Senate Journal of March 25, 1976 .......... Page: 2174
[Point of order:]
Senator Whittow moved that Senate Bill 500 be considered for action at this time.
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the motion was untimely. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that the motion to consider Senate Bill 500 was not timely as the senate had passed the seventh and eighth orders of business.
465 The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order frivolous and dilatory.
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 500 be considered for action at this time? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-21, noes-11.] So the motion prevailed.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 18, 1973 .......... Page: 1801
[Proper place of proposal within regular order of business:]
By request of Senator Whittow, with unanimous consent, Senate Bill 555 was laid on the table.
Senator McKenna asked unanimous consent to take up Assembly Bill 178 at this time. Senator Chilsen objected.
[Point of order:]
Senator McKenna raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 178 should have been inserted at this point on the calendar. The chair took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that Assembly Bill 178 should have been on the calendar before Assembly Bill 219 and therefore the point of order was well taken and the bill was before the senate.
Senate Journal of January 25, 1973 .......... Page: 224
[Point of order:]
Senator Johnson raised the point of order that the Senate was still on the eleventh [2nd reading and amendment of senate bills and joint resolutions] order of business.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
By request of Senator Risser, with unanimous consent, the Senate returned to the eleventh order of business.
Pairing agreement: applicability of
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of February 28, 1974 .......... Page: 2335
[Applicability of "pair".]
Paired for ordering to a third reading - Senator Frank - 1.
Paired against ordering to a third reading - Senator Kendziorski - 1.
So the bill was not ordered to a third reading.
Senator Hollander moved reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Bill 341 failed to be ordered to a third reading.
Senator Hollander asked unanimous consent that the motion for reconsideration be laid over until Tuesday. Senator Lorge objected.
466 Senator Bidwell raised the point of order that the pair between Senators Frank and Kendziorski should apply on the question of reconsideration.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Point of order: appeal of ruling
1 9 9 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 23, 1994 .......... Page: 902
[Point of order:]
Senator Schultz raised the point of order that Senate amendment 5 to Senate Bill 771 [relating to representations in connection with the sale of dairy products, bovine somatotropin and granting rule-making authority] was not germane.
[Note:] The bill was limited to requiring statements concerning the use or nonuse of bovine somatotropin (also known as "rBGH", recombinant bovine growth hormone) to be truthful, prohibiting unsubstantiated claims that milk was produced by cows that had not been administered synthetic bovine somatotropin and prohibiting claims that milk from cows treated with the synthetic hormone is somehow less wholesome.
Sen.Amdt-5 attempted to change the nature of the proposal by placing restrictions on the sale and distribution of dairy products not certified as rBGH-free.
Sen.Amdt-11 (below), which proposed to allow only licensed veterinarians to sell rBGH to milk producers, was not germane as an amendment relating to a specific subject attached to a bill dealing with a different specific subject.
[Section 513 (1) of Mason's Manual expressly states that a tie vote on an appeal from a decision of the chair sustains the decision of the chair.]
The Chair ruled the point well taken.
[Point of order:]
Senator Schultz raised the point of order that Senate amendment 11 was not germane to Senate Bill 771.
The Chair ruled the point well taken. Senator Wineke 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.
Senate Journal of March 23, 1994 .......... Page: 900
[Point of order:]
467 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.
[Note:] The history of SB 781 indicates that fiscal estimates had been received on March 8 (two) and on March 11. These had been prepared by the department of corrections, the department of administration, and the sentencing commission. Also in the files was a fiscal estimate, dated March 17, from the department of justice.
The supplementary fiscal estimate, requested on March 23, was received on March 28 (after the bill had passed both houses).
State agencies are required to furnish the legislature with reliable estimates. The presiding officer does not have the information to decide in each instance whether or not an estimate received is "reliable". In addition,
section 13.093 (2) (c) expressly provides that a bill does not require a fiscal estimate when the only assumed cost of the bill derives from the cost of incarcerating convicted offenders.
[Section 513 (1) of Mason's Manual expressly states that a tie vote on an appeal from a decision of the chair sustains the decision of the chair.]
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.
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 19, 1988 .......... Page: 1116
Point of order:
Representative Hauke rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 598 [relating to the homestead credit, farmland preservation credit, school property tax credit, vocational, technical and adult education incentive grants and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] The bill proposed to give property tax relief through changes in the school property tax credit, the farmland preservation credit and VTAE incentive grants.
A.SubAmdt.1 proposed a completely different approach to property tax relief by state assumption of teachers' salaries funded by eliminating the school property tax credit and increasing the sales tax from 5% to 6%.
A.Rule 54 (1) identifies as not germane a substitute amendment "which would totally alter the nature of the proposal".
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
Representative Paulson appealed the decision of the chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the chair stand as the decision of the assembly? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-61, noes-36] Motion carried.
468Assembly Journal of October 22, 1987 .......... Page: 459
[Motion out of order:]
Representative Prosser moved that Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) be suspended to allow consideration of assembly amendment 6 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 24 [relating to employment relations for members of the university of Wisconsin system academic staff].
[Note:] A.Rule 90 (4) says that "motions to suspend the rules shall not be permitted for frivolous, indecorous or clearly dilatory purposes".
That rule fails to mention a more prosaic reason: no rule should ever be suspended when the end sought to be achieved by the suspension can be achieved under a regular procedure provided in the rules. The proper way to overcome a ruling of nongermaneness is to appeal the ruling of the chair.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the motion out of order.
1 9 8 7 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 17, 1988 .......... Page: 726
[Point of order:]
Senator Feingold raised the point of order that senate amendment 5 [to Senate Bill 191, relating to revising crimes against the life, bodily security and safety of persons, defining criminal recklessness and criminal negligence and providing penalties] is not germane.
[Note:] The bill contained the recommendations of the Judicial Council's committee on homicide and lesser included offenses.
S.Amdt.5 was a "life means life" proposal prohibiting work release and parole for persons convicted of certain capital offenses.
S.Amdt.3 was a shorter version of the "life means life" proposal.
S.Amdt.1 attempted to include unborn children, "from fertilization until birth", within the prohibitions and penalties revised in the bill.
The Chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senator Feingold raised the point of order that senate amendment 3 is not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senator Ulichny raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 is not germane.
The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senator Chilsen appealed the ruling of the Chair. The question was: Shall the ruling 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-20, noes-11.] So the ruling of the Chair stood as the judgment of the Senate.
Senate Journal of October 21, 1987 .......... Page: 422
[Precedence of appeal:]
469 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.
Senate Journal of October 27, 1987 .......... Page: 453
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
Senate Journal of July 2, 1987 .......... Page: 388
[Background:] Senator Chilsen moved 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 nonconcurred in. The question was: Shall the bill be nonconcurred in?
