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.
The chair ruled that the assembly could only adhere to or recede from its position and that no amendments could be introduced to senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 596.
[Note:] The assembly had considered S.Amdt.1 on 2/5/80 (A.Jour., p. 2105), nonconcurred, and messaged its action to the senate. The senate voted to adhere on 2/19/80 (S.Jour., p. 1365).
The question was: Shall the assembly recede from its position on senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 596?
Senate Journal of February 19, 1980 .......... Page: 1365
[Background: Assembly Bill 596, relating to exempting solar energy home heating systems and electricity generating devices from the property tax. Read.]
The question was: Shall the senate adhere to its position?
Senator Flynn in the chair.
Senator Bablitch moved that the senate recede from its position.
The question was: Shall the senate recede from its position?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-14, noes-16.] So the motion did not prevail.
The question was: Shall the senate adhere to its position?
[Point of order:]
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that a tie vote on the question of adherence would have the same effect as the senate receding from its position.
The chair [Sen. Flynn] ruled the point of order untimely.
Senator Berger asked unanimous consent that the senate adhere to its position and appoint a Committee of Conference. Senator Bablitch objected.
Senator Berger moved that the senate adhere to its position and appoint a Committee of Conference.
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, the motion was divided into two parts.
The question was: Shall the senate adhere to its position?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-17, noes-13.] So the senate adheres to its position.
By request of Senator Bablitch, with unanimous consent, the chair will appoint members of the Committee of Conference on Senate Bill 596.
1 9 7 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 17, 1977 .......... Page: 311
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that a motion for reconsideration of the vote by which the assembly failed to recede from its position on assembly amendment 1 to Senate Bill 63 was in order pursuant to Assembly Rule 72.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that a motion to recede under Joint Rule 3 is in effect a motion to reconsider. Therefore, a motion to reconsider a motion to recede would be the equivalent of reconsidering a motion to reconsider. Since this is not in order under Assembly Rule 72 (3), the speaker ruled the point of order not well taken.
497Reconciliation, recodification, revision or revisor's correction bill
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 18, 1986 .......... Page: 904
Point of order:
Representative R. Young rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 889 [relating to various changes in human services and county laws] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
[Note:] AB 889 was a 231-page revision bill standardizing the names of 4 agencies in each county dealing with human services reconciling requirements of the 1985 budget (WisAct 29) with existing statute law on county human services.
A.Amdt.1 attempted to attach to the bill a new procedure to fix county responsibility for the cost of emergency medical care for indigents.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of July 1, 1981 .......... Page: 754
[Recodification bill: substantive amendment held expansion of scope:]
Representative Leopold rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 5 to Assembly Bill 300 [relating to a recodification of alcoholic beverage laws, granting rule-making authority and providing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) because it goes beyond the purpose of recodification of alcoholic beverage laws.
498 [Note:] A.Amdt.5 proposed to add a new exception, "private tennis clubs", to the general prohibition against the presence of minors on premises licensed to sell alcoholic beverages.
The liquor law recodification was the product of 4 year's work by a Legislative Council committee directed "to refrain from making substantive revisions of those laws". While "recodification" bills are not mentioned in the rules of either house, Senate Rule 50 (10) provides: "Amendments to a revision bill are germane, but amendments to a revisor's correction bill are germane only if they make corrections and do not add new substantive material".
See also the floor amendments below: A.Amdt.6 proposed to eliminate a distinction between beer and liquor so that certain acts by minors would be treated with the same severity in either case.
A.Amdt.9 proposed to reduce the residency requirement for an applicant for an on-premise retail beer or liquor sale license from one year to 60 days.
A.Amdt.10 proposed to grandfather existing retail licenses, even if a municipality's declining population subsequently reduced the quota.
[A.Amdt.5:] The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that Assembly Bill 300 had the very limited purpose of recodification of alcoholic beverage laws and substantive amendments were not germane. [Intervening text omitted.]
Point of order:
Representative Leopold rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 300 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
[A.Amdt.6:] The speaker ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Assembly Journal of July 1, 1981 .......... Page: 755
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 9 to Assembly Bill 300 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
[A.Amdt.9:] The speaker ruled the point of order well taken. [Intervening text omitted.]
Point of order:
Representative Dorff rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 10 to Assembly Bill 300 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1).
[A.Amdt.10:] The speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Reconsideration motion
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 19, 1992 .......... Page: 1207
