The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
[Note:] Although the bill itself changed the state homestead tax credit formula, it did not change the definition of "income" which is used as one part of that formula.
S.Amdt.2 attempted to exclude the first $15,000 of farmland depreciation from that "income" definition.
S.Amdt.7 (below) attempted the same change for the first $20,000.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen 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 [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-14]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
Senate Journal of March 29, 1984 .......... Page: 810
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Senator Harsdorf.
36 The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
[Note:] Although 1983 SB 663 addressed a large number of issues, each was narrowly drafted and specifically reflected in the proposal's title.
S.Amdt.5 (changing the dates of property tax relief payments) and S.Amdt.4 (below; increasing the state property tax credit payment) each attempted to add new issues to the proposal.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Harsdorf 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 [roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-9]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Senate Bill 663?
[Point of order:]
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Harsdorf appealed the ruling of the chair. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-13]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Senators Chilsen and Lorge.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2?
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate amendment 7 to assembly substitute amendment 2 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. Senator Chilsen asked unanimous consent that the ruling of the chair be written and printed in the senate journal. Senator Cullen objected.
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 [roll call vote omitted; ayes-18, noes-13]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 706
[Point of order:]
Senator Cullen raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 2 [to Senate Bill 663, known as the "budget surplus adjustment bill"] was not germane.
37 [Note:] 1983 SB 663 was a multi-issue bill addressing the following topics: "the individual and corporate surtaxes, the homestead credit, the required general fund balance, reducing the bonding authority for highway projects, income tax exemptions, income and franchise tax deductions for intercorporate dividends and for insurers' loss carry-backs, property tax statements, the definition of the internal revenue code for purposes of the income, franchise, inheritance and minimum taxes, required health insurance coverage, income tax exemptions, utility taxes on telephone companies, decreasing the primary guaranteed valuation, providing penalties and making an appropriation".
Despite the large number of topics, the bill had been narrowly drafted and each topic was precisely reflected in the bill title. Consequently, S.Sub.2 and the 4 amendments challenged below each related to a "different subject" - i.e. a subject not covered by the original bill - in violation of S.Rules 50 (1) and (7).
S.Sub.2 was limited to only 4 topics, and the treatment was in each case different from the original bill. The substitute dealt with: "the corporate surtax, the individual surtax, the gift tax and inheritance tax exemptions for class A distributees, and the rates for the individual income tax".
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator McCallum appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate?
By request of Senator McCallum, with unanimous consent, he withdrew his motion to appeal the ruling of the chair.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 707
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 11 [accelerated distribution of shared revenues] offered by Senators Engeleiter, Harsdorf, Chilsen, Ellis, Theno, Lorman, Davis and Lasee.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 11?
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 11 was not germane. The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 708
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 14 [exempting raffle tickets from sales tax] offered by Senators Harsdorf and Engeleiter.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 14?
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 14 was not germane. The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of March 13, 1984 .......... Page: 709
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 19 [UW faculty salaries] offered by Senator Harsdorf.
The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 19?
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 19 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
[Point of order:]
Senate amendment 20 [increasing the state property tax credit] offered by Senators Harsdorf, Ellis, Engeleiter, Davis and Theno.
38 The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 20?
Senator Kleczka raised the point of order that senate amendment 20 was not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of June 23, 1983 .......... Page: 268
[Point of order:]
The question was: Concurrence of assembly amendment 4 [to Senate Bill 83, relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1983 legislature, and making appropriations]?
Senator Opitz raised the point of order that assembly amendment 4 was not germane.
[Note:] A.Amdt.4 was the super-amendment brought in by the assembly majority party caucus. It had passed the assembly. Interhouse comity requires that the actions of one house be given full faith and credit by the other house [see Jeff.Man. 3-p and 17-s].
The germaneness of an amendment can be challenged only in the house of introduction [see S.Rule 50 (3)] because, under the state constitution, each house determines its own rules [Art. IV, Sec. 11].
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Point of order:]
Senator Opitz raised the point of order that assembly amendment 4 to Senate Bill 83 was not properly before the senate.
The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Opitz 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-19, noes-13.] So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 30, 1981 .......... Page: 1681
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 818 [compiled multi-issue "budget trailer" bill] was not properly before the assembly because Chapter 27, Laws of 1981 abolished the budget review process.
The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 1981 .......... Page: 1703
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled as follows on the point of order raised by Representative Loftus that Assembly Bill 818 was not properly before the assembly.
"Earlier today, the gentleman from the 46th rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 818 was not properly before the Assembly because it was a budget review bill, within the meaning of s. 16.475, Wis. Stats. 1979, and that the authority to bring a budget review bill before the Assembly had been repealed by Chapter 27, Laws of 1981.
39 Under s. 16.475, Laws of 1979, if the governor determines that the fiscal condition of the state or implementation of budget priorities requires adjustments in state expenditures or revenues, he or she must submit recommendations for the adjustments to the legislature in bill form by the end of the 2nd week of the legislative session in the even-numbered year.
The law also provided that such bills were exempt from certain procedural requirements, such as referral to relevant joint survey committees. Section 16.475 was repealed by Ch. 27, Laws of 1981.
It is apparent to the Chair that Assembly Bill 818 is a bill, which prior to the enactment of Ch. 27, Laws of 1981, would be considered to be a budget review bill. It makes adjustments to state expenditures and revenues in light of changes recently made to federal laws and other factors.
However, the provision in s. 16.475, prior to its repeal, did not limit the authority of the legislature to consider bills proposed by the governor which related to changing revenues and expenditures because of changing conditions. What the provision did primarily was to exempt such bills from certain procedural requirements.
The Chair notes that under s. 16.475, prior to its repeal, such bills were exempt from the requirement of s. 13.52, Wis. Stats. that bills creating tax exemptions must be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions. In the case of 1981 AB 818, the bill creates a tax exemption, and was referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions for a report, a requirement to which it would have been exempt prior to the enactment of Chapter 27.
Section 16.475, created a special class of bills to deal with fiscal matters. It did not, however, in the opinion of the Chair, create an exclusive procedure for dealing with such bills. It was that exclusive procedure, and only that procedure, which was repealed by Chapter 27.
Accordingly, the Chair finds the point of order not well taken."
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of July 8, 1981 .......... Page: 667
[Background: Senator Chilsen asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 66, (relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget bill of the 1981 legislature, and making appropriations) be returned to the Assembly.]
The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 66 be returned to the Assembly? The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-11, noes-22.] Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative the motion did not prevail.
Point of order:
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that both the majority and minority parties agreed Assembly Bill 66 was unconstitutionally before the senate.
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, the record will show that the majority party does not concede that Assembly Bill 66 is unconstitutionally before the senate.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.
40 Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgement of the senate?
The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-12.] So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
