Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 600 was before the assembly.
[Note:] The Assembly Journal of Thursday, 4/5/84, at 11 a.m., recorded receipt of a Rules Committee report for special order scheduling of 1983 SB 600, "relating to establishing high school graduation standards, granting rule-making authority and making an appropriation".
By unanimous consent (A.Jour. 3/29/84, p. 1093), SB 600 was already a special order for 10:01 a.m. on Wednesday, 4/4/84.
Two amendments to A.Sub. 1, A.Sub.2, and 8 amendments to A.Sub.2, were offered on 4/4/84 (A.Jour., p. 1121) and had to be copied and distributed. This may have bee the reason why SB 600 was not reached on that day.
Whatever the earlier status of SB 600, A.Rule 33 (3) clearly states that a Rules Committee special order resolution .... "shall be taken up and acted upon immediately, ahead of all other proposals then pending".
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that Assembly Resolution 25 [relating to scheduling 1983 Senate Bill 600 as a special order of business] was before the assembly under Assembly Rule 33 (3).
Representative T. Thompson moved rejection of Assembly Resolution 25.
Representative Kunicki in the chair.
The question was: Shall Assembly Resolution 25 be rejected? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-40, noes-59]. Motion failed.
Speaker Loftus in the chair.
The question was: Shall Assembly Resolution 25 be adopted? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-60, noes-39]. Motion carried.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 27, 1982 .......... Page: 3485
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 40 [relating to unemployment compensation operations in the Superior job service office] could not be considered during a veto review session under Joint Rule 82 (1) (d).
491 [Note:] Jt.Rule 82 (1) (d) deals exclusively with bills "offered by the organization committee of either house which resolve conflicts between mutually inconsistent acts of the legislative session". Such bills, and revisor's correction bills, are privileged to be considered during the regularly scheduled veto review session.
Jt.Rule 83 (1) says that introduction and disposition of proposals is in each house governed by the rules of that house.
A resolution expressing the assembly's desire for action by certain administrative agencies, and directing the assembly's Government Operations standing committee to hold hearings on an issue, relates to the "members, procedures or organization of the assembly" and is privileged, under A.Rule 43, during any session.
Section 8 of article IV of the Wisconsin constitution empowers each house of the legislature to "determine the rules of its own proceedings". Thus, any conflict between joint rules and house rules is resolved in favor of house rules.
The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Assembly Journal of May 27, 1982 .......... Page: 3487
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the consideration of Assembly Resolution 40 proper under Joint Rule 83 (1) and Assembly Rule 43.
Assembly Journal of May 27, 1982 .......... Page: 3488
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 40 was not privileged under Assembly Rule 43.
The speaker ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of January 27, 1982 .......... Page: 1896
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 29 [directing the committee on government operations to investigate office closings and layoffs in public service employment in this state] was not a privileged resolution under Assembly Rule 43.
[Note:] An assembly resolution directing an assembly committee to conduct an investigation does relate to the "procedures or organization of the assembly".
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 28, 1981 .......... Page: 1044
[Background: Senate Resolution 13, relating to scheduling 1981 Assembly Bill 45 for public hearing, executive action and as a special order of business]. Read and referred to committee on Senate Organization.]
Senator Opitz asked unanimous consent that Senate Resolution 13 be considered at this time. Senator Flynn objected.
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that Senate Resolution 13 was a privileged resolution and should be considered at this time. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of October 30, 1981 .......... Page: 1089
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
On Wednesday, October 27, Senate Resolution 13 was introduced and referred to Committee on Senate Organization. Senator Chilsen of the 29th District raised the point of order that the resolution was privileged and should be taken up immediately. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
A reading of Senate Rule 69 indicates that a privileged resolution may be taken up immediately unless referred to a calendar or committee. It would then appear that the question of whether the resolution is privileged or not has no basis for the resolution coming before the senate immediately. Since the resolution was referred to committee prior to the point of order being raised it would appear that the point of order is mute and therefore the point of order is not well taken.
Proceedings of other house given full faith and credit in this house
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 25, 1986 .......... Page: 740
Point of order:
Representative R. Travis rose to the point of order that senate amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 45 [relating to excepting pari-mutuel betting on horse racing from the prohibition against legislative authorization of lotteries (first consideration)] was not germane because it was identical to assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Joint Resolution 45 which the speaker ruled not germane on October 16, 1985. Representative R. Travis further stated that the presiding officer in the senate had ruled the identical amendment germane, and that the senate had, in effect, countermanded the speaker's ruling.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that each house may determine its own rules pursuant to Article IV, Section 8, of the Wisconsin Constitution, and the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 1, 1984 .......... Page: 837
Point of order:
493 Representative R. Travis rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 568 [relating to retirement benefits and funding those benefits] was not properly before the assembly because senate amendments 1 and 3 had been adopted by the senate in violation of section 13.50 of the Wisconsin Statutes. The amendments had not been referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement System.
