Senator J. D. Swan moved reconsideration of the vote by which senate amendment 11 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1, 1973 Special Session] was adopted.
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-17, noes-14.] So the motion prevailed.
516 The question was: Adoption of senate amendment 11 to senate substitute amendment 1?
Senator Steinhilber moved rejection. [Intervening text omitted.]
Senate Journal of December 20, 1973 .......... Page: 38
[Point of order:]
Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the question before the senate should be one of adoption, and not rejection, as it was the question that was reconsidered.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of July 24, 1973 .......... Page: 1408
[Reconsideration permitted on rejection of conference report:]
Assembly Bill 300 [relating to state finances and appropriations constituting the executive budget bill of the 1973 legislature, and making appropriations]
The question was: Adoption of the Committee of Conference report?
Senator J. D. Swan moved rejection of the Committee of Conference report. [Intervening text omitted.]
The question was: Adoption of the Conference Committee Report? Senator J. D. Swan moved rejection.
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-17, noes-10.] So the motion prevailed.
Senator LaFave moved reconsideration of the vote by which the Conference Committee Report on Assembly Bill 300 was rejected. [Intervening text omitted.]
The question was: Reconsideration of the vote by which the Conference Committee Report on Assembly Bill 300 was rejected?
Senator Lorge moved the previous question.
By request of Senator Johnson, with unanimous consent, the motion to put the previous question was laid on the table.
The question was: Reconsideration of the vote by which the Conference Committee Report on Assembly Bill 300 was rejected.
Senator Risser moved a call of the senate [Display of roll call omitted; present-29, absent-0, with leave-4; intervening text omitted.]
The question was: Reconsideration of the vote by which the Conference Committee Report on Assembly Bill 300 was rejected?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-13, noes-12.] So the motion prevailed.
Senate Journal of May 2, 1973 .......... Page: 937
[Background: senate had conducted some business by "unanimous consent".]
Senator Lorge asked unanimous consent that Senate Bill 396 be taken from the table and considered for action at this time. Senator Murphy objected.
Senator Lorge moved that Senate Bill 396 be taken from the table and considered for action at this time.
[Point of order:]
Senator LaFave raised the point of order that a motion for reconsideration was already before the senate [re SB 203; p. 934] and therefore the motion to take from the table was out of order.
517 The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of February 6, 1973 .......... Page: 327
[Point of order:]
Senate Bill 26 [relating to revising state life and property insurance and the state indemnity fund, granting rule-making authority and making appropriations].
The question was: adoption of senate amendment 4 to Senate Bill 26?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-16, noes-14.] So the amendment was adopted.
Senator Risser moved reconsideration of senate amendment 3 to Senate Bill 26.
Senator Parys raised the point of order that the motion was not made in the proper order of business.
The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Senator Risser asked unanimous consent to lay Senate Bill 26 on the table. Senator Parys objected.
The question was: reconsideration of senate amendment 3 to Senate Bill 26?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-13, noes-19.] So senate amendment 3 was not reconsidered.
Redistricting
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 4, 1983 .......... Page: 360
[Members to be addressed by district:]
Representative R. Travis asked unanimous consent that the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) [a member is recognized by reference to district number rather than by proper name] be suspended indefinitely. Representative Johnson objected.
Representative R. Travis asked unanimous consent that the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) be suspended for the October floorperiod. Representative Johnson objected.
Representative R. Travis moved that the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) be suspended for the October floorperiod.
The question was: Shall the last sentence of Assembly Rule 56 (1) be suspended for the October floorperiod? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-40, noes-58.] Motion failed.
Assembly Journal of October 4, 1983 .......... Page: 360
[Motion cannot suspend state law; effective date of redistricting:]
Representative T. Thompson moved that the assembly return to using the district numbers in effect at the beginning of the 1983 legislative session.
Speaker Loftus ruled the motion out of order because 1983 Wisconsin Act 29 [relating to redistricting the senate and assembly based on the 1980 federal census of population and making miscellaneous changes in the statutes pertaining to decennial legislative redistricting] had taken effect.
518 Representative T. Thompson moved that the rules be suspended to allow the motion.
Speaker Loftus ruled the motion out of order.
Referral motion (to committee)
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of October 29, 1987 .......... Page: 514
[The question was "shall senate amdt.1 to AB 462 be concurred in?"]:
Representative Walling 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 referred to the committee on Rules.
[Note:] Only proposals (bills, joint resolutions, resolutions) are referred to committee; see A.Rules 42 and 45.
Amendments or substitutes offered in the house of origin while the proposal is still in committee are forwarded to the committee for filing with the proposal.
Although Mason's Manual (sec. 766.3, 1989 ed.) says that "it is proper for a house, upon receiving an amended bill with a request to concur, to refer the message with the bill to a committee for consideration and a report upon concurrence", Wisconsin practice is to refer the amended proposal directly to calendar.
In the Senate, S.Rule 41 (2) clearly addresses the issue: .... "Questions of .... concurrence in amendments of the other house .... may be placed on the table but shall in no case be referred to any committee."
In the Assembly, A.Rule 31 (6) serves the same purpose by providing for an order of business reserved for "consideration of senate action on proposals approved by the assembly".
