Suspension of law (express or implied) under Stitt case
602
Tax exemptions: referral of proposal to joint survey committee on
633
Tax exemptions: report by joint survey committee on
646
Tax exemptions: withdrawing proposal from joint survey committee on
647
Third reading of proposal
652
Timeliness of point of order
653
Two-thirds vote required: prevailing side
663
Unanimous consent: member requesting must have floor
665
Veto review session: conduct of
665
Voting: member excused for cause
670
Withdrawal motion (from committee)
670
4RULINGS OF THE CHAIR, BY SUBJECT
Absence from daily session: leave required
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 25, 1986 .......... Page: 754
Point of order:
Representative Foti rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 32 [relating to eliminating the boards of natural resources, of agriculture, trade and consumer protection and of veterans affairs and changing the departments of natural resources, of agriculture, trade and consumer protection and of veterans affairs to a cabinet form of government headed by a secretary, changing the method of removal of state officers, and creating councils] was improperly before the assembly because it had been acted on by the committee on State Affairs in violation of Assembly Rule 12 on October 16, 1985.
[Note:] A.Rule 12 provides that, "except for conference committees, no committee may meet while the assembly is in session". Rep. Foti was a member of the committee on State Affairs.
The official committee report on the bill (A.Jour. 1/30/86, p. 620) merely shows the committee vote for concurrence (6 to 4). Neither the committee report, nor the journal for 10/16/85, give any indication that the committee on State Affairs met in violation of A.Rule 12.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 5, 1984 .......... Page: 854
[Senate under call:]
Senator McCallum moved a call of the senate, which motion was supported.
The sergeant-at-arms was directed to close the doors and the clerk to call the roll.
The roll was called and the following senators answered to their names: Senators Adelman, Chilsen, Cullen, Czarnezki, Davis, Ellis, Engeleiter, Feingold, George, Hanaway, Harsdorf, Helbach, Johnston, Kincaid, Kleczka, Kreul, Lasee, Lee, Lorge, Lorman, McCallum, Maurer, Moen, Norquist, Opitz, Otte, Risser, Roshell, Strohl, Theno, Thompson and Van Sistine - 32 [absent - 0; with leave - 0]. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senate Journal of April 5, 1984 .......... Page: 855
Senator McCallum asked unanimous consent that the Call of the House be raised. Senator Cullen objected.
5 Senator Lorge moved that the Call of the House be raised. The question was: Shall the Call of the House be raised? The motion did not prevail.
Senate Journal of April 5, 1984 .......... Page: 857
[Request for leave during call:]
Senator Lorge asked unanimous consent that he be granted a leave of absence until 12:00 Noon. Senator Cullen objected.
Senator Lorge moved that he be granted a leave of absence until 12:00 Noon. The question was: Shall Senator Lorge be granted a leave of absence until 12:00 Noon? The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-13, noes-19]. So the motion did not prevail.
Senator Lorge moved the Call of the House be raised. The question was: Shall the Call of the House be raised? The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was [roll call vote omitted; ayes-12, noes-20]. So the motion did not prevail.
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the senate was not under a Call of the House. The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not 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-19, noes-13]. So the decision of the chair shall stand as the judgment of the senate.
1 9 7 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of July 24, 1973 .......... Page: 1438
[Point of order:]
Senator Lorge asked unanimous consent for a leave of absence for October 23 and 24. Senator Risser objected.
Senator Lorge moved that he be granted a leave of absence for October 23 and 24.
Senator McKenna raised the point of order that the motion was not proper as these dates are in Floor Period 3. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of July 25, 1973 .......... Page: 1453
Senator Lorge asked unanimous consent for a leave of absence on October 23 and 24. Senator Risser objected.
Senate Journal of July 26, 1973 .......... Page: 1508
By request of Senator Knutson, with unanimous consent, Senator Lorge was granted a leave of absence for October 23 and 24.
