[Point of order:]

  Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion to reconsider the vote by which senate amendment 3 was adopted was not properly before the Senate. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  On Thursday, February 23, 1978, Senator Braun moved reconsideration of the vote by which senate amendment 3 to Senate Bill 324 was adopted.

  At the time the reconsideration motion was made, the question before the Senate was: Shall Senate Bill 324 be referred to the committee on Commerce?

  Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion to refer to committee should take precedence over the motion to reconsider the amendment.

  Senate Rule 67 (6) states that "reconsideration of amendments .... shall have the same priority as to order of action as to amend under rule 63."

  Since a motion to refer is listed before a motion to amend under Senate Rule 63, the point of order raised by Senator Bablitch is well taken and the question before the Senate is: Shall Senate Bill 324 be referred to the committee on Commerce?

  FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore

  Motion not timely:

  Representative Hauke moved that Part 2 of assembly amendment 10 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 91 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget act of the 1991 legislature, and making appropriations] be taken from the table and taken up at this time. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-38, noes-60.] Motion failed.

  Representative Hauke moved reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 11 [to AB 91] failed to be adopted.

  The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the motion not timely.

  Point of order:

  Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration, which was ruled untimely, was in order since he tried to be recognized immediately after the vote on concurrence in Senate Bill 65.

  The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken because there were two representatives standing at the same time seeking recognition and the speaker has the right to recognize either one. The chair also noted that the motion for reconsideration will still be in order during the eighth order of business on the next legislative day.

  Point of order:

  Representative Fergus rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 273 [relating to forced viewing of sexual activity and providing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule (54) (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].

  Representative Welch moved that Assembly Rule 54 be suspended.

  The speaker [Loftus] ruled the motion out of order because a point of order was pending. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.

  The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled that assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 273 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 and that the point of order raised by Representative Fergus was well taken.

  [Background:] While the Senate acted under the 4th Order of Business (reports of committees), the Majority Leader obtained unanimous consent to act on certain bills. Senator Chilsen made a regular motion that Assembly Bill 10, November 1987 Spec. Sess. [relating to obscenity, defining obscene material and obscene performance and providing penalties] be withdrawn from committee on Judiciary and Consumer Affairs and referred to committee on Senate Rules.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Strohl raised the point of order that the motion was made at an inappropriate time. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  Ruling of the chair:

  The Senator from the 21st, Senator Strohl, raised the point of order that the motion made by the Senator from the 29th, Senator Chilsen, to withdraw a bill was not proper under the 4th Order of Business.

  On page 1708, Journal of the Senate 1977 Session the Chair ruled that motions to withdraw from committee are restricted to the 8th Order of Business: Motions may be offered. The 8th order at that time is now the 14th Order of Business. It is the opinion of the Chair that motion may be only under the 14th Order of Business. Therefore the point of order is well taken.

  A subsequent point of order was raised that a motion to withdraw a bill under the 10th order of business is not proper. The Senator from the 29th also questioned the purpose of the 10th Order of Business: Consideration of Motions and Resolutions."

  The Historic Parliamentary purpose of an order of business such as the Senate's 10th Order was to have a proper location to list pending motions for consideration as well as Resolutions. The Senate has frequently scheduled resolutions for 10th Order. However, it has not used the 10th Order for consideration of motions. Normal Parliamentary Practice would be for a motion to be made on the 14th Order and that motion would be considered on the next day's calendar under the 10th Order of Business.

  However, the practice of the Senate has been to consider motions when they are presented under the 14th Order, hence the use of the 10th Order to consider motions has not been necessary.

  For the reasons stated in the previous point on this same question, the point of order is well taken.

  Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate

[Precedence of appeal:]

435   Senator Strohl asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 462 [relating to the Wisconsin retirement system, allowing retired public employes to purchase state group health insurance coverage, fixed retirement investment trusts, transferring funds and making an appropriation] be laid on the table.

  Senator Davis objected. Senator Davis appealed the ruling of the chair [given immediately preceding the unanimous consent request].

  Senator Strohl moved that Assembly Bill 462 be laid on the table.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Ellis raised the point of order that the motion of Senator Strohl was not timely. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  Ruling of the chair:

  On Wednesday, October 21, 1987, the senator from the 19th, Senator Ellis, raised the point of order that a motion to appeal the decision of the Chair takes precedence over the motion to table a proposal.

  The senator from the 21st, Senator Strohl, had the floor after the Chair had ruled on a pending point of order in relating to Assembly Bill 462. The senator from the 21st asked unanimous consent that the bill be laid on the table. An objection was heard. The senator was then going to move to lay the bill on the table, when he yielded to the senator from the 11th, Senator Davis, who then appealed the ruling of the Chair. The senator from the 21st then moved to table the bill.

  Section 230, (7) of Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure reads as follows: "When an appeal has been taken from a decision of the presiding officer, no new business is in order until the appeal has been disposed of."

  The motion to appeal is an incidental question relating to the general procedural nature of the senate. Therefore, it takes precedence over any main motion relating to the matter under consideration.

  Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the motion to appeal the decision of the Chair takes precedence over the motion to table, and the point of order raised by the senator from the 19th is well taken.

  Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate

  [Motion based on misinformation:]

  Representative T. Thompson moved that the rules be suspended and that the committee of conference report on Assembly Bill 706 [relating to the financial assistance program for septic tank replacement and rehabilitation] be withdrawn from the committee on Rules and taken up at this time.

  Point of order:

  Representative Johnson rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order because Assembly Bill 706 was not in the committee on Rules [most likely, it was still in the Senate].

  Representative T. Thompson withdrew his motion. [Intervening text omitted.]

  Point of order:

  Representative T. Thompson moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 706 be withdrawn from the committee on Rules and taken up at this time.

  Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 706 was in the committee on Rules.

  The speaker took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]

  The speaker [Loftus] ruled that Assembly Bill 706 was not in the committee on Rules [it was still on a senate message, waiting to be read in] and the point of order not well taken.

  [Reconsideration motion, time for offering:]

  The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 999 [relating to regulation of utility advertising practices] be ordered engrossed and read a third time? Motion carried.

  Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 999 be given a third reading. Representative Plous objected.

  Representative Johnson moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 999 be given a third reading.

  The question was: Shall the rules be suspended and Assembly Bill 999 be given a third reading? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-71, noes-23.] Motion carried.

  Representative Gilson asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "Aye" on the previous question. Granted.

  Representative Plous moved reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 999 was ordered to a third reading.

  Point of order:

  Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration was not in order at this time. The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement.

  The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled that the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which Assembly Bill 999 was ordered to a third reading was not in order when offered by Representative Plous, because it was not offered immediately after the vote on engrossment.

  [Motion to suspend germaneness rule:]

  Representative Merkt moved that Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope] be suspended to allow consideration of assembly amendment 8 to Senate Bill 663 [relating to 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].

437   The speaker [Loftus] ruled the motion out of order.