Point of order:

  Representative Hauke rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 210 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1220 [budget review bill] was not properly before the assembly under Wisconsin Statutes 13.50 (6) (a).

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that assembly amendment 210 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1220 was not properly before the assembly because the amendment had not been submitted to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Whittow raised the point of order that the bill [Senate Bill 227, relating to exemption of federal retirement system benefits from state income tax] must be referred to Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  On February 4, 1976, Senator Whittow raised the point of order that Senate Bill 227 must be referred to Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems.

534   The chair rules that Senate Bill 227 should not be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems. Senate Bill 227 relates to federal retirement system benefits, while s. 13.50 (6)(a), Wis. Stats., applies to bills relating to the state retirement system.

  Respectfully submitted
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore

[Point of order:]

  Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that the bill [Assembly Bill 481, relating to miscellaneous changes requested by various state agencies, granting rule-making authority and providing penalties] must be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  On January 29, 1976, Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 481 must be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems.

  The chair rules that pursuant to s. 13.50 (6)(a), Wis. Stats., Assembly Bill 481 should be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems.

  Respectfully submitted
MARTIN J. SCHREIBER
Lieutenant Governor

  [Background, page 2622:]

  Senate Resolution 44, requesting an opinion of the attorney general as to the validity of any law resulting from the enactment of 1973 Assembly Bill 1480 relating to teachers retirement.

  Whereas, 1973 Assembly Bill 1480 relating to the state teachers retirement system and the Milwaukee teachers retirement fund was passed by the assembly and messaged to the senate without referral to the joint survey committee on retirement systems under section 13.50 (6) of the statutes; now, therefore, be it

  Resolved by the senate, That the attorney general is requested to provide an opinion as expeditiously as possible regarding whether 1973 Assembly Bill 1480 is legally before the senate, and as to whether any law resulting from the enactment of 1973 Assembly Bill 1480 would be valid.

  By Senator LaFave. Read. Considered as privileged and taken up. Adopted.

[Point of order:]

  Senator LaFave raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 1480 was required to go to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  [Ruling of the chair:]

535   As it relates to Assembly Bill 1480, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that the bill was not required to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems, and therefore, the point of order raised by Senator LaFave was not well taken.

[Point of order:]

  Senator McKenna raised the point of order that Senate Bill 528 was required by statute to go to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  Ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised by Senator McKenna that Senate Bill 528 was not properly before the Senate since it did not comply with Section 13.50 of the statutes inasmuch as Section 13.50 (6a) provides in part that no bill or amendment thereto creating or modifying any system for, or making any provision for, the retirement of or payment of pensions for public officers or employees, shall be acted upon by the legislature until it has been referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems and such committee has submitted a written report on the proposed bill.

  The chair finds the point of order well taken. The record of Senate Bill 528 indicates that the bill was referred to the Joint Committee on Retirement Systems and that a report was received with senate substitute amendment 1 recommended for adoption, and the bill reported without recommendation. Substitute amendment 2 and 3 were pending, but there was no indication that the amendments had been considered by the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems. While the statute is clear that the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems must make a report on a bill before being acted upon by the legislature, the statutes are silent on the need for a report by the committee on an amendment. However, it is clear that the amendment must be submitted to the committee.

  Section 13.50 (5) of the statutes states that all actions of the committee shall require the approval of a majority of all the members. The committee report shows that the vote by the committee was Ayes 3, Noes 3, and reported without recommendation. It is clear, therefore, that the committee report did not comply with Section 13.50 (5) of the statutes.

  Therefore, the Chair concludes that (1) a committee report must be received on the original bill with approval of a majority of all of the members of the committee, and (2) that amendments must be referred to the committee but that there is no requirement for a report by the committee on amendments.

  Point of order:

536   Representative DeLong rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 656 was not properly before the assembly because a written report on the amendments had not been submitted by the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems as required by Wisconsin Statutes 13.50 (6) (b).

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that 13.50 (6) (b) of the statutes required a written report on the bill but not on the amendments. The speaker cited rulings of the presiding officer of the senate made on October 10, 1973 and November 9, 1977. (The complete text of the speaker's ruling will be printed at a later date).

  Clarification of March 9 Ruling on the First Point of Order Concerning AB 656

  On March 9, 1978, the Representative of the 44th Assembly District, Representative DeLong raised the point of order that 1977 Assembly Bill 656, a public employe retirement bill, was not properly before the Assembly because the requirements of s. 13.50 (a) and (b) of the Wisconsin Statutes governing state retirement fund legislation had not been fully complied with. Specifically, he maintained that this bill could not be considered by the Assembly at this time because the statutorily required report on the bill and its pending amendments had not yet been submitted by the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems to the Assembly Chief Clerk.