Adjourn or recess, motion to
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 25, 1988 .......... Page: 987
6 [Background:] After Rep. Hauke (majority leader) moved that the assembly stand adjourned, Rep. Welch "moved that the rules be suspended and that Senate Bill 300 be
withdrawn from the committee on Rules and taken up at this time". The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the motion out of order because a motion to adjourn was pending.
Point of order:
Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion was proper under Assembly Rule 90 (3).
[Note:] Assembly Rule 90 (3) A unanimous consent request or a motion to suspend the rules may be made at any time under any order of business by a member who obtains the floor, but not while the assembly is voting.
Technically, Rep. Welch may have been correct; see also Assembly Rules 65 (1) (a) and (c) which provide that a motion to suspend the rules outranks a motion to adjourn.
However, this was the last day of the final general business floorperiod; it was Friday night, the time was almost 11:30 p.m., and the session would end at midnight. It was not likely that the Senate could establish its position on the annual budget (AB 850) by that time, and return the bill to the Assembly for concurrence in amendments.
Speaker pro tem. Clarenbach probably based his ruling on Assembly Rule 90 (4), which says that "motions to suspend the rules shall not be permitted for .... clearly dilatory purposes".
As shown be the subsequent action, the Assembly wanted to go home:
Representative Loftus moved that the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1.
The question was: Shall the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-54, noes-42.] Motion carried. The assembly stood adjourned.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1986 .......... Page: 1042
Point of order:
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that Assembly Resolution 23 [relating to further consideration of proposals pending in the assembly] was not privileged and was in conflict with the provisions of the session schedule (Assembly Joint Resolution 1).
[Note:] On 3/26/86 the senate adjourned at 7:12 p.m., thus terminating its participation in floorperiod V under the session schedule. The assembly stayed in session.
At 11:25 p.m., Speaker Loftus offered A.Res.23 to focus assembly procedures on measures that could still be enacted, even with the senate gone. AB 229 on faculty collective bargaining was such a bill: except for a senate amendment, both houses had already agreed to it.
7 The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Resolution 23 offered by Representative Loftus.
Representative Loftus moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 229 be withdrawn from the calendar and taken up at this time. [Intervening text omitted]
Representative Becker moved that the assembly stand adjourned pursuant to Assembly Joint Resolution 1. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-79, noes-19.] Motion carried.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 16, 1983 .......... Page: 264
[Repetitive calls dilatory:]
Representative T. Thompson requested a call of the assembly. There were sufficient seconds. The sergeant-at-arms was directed to close the doors and the chief clerk to call the roll. [Display of roll call omitted; absent with leave-0, absent without leave-1.]
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that the call of the assembly be lifted. Granted.
Representative T. Thompson moved a call of the assembly.
Speaker Loftus ruled the motion out of order under Assembly Rule 88.
[Intervening business: roll call vote to reject A.Res.13 failed.]
Representative T. Thompson requested a call of the assembly. There were sufficient seconds.
The sergeant-at-arms was directed to close the doors and the chief clerk to call the roll. [Display of roll call omitted; absent with leave-0, absent without leave-3.] Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that the call of the assembly be lifted. Representative T. Thompson objected.
Representative T. Thompson moved that the absent members be located.
The question was: Shall the absent members be located? Motion failed.
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that the assembly stand recessed for ten seconds.
Granted. The assembly stood recessed.
[Note:] Under A.Rule 87 (3), a call is lifted when the assembly recesses or adjourns.
The assembly reconvened. 5:48 p.m.
Representative T. Thompson moved a call of the assembly.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the motion out of order.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 8, 1982 .......... Page: 3320
8 [Background: 1981 SB 783, a multi-issue budget adjustment bill, had been special ordered for 10 a.m. on Thursday (4/8/82) but was not called up. According to the journal,
the speaker called up the special order after the majority leader moved adjournment to 10 a.m. on Tuesday, but before the adjournment motion was put to the body.]
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 783 was not properly before the assembly at this time because a motion to adjourn was pending.