[Note:] In State ex rel. LaFollette vs. Stitt, 114 Wis. 2d 358 (1983), the court held that it will not .... "invalidate legislation when it finds that the legislature has violated a procedural statutory provision in passing an act. Unless that claim is that the legislative procedure violated some constitutional provision or right, this court will not, under separation of powers concepts and affording the comity and respect due a co-equal branch of state government, interfere with the conduct of legislative affairs" ....
See also Jefferson's Manual, 3-p and 17-s.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that, based on past precedents, Article IV, Section 8, of the Wisconsin Constitution and State ex rel. LaFollette vs. Stitt, each house of the legislature was the judge of its own procedures and he could not rule on the germaneness of senate amendments. The point of order was ruled not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 28, 1983 .......... Page: 571
Point of order:
Representative Crawford rose to the point of order that senate amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 5, October 1983 Special Session [relating to directing the department of development to establish and operate a permit information center and specifying agency rule-making and other responsibilities which are coordinated with the functions of the center and making an appropriation], was not germane under Assembly Rule 93 (1) [in special session, amendment must fit within call] and Article IV, Section 11 [special session limited to purposes for which convened], of the Wisconsin Constitution.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that, based on past precedents and Article IV Section 8 [each house determines own rules] of the Wisconsin Constitution, he could not rule on the germaneness of senate amendments. The point of order was ruled not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 19, 1983 .......... Page: 455
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 261 [relating to increasing penalties for violations of animal health laws] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) because it substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken under the provisions of sections 3 [3-p] and 17 [17-s] of Jefferson's Manual [one house not to question validity of actions by other house].
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of September 21, 1977 .......... Page: 2175
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 559 was required to be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because the bill had been referred to the Joint Committee on Finance by the senate on Tuesday, September 20.
494Assembly Journal of September 21, 1977 .......... Page: 2174
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 559 [relating to miscellaneous changes in the tax credit, agreements, planning and zoning requirements for farmland preservation enacted by chapter 29, laws of 1977 and making an appropriation] was not properly before the assembly because
the bill had been acted on by the senate prior to receipt of a fiscal estimate as required by Joint Rule 49 and Wisconsin Statutes 13.10.
[Note:] The point of order was also an improper challenge of proceedings in the other house.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not timely.
Quorum, absence of
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of January 12, 1977 .......... Page: 91
1:30 P.M. - The assembly reconvened.
Representative Wahner moved rejection of assembly amendment 9 to Assembly Resolution 6.
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that a quorum was not present.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
Recede from house position on proposal or amendment
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 13, 1986 .......... Page: 861
Reconsideration of failure to adhere:
The question was: Shall the assembly adhere to its position on assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 94 [relating to recodifying and making technical and minor substantive changes in the administrative rule-making process] and request a committee of conference?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-49, noes-49.] Motion failed.
Representative T. Thompson moved reconsideration of the vote by which the assembly failed to adhere to its position on assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 94. Entered.
Assembly Journal of March 18, 1986 .......... Page: 899
495 The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled out of order the motion for reconsideration of the vote by which the assembly failed to adhere to its position on assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 94.
[Note:] In a similar (but not identical) situation in 1977, Speaker Jackamonis ruled out of order a motion by Rep. Shabaz to reconsider the vote by which the assembly failed to recede from its position on assembly amendment 1 to 1977 SB 63 (A.Jour., p. 311). Speaker Jackamonis explained that a vote to recede was, in fact, a vote to reconsider and, since a vote on a motion to reconsider cannot be reconsidered [A.Rule 73 (5)], a vote on a motion to recede cannot be reconsidered.
Paul Mason, in sections 766 to 774 of the Manual (ed. 1979), discusses "conferences concerning amendments". Mason never even mentions a motion to adhere; according to him (see s. 767), the question is to recede.
In the present case - because a tied vote loses the question [A.Rule 81] - the assembly has failed to adhere to its earlier position of adopting assembly amendment 1 to 1985 SB 94. An unsuccessful vote to adhere was the same as a vote to recede and could not be reconsidered, but the question to recede had yet to be put. When that question carried, the bill was agreed to by both houses and ready for enrolling.
On the other hand, if the question to recede had also failed, 1985 SB 94 would have been dead unless the 2 houses agreed to a conference and were able to resolve their differences by adopting the conference report in both houses.
The question was: Shall the assembly recede from its position on assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 94? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-55, noes-42.] Motion carried.
Representative Becker asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 94 be immediately messaged to the senate. Granted.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 26, 1980 .......... Page: 2351
Representative Shabaz moved that the assembly recede from its position on senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 596 [relating to exempting solar energy home heating systems and electricity generating devices from the property tax].
Speaker pro tempore Kedrowski in the chair.