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that the motion to refer to committee was not in order when the question before the assembly was consideration of senate amendments.
Assembly Journal of October 28, 1987 .......... Page: 505
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that the motion to refer the committee of conference report on Senate Bill 7 [relating to requiring motor vehicle operators and passengers to wear safety belts, granting rule-making authority, requesting a study and providing a penalty] to a committee was not proper. The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] took the point of order under advisement.
519 [Note:] The conferees (Sens. Czarnezki, Risser, Weeden; Reps. Loftus, Hauke, Nelsen) brought in a report whereby the Assembly would recede from its position on Assembly Amendment 24; the Senate would recede from its position on Assembly Amendment 17; and both houses would agree to the concept of Assembly Amendment 10 as reworded, the concept of Assembly Amendment 18 at 15% subject to sunset on June 30, 1989, and a technical correction concerning farm trucks and dual-purpose farm trucks, all incorporated, together with parts of the bill
previously agreed to by both houses, into Conference Substitute Amendment 1 (LRBs0411/1), which was attached to and made a part of the conference report.
Rep. Hauke (majority leader), received unanimous consent "that Senate Bill 7 be taken up at this time". Rep. Schneider (cochair, Jt. Fin. com.), asked unanimous consent to refer Senate Bill 7 to the Joint Committee on Finance, to which Rep. Nelsen (minority leader) objected. Rep. Schneider then offered a regular motion "that Senate Bill 7 be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance".
When a standing or special committee reports a bill, that bill constitutes business to be decided by the house. The committee report recommends, but does not limit, house action. "Any business to be decided by the assembly may be referred to a committee .... while under debate by the assembly"; Assembly Rules 13 (1) (b) and 65 (2) (d) and (e).
The problem was the unanimous consent "that Senate Bill 7 be taken up". A bill reported by a conference committee is no longer open to house action - the alternatives are limited to adoption or rejection of the conference report before the house. "The vote by each house to adopt the conference report constitutes final action on the proposal"; Joint Rule 3 (2).
Although the motion to refer the bill was here allowed, it was defeated, as were subsequent motions to refer the bill to a different standing committee and to reject the report of the conference committee. Both houses approved the conference report (Assembly Journal, pages 506-7, Senate Journal, page 469) and the bill, as affected by the conference report, became 1987 Wisconsin Act 132.
At the opening of the 1989 Session, the assembly adopted Assembly Rule 45 (6): "Except as incidental to calendar scheduling by the committee on rules, the report of a committee of conference may not be referred to committee."
The speaker [Loftus] ruled that the report of a committee of conference may be referred to a committee and ruled the point of order, that the motion to refer Senate Bill 7 to committee [was improper], was not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 14, 1987 .......... Page: 417
Point of order:
520 Representative Hauke rose to the point of order that the motion to refer Assembly Bill 251 [relating to regulating pawnbrokers and secondhand article and jewelry dealers and providing penalties] to the committee on Trade, Industry and Small Business was not in order under Assembly Rule 72 because the motion had failed earlier today.
[Note:] A motion to refer the bill to the committee on Trade, Industry and Small Business failed [Assembly Journal, page 417]. After intervening action on assembly amendments 15 and 16, Representative Holperin again moved to refer Assembly Bill 251 to the same committee.
Following the ruling, the Minority Leader moved to refer the bill to a different committee (Joint Finance). That motion carried.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.
1 9 8 3 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 28, 1984 .......... Page: 801
[Point of order:]
Senate substitute amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 58, relating to eligibility of employes affected by lockouts for unemployment compensation benefits] offered by Senator Harsdorf.
The question was: Adoption of senate substitute amendment 1?
Senator Theno raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane.
[Note:] While the bill provided unemployment compensation benefits for employes affected by lockouts (thus deciding an issue), S.Sub.1 substituted a study by the council on unemployment compensation (with a possible report one year later).
In terms of deciding the issue itself, adoption of the substitute would have had the same effect (maintaining the status quo) as defeat of the bill. Consequently, the substitute attempted to "totally alter the nature of the original proposal" in violation of S.Rule 50 (1), and in violation of the rights of the authors of the proposal to have the issue considered and decided on its merits.
The approach was a common procedural error: if the legislature requires more information to decide an issue, then it is appropriate to re-refer the proposal to a standing committee for that information, but it is not appropriate to change the nature of the proposal itself. For a joint interim study by the 2 houses, the proper vehicle is a joint resolution requesting the legislative council to study the subject matter of the proposal.
(It appears that there has not been a contrary ruling since 7/18/63 [see Sen.Jour. p. 1620]. At that time, pres. pro tem. Sen. Frank Panzer had allowed a substitute amendment replacing decision with study, but the senate then rejected the substitute.)
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
521 1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 25, 1982 .......... Page: 2370
[Background:]
Representative Paulson moved that Senate Bill 150 [relating to changes in the regulation of motor carriers and granting rule-making authority] be re-referred to the committee on Rules.
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 150 be re-referred to the committee on Rules?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-34, noes-60.] Motion failed.
Representative Kincaid moved that Senate Bill 150 be referred to the committee on Agriculture and Nutrition.
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 150 be referred to the committee on Agriculture and Nutrition?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-37, noes-58.] Motion failed.
