Point of order:

  Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 492 [relating to clearing of voting machine recorders for use in anticipated special elections to fill certain legislative vacancies in 1979] required a local fiscal estimate under section 13.10 of the Wisconsin Statutes because local government expenses would be incurred in clearing the voting machines prior to the expiration of the 60 day waiting period.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because Assembly Bill 492 was permissive legislation and would not by itself necessitate an expenditure by local governmental units.

  Point of order:

  Representative Tuczynski rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 61 required a fiscal estimate.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that Wisconsin Statutes 13.10 (2) (a) is controlling and, therefore, fiscal estimates are only required on bills. The point of order was ruled not well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 75 required a state and local fiscal note under Joint Rule 24 (9) because the bill would require expenditures for promulgation of rules and enforcement by local officials.

  The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Sensenbrenner rose to the point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 17 was not properly before the assembly because a fiscal note had not been received. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.

  On February 11, 1975 the Gentleman from the 10th raised a point of order that Assembly Joint Resolution 17 [directing the joint legislative council to conduct a study of the structure, organization and operation of regional planning commissions and to make recommendations to the legislature as soon as possible], then pending on the calendar, was not properly before us because it did not have a fiscal note as required under Sec. 13.10 (2) and Joint Rule 24. The Chair took the Point of Order under advisement.

  Sec. 13.10 (2) of the Statutes refers only to bills and does not refer to resolutions. Sec. 13.20 (1) (c) of the Statutes requires that a fiscal note be provided for the staffing patterns resolutions passed by each house. If Sec. 13.10 (2) of the Statutes required fiscal notes on Joint Resolutions, Sec. 13.20 (1) (c) would not be necessary. However, it was enacted into law because 13.10 (2) did not require fiscal notes on resolutions.

  In interpreting Joint Rule 24, the language of the rule does not refer to bills or resolutions, but rather speaks of "any measure." Joint Rule 24 was enacted to set forth the procedure for complying with Sec. 13.10 (2), and must be considered as an extension of that statute.

  In a case directly in point, in the 1969 session, the presiding officer of the Senate ruled that Senate Joint Resolution 96 "directing the Legislative Council to study" a certain matter, did not require a fiscal note (Senate Journal, Oct. 3, 1969). Since it is desirable to have a uniform interpretation of the joint rules in both houses, the Chair feels bound to follow the Senate precedent in this matter, and accordingly rules that the point of order raised by the Gentleman from the 10th is not well taken.

  [Local fiscal estimate:]

  Senator Devitt moved that Senate Bill 528 be withdrawn from the joint committee on Finance.

[Point of order:]

  Senator J. D. Swan raised the point of order that the bill did not have a local fiscal note, and therefore was not properly before the senate.

137   The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.

  [Senate Bill 185, relating to recodification of the laws pertaining to special education of children with exceptional educational needs, authorizing payment of state aids, granting rule-making authority and increasing an appropriation]

[Point of order:]

  The question was: Concurrence in assembly amendment 12? Senator J. D. Swan moved nonconcurrence in assembly amendments 12 and 18.

  The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-3, noes-25.] So the motion did not prevail.

  Senator J. D. Swan raised the point of order that Senate Bill 185 required another fiscal note to comply with Wisconsin Stat. 13.10 (2) (a). ( The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order untimely as the question was only one of concurrence in the amendments.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Parys raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 689 [relating to filling mid-term vacancies on the Milwaukee county board of supervisors] required a fiscal note. The chair took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]

  As it relates to Assembly Bill 689, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled a fiscal note was not required.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Hollander raised the point of order that Senate Bill 203 [relating to the right to be reimbursed under accident and health policies for chiropractic services] required a fiscal note.

  The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.

[Point of order:]

  Senator George raised the point of order that Senate Bill 781 [relating to persistent serious felony offenders and providing penalties] does not have a reliable fiscal estimate pursuant to Joint Rule 43 and 49.

  The Chair ruled the point not well taken. Senator George appealed the ruling of the Chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?

  The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-16, noes-16.] The decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Senate.

  The Chair asked the Chief Clerk to request from the Reference Bureau a supplemental fiscal estimate to be prepared pursuant to Joint Rule 23.

  Point of order:

  Representative Tregoning rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 71 [relating to fair-share and maintenance of membership agreements under the state employment labor relations act] required a fiscal estimate and was required to be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance under section 13.10 (2) of the Wisconsin Statutes. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.

  A fiscal estimate having been received on Senate Bill 71, the point of order raised by Representative Tregoning on Tuesday, February 9 was ruled moot.

  Point of order:

  Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 322 [relating to public employe occupational safety and health and granting rule-making authority] required a local fiscal estimate under section 13.10 of the Wisconsin Statutes. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order on Assembly Bill 322 moot because a local fiscal estimate had arrived.

  Point of order:

  Representative Murray rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 185 [relating to arrest powers for conservation wardens] required a local fiscal estimate under section 13.10 (2) of the Wisconsin Statutes. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order on Senate Bill 185 moot because a local fiscal estimate had been received.

  Point of order:

  Representative Murray rose to the point of order that the local fiscal estimate on Senate Bill 185 was obtained from the wrong agency. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order on Senate Bill 185 moot because a local fiscal estimate had arrived.

  Point of order:

  Representative Ferrall rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 1228 [relating to industrial revenue bonds and projects] was not properly before the assembly under Joint Rule 49 (2).

  Representative Ferrall asked unanimous consent to withdraw his point of order. Granted.

  Point of order:

140   Representative Hauke rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 156 [relating to deletion of the requirement for an affidavit from the circulator of nomination papers and providing a penalty] was not properly before the assembly because the bill required a fiscal estimate under Wisconsin Statutes 13.10 (2) and Joint Rule 41 (1). Representative Hauke cited the speaker's ruling on 1977 Assembly Bill 108 (1977 Assembly Journal, page 1068; penalty bills require fiscal estimate) as precedent for his point of order. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  Because fiscal estimates on Senate Bill 156 had been received, the speaker ruled the point of order raised by Representative Hauke on Wednesday, October 3 (Assembly Journal, page 1198) to be moot.

  Point of order: