) On October 6, 1981, Speaker Jackamonis ruled a similar motion out of order citing section 13.50 of the Wisconsin Statutes. On February 2, 1982, President Risser ruled on a point of order citing the same statutes.
Representative Schneider believed all three of these rulings came before the decision in State ex rel. Lafollette v. Stitt, 114 W (2d) 358, 338 NW (2d) 684 (1983). That case stands for the proposition that the court will invalidate legislation only for constitutional violations, not for violations of legislative rules in the statutes or elsewhere. Representative Schneider went on to propose that section 13.50 (6) is nothing more than a legislative rule like 15 (1) (a) & (5) or Joint rule 96 and they can all be suspended. Representative Schneider presented to the chair a memorandum from Peter Dykman, Acting Chief of the Legislative Reference Bureau in support of his contention that this particular statute was merely a rule and it could be suspended.
As presiding officer I took the point of order under advisement. Since then I have read the Stitt opinion, the previous rulings of the chair, as well as Masons manual, and assembly rule books dating as far back as 1943. I also looked at the relevant Wisconsin Statutes, when they were created and their correlation to the rules of the Legislature. Section 13.50 (6) was created in 1963 as Chapter 153, laws of 1963 as 13.44 (9) with 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). It appears to me that the legislative intent behind the statutes was to create a process that had to be followed and was not to be circumvented.
I then looked at the sequencing of the previous rulings along with the Supreme Court decision. The Jackamonis and Risser decision were handed down prior to the Supreme Court Decision and the Loftus decision came after the Supreme Court decision.
This ruling presents this institution with a dilemma. If these statutes are merely rules that we can easily disregard, then long standing traditions and requirements that this institution has followed will cease to exist. For example, we would no longer need to have appropriation bills referred to the Joint Committee on Finance, in fact we would no longer even be required to have a Joint Committee on Finance. Legislation submitting referenda to the voters would no longer need to contain the precise wording of the question which is submitted to the voters. The required General Fund Balance in the statutes could simply be ignored. Legislation that spends money could be passed at any time, even before the budget passes.
A question remains as to why previous legislatures first created statutes then 14 years later created the same as a rule. I believe they wanted a process that would not allow for certain procedures to be bypassed. The Stitt decision I believe merely supports the notion that it is for the Legislature to decide and enforce its own rules. We clearly have the authority to suspend our own rules with a 2/3rds vote or by unanimous consent. It is this chairs ruling that we do not have the authority to suspend statutes when points of order are made. I believe the precedent that has been established by Speakers Jackamonis and Loftus and President Risser which occurred before and after the Stitt decision still stands.
As a cosponsor of the bill, it would be very desirable for me to simply disregard these previous rulings and help the bill become law. However, I believe strongly in the institution and its precedents, and therefore I must find the point of order well taken. It is clear to me that we can ignore our own rules but we cannot suspend statutes. This decision was based on these three previous rulings and the precedent that was established by placing both legislative statutes and rules as an order of process for legislation to pass.
Representative Schneider 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-51, Noes-46. Motion carried.
[Note:] 13.50(6)(b) No bill or amendment thereto creating or modifying any system for the retirement of public employees shall be considered by either house until the written report required by par. (a) and the actuarial opinion ordered under par. (am), if any, have been submitted to the chief clerk. Each such bill or amendment shall then be referred to a standing committee of the house in which introduced. The report of the joint survey committee and actuarial opinion, if any, shall be printed as an appendix to the bill and attached thereto as are amendments.
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:
Assembly Journal of May 6, 1998 .......... Page: 878
Representative Travis asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 768 be referred to the joint survey committee on Retirement Systems.
Representative Klusman objected.
Representative Travis asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 768 be referred to the joint survey committee on Retirement Systems.
Representative Klusman objected.
Point of order:
Representative Travis rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 768 was not properly before the Assembly under s. 13.50(6)(a) of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Representative Travis withdrew his point of order.
Representative Travis asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 768 be referred to the joint survey committee on Retirement Systems. Granted.
Representative Travis asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 768 be withdrawn from the joint survey committee on Retirement Systems and taken up at this time. Granted.
[Note:] 13.50(6)(b) No bill or amendment thereto creating or modifying any system for the retirement of public employees shall be considered by either house until the written report required by par. (a) and the actuarial opinion ordered under par. (am), if any, have been submitted to the chief clerk. Each such bill or amendment shall then be referred to a standing committee of the house in which introduced. The report of the joint survey committee and actuarial opinion, if any, shall be printed as an appendix to the bill and attached thereto as are amendments.
1 9 9 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 26, 1998 .......... Page: 560
Point of order:
Senator Wineke, with unanimous consent, asked that Senate Bill 13 be withdrawn from the committee on Economic Development, Housing and Government Operations and taken up at this time.
Ruling on the point of order:
The Chair ruled that this was not a proper motion at this time.
[Note:] The ruling may have been based on one of the following rules:
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.
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.
Other
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."
