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withdrew the point of order that the motion to amend a motion to suspend the rules and that Assembly Bill 294 be withdrawn from the committee on Labor and Workforce Development was not in order.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 15 (1) A proposal may not be withdrawn from any committee until 21 calendar days have expired since the proposal was referred to the committee. After the 21-day period, a proposal may be withdrawn either by motion or by petition, but: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(g) A request or motion by the author of a pending amendment that it be withdrawn and returned to the author.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: 483
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:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the motion dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
Representative Black appealed the ruling of the Chair.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese 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 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.
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?"
MASON'S MANUAL
Sec. 230. When an Appeal Is in Order
1. The proper method of taking exception to a ruling of a presiding officer is by appeal. All questions of order are decided by the presiding officer, subject to appeal by any member. It is the responsibility of the presiding officer to rule on points of order in a fair and impartial manner.
3. When a presiding officer rules a motion out of order and refuses to present it to the house, the proper procedure is to appeal from the presiding officer's decision. It is not proper for a member to put a question to vote which has been ruled out of order by the presiding officer.
Sec. 240. Purpose of Points of Order.
1. It is the duty of the presiding officer to enforce the rules and orders of the body without delay and without waiting to have the presiding officer's attention called to breaches of order. It is also the right of every member who notices a breach of order or of a rule to insist upon its enforcement. This is called raising a question or point of order, because the member puts to the presiding officer the question as to whether there has been a breach of order or of the rules. It is the duty of the presiding officer to maintain order and enforce the rules.
2. A point of order is the parliamentary device that is used to require a deliberative body to observe its own rules and to follow established parliamentary practice.
3. Any request for compliance with the rules is in effect a point of order and is subject to the same rules.
4. The presiding officer is not required to decide any point of order not directly presented in the proceedings of the body.
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: 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.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 2001 .......... Page: 491
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:
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the motion dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
[Note:] Assembly Rule 69. Dilatory motions.
Assembly Rule 69 (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.
2 0 0 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of June 19, 2001 .......... Page: 236
Point of order:
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."
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 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.
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.