  In answer to the point of order, the Representative of the 85th Assembly District, Representative McClain, Co-Chairperson of the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems, maintained that the report on the bill required by law had indeed been submitted, that subsequently the bill had been rereferred to the Committee to give it an opportunity to consider amendments offered after the Committee's original consideration on the bill, and that while the Committee had not submitted a report as described in the law on these amendments, such a report on amendments was optional and not in fact required by the law.

  Representative DeLong and others responded by maintaining that a second report on the bill and its amendments was required because the bill had been rereferred to the Committee.

  The Chair ruled the point of order not well taken.

  Background

  Section 13.50 (6) (a) and (b) of the Wisconsin Statutes reads as follows:

  (a) No bill or amendment thereto creating or modifying any system for, or making any provision for, the retirement of or payment of pensions to public

  officers or employes, shall be acted upon by the legislature until it has been referred to the joint survey committee on retirement systems and such committee has submitted a written report on the proposed bill. Such report shall pertain to the probable costs involved, the effect on the actuarial soundness of the retirement system and the desirability of such proposal as a matter of public policy.

  (b) No bill or amendment thereto creating or modifying any system for the retirement of public employes shall be considered by either house until the written report required by par. (a) has been submitted to the chief clerk. Each such bill shall then be referred to a standing committee of the house in which introduced. The report of the joint survey committee shall be printed as an appendix to the bill and attached thereto as are amendments.

  Assembly Bill 656, an act relating to implementing merger of the Wisconsin retirement fund, the state teachers retirement system and the Milwaukee teachers retirement fund and granting rule-making authority, was referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems on April 14, 1977.

537   At the request of the Committee a substitute amendment to the proposal was drafted and introduced by the Assembly Co-Chairperson on August 21, 1977. The report required by s. 13.50 (6) (a) was written on the bill and this substitute amendment, was approved by a majority vote of all the Committee's members, and was subsequently transmitted to the Assembly on September 13, 1977.

  Thereafter, the bill was referred, as required by law, to a standing committee in this House and then to the Joint Committee on Finance.

  When the bill reached the floor of the Assembly on February 28, 1978, questions arose concerning the ability of the Assembly to act upon certain pending amendments which had been introduced after the Joint Survey Committee reported on the bill. The Chair advised those who asked that, in the Chair's opinion, the Assembly could not consider any such amendment to the bill if it would have a direct impact on a state retirement system because of the requirement in s. 13.50 (6) (a) of the statutes. The Chair further advised that since amendments "follow" the proposals to which they relate, and since there is no procedure for separately referring amendments to a committee, if the members wished to consider any amendments that had not been offered before the bill left the Retirement Committee, the bill would have to be rereferred to that Committee. That action was subsequently taken.

  The Committee then met on March 3, 1978 to consider the amendments then pending to the bill. At that meeting, it was decided not to submit a report on the amendments under s. 13.50 (6) (a) but rather to merely report on the members' support for, and opposition to, the amendments in a manner similar to that utilized by standing committees in this House. This "report" was subsequently transmitted along with the bill to the Assembly and the Chair then rereferred the bill to the calendar.

  Findings

  While the language of s. 13.50 (6) (a) and (b) is not as clear as it perhaps ought to be, the Chair is convinced that the basic requirements of this statute can be clearly discerned by a careful reading of its language.

  Clearly, the statute requires: (1) that any bill or amendment "creating or modifying any system for, or making any provision for, the retirement of or payments of pensions to public officers or employes" must be submitted to the Joint Survey Committee before it can be acted upon by either

  House of the Legislature; (2) that no such bill can be acted upon by either house until the "committee has submitted a written report on the proposed bill"; and (3) that such written report on any such bill must "pertain to the probable costs involved, the effect on the actuarial soundness of the retirement system and the desirability of such proposal as a matter of public policy." The fact that the statute is silent on the question of written reports on amendments is significant and can only lead to one conclusion: while both retirement bills and retirement amendments must be referred to the Joint Survey Committee before they can be acted upon by either House of the Legislature, the written report described in the law is only required on bills.

  This same conclusion was reached in a Senate ruling on October 10, 1973 (1973 Senate Journal, page 1691) and a Senate ruling on November 9, 1977 (1977 Senate Journal, pages 1401-1403).

538   That such a report on AB 656 has not been properly written, approved and submitted to the Assembly has not been maintained by the Representative of the 44th District. Consequently, the Chair does not find persuasive the argument that the bill is not properly before the Assembly because the Committee did not submit a report as described in s. 13.50 (6) (a) on the bill's amendments. As far as amendments are concerned, in the opinion of the Chair, such reports are clearly optional.

  As to the argument that the bill requires a second report as described in s. 13.50 (6) (a) because it was rereferred to committee, the Chair can only say it knows of no provision of law or the rules which imposes, or can be inferred to impose, any such requirement.

  All of the legal requirements having been met, the Chair finds the point of order not well taken.

  Abstract

  Amendments affecting state retirement systems must be referred to the Joint Survey Committee prior to action by either House of the Legislature; because there is no procedure in the Assembly for referring such amendments to the Committee independently of the proposal to which they relate, in the case of amendments offered after a bill has left that Committee, rereferral is the only means of meeting this requirement; the Committee may, but need not, report on such amendments in the same manner as it must report on bills; in the case of rereferrals to the Committee, the Committee need not transmit a second report on the bill or any of its amendments.

  Point of order:

  Representative DeLong rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 656 was not properly before the assembly because action taken by the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems on Friday, March 3rd was not approved by a majority of the committee as required by Wisconsin Statutes 13.50 (5).

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because, although committee action requires a vote of the majority of the members, the action taken by the committee on Friday, March 3rd was not required and a written report by the committee was not necessary on the amendments. The

  speaker further ruled that it is proper for the chairman of the committee to submit committee reports to the chief clerk at his discretion and is not required to send a bill out of committee even though the committee has voted to make a recommendation to the full assembly. (The complete text of the speaker's ruling will be printed at a later date).

  Clarification of March 9 Ruling on the Second Point of Order Concerning AB 656

  On March 9, 1978 following the point of order and ruling by the Chair discussed on pages 4049-52 of this Journal, the Representative of the 44th Assembly District raised the further point of order that Assembly Bill 656 was not properly before the House because s. 13.50 (5) of the Wisconsin Statutes requires that all actions of the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems be approved by a majority vote of all its members - i.e., at least six - and the Committee's recommendations on certain of the amendments to Assembly Bill 656 were carried by a lesser number (5 to 3). The Chair ruled the point of order not well taken.

  Background

  Section 13.50 (5) of the Wisconsin Statutes reads as follows:

  Committee Action. All actions of the committee shall require the approval of a majority of all the members.

539   Assembly Bill 656, an act relating to implementing merger of the Wisconsin Retirement Fund, the State Teachers Retirement System and the Milwaukee Teachers Retirement Fund and granting rule-making authority, was referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems on April 14, 1977.

  At the request of the Committee, a substitute amendment to the proposal was drafted and introduced by the Assembly Co-Chairperson on August 31, 1977. The report required by s. 13.50 (6) (a) was written on the bill and this substitute amendment was approved by a majority vote of all the Committee's members, and was subsequently transmitted to the Assembly on September 13, 1977.

  Thereafter, the bill was referred, as required by law, to a standing committee in this House and then to the Joint Committee on Finance.

  When the bill reached the floor of the Assembly on February 28, 1978, questions arose concerning the ability of the Assembly to act upon certain pending amendments which had been introduced after the Joint Survey Committee reported on the bill. The Chair advised those who asked that, in the Chair's opinion, the Assembly could not consider any such amendment to the bill if it would have a direct impact on a state retirement system because of the requirement in s. 13.50 (6) (a) of the statutes. The Chair further advised that since amendments "follow" the proposals to which they relate, and since there is no procedure for separately referring amendments to a committee, if the members wished to consider any amendments that had not been offered before the bill left the Retirement Committee, the bill would have to be rereferred to that Committee. That action was subsequently taken.

  The Committee then met on March 3, 1978 to consider the amendments then pending to the bill. At that meeting, it was decided not to submit a report on the amendments under s. 13.50 (6) (a) but rather to merely report on the members' support for, and opposition to, certain of the amendments in a manner

  similar to that utilized by standing committees in this House. This "report" was subsequently transmitted along with the bill (which by previous committee action had a written Retirement Systems Committee report appended to it) to the Assembly, and the Chair then rereferred the bill to the calendar.

  Findings

  The Chair has previously found that under s. 13.50 (6) (a) and (b):