Senate Joint Resolution 8, [to amend section 1 of article VIII of the constitution, relating to property tax exemption for the homestead property of

  residents aged 65 or older (1st consideration)]. Read first time and referred to Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions.

  Senator Theno asked unanimous consent that Senate Joint Resolutions 7 and 8 be considered for action at this time. Senator Berger objected.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Theno raised the point of order that Senate Joint Resolutions 7 and 8 were constitutional amendments and therefore were not required to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions pursuant to 13.52 Wis. Stats. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  On Thursday, January 13, 1977, Senator Theno raised the point of order that Senate Joint Resolutions 7 and 8 were constitutional amendments and therefore were not required to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions pursuant to sec. 13.52 Wis. Stats. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  Section 13.52 (5) sets forth the powers and duties of the committee. "It is the purpose of this committee to provide the legislature with a considered opinion of the legality of the proposal, of the fiscal effect upon the state and its subdivisions and of the desirability as a matter of public policy of each legislative proposal which would modify existing laws or create new laws relating to the exemption of property or persons from any state or local taxes or special assessments."

  The powers and duties section, 13.52 (5), and the report section, 13.52 (6), mention in specific: (5) "each legislative proposal which would modify existing laws or create new laws" and (6) "proposal which affects any existing statute or creates any new statute".

651   It is the chair's opinion that Senate Joint Resolutions 7 and 8, which are constitutional amendments, do not "affect any existing statute or create any new statute", nor do they "modify existing laws or create new laws". Therefore, the joint resolutions would not be required by law to be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions.

  A similar point of order was raised in June of 1975, journal page 954 and in February of 1973, journal page 427. It is the opinion of the chair that these earlier rulings were based on sound reasoning and the chair upholds its earlier position.

  Therefore, the point of order is well taken.

  FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore

[Point of order:]

  Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that, pursuant to senate rule 20, Senate Joint Resolutions 7 and 8 were required to be referred to a senate standing committee not a joint statutory committee. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  As it relates to the point of order raised by Senator Sensenbrenner that Senate Joint Resolutions 7 and 8 are required by senate rule 20 to be referred to a senate standing committee, the chair rules the point of order is not well taken.

  Senate rule 20 does not require that measures be referred to standing committees as opposed to statutory committees. There is nothing in any of the senate rules that does not allow referral to a statutory committee. The joint resolutions are properly in the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions.

  FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore

[Point of order:]

  Senator Theno moved that Senate Joint Resolution 8 be withdrawn from Joint Committee on Tax Exemptions and referred to committee on Senate Organization.

  Senator Berger raised the point of order that a written report on Senate Joint Resolution 8 was necessary to withdraw it from the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  On Tuesday, March 28, 1978, Senator Theno moved to withdraw Senate Joint Resolution 8 from the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions. Senator Berger raised the point of order that the committee had not yet submitted a written report as required by s. 13.52 of the Wisconsin statutes.

  On January 20, 1977 the chair ruled that s. 13.52 of the Wisconsin statutes did not require that Senate Joint Resolution 8 be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions. Implicit in that ruling is the absence of a requirement that a written report be submitted on the resolution.

  Therefore the point of order raised by Senator Berger is not well taken. The motion made by Senator Theno is proper and the question is shall Senate Joint Resolution 8 be withdrawn from the Joint Survey committee on Tax Exemptions.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that pursuant to senate rule 18 (2) there was insufficient notice given and Assembly Bill 664 was not properly before the senate. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  Earlier today the Senator from the 4th, Senator Sensenbrenner, raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 664 [relating to campaign financing, creating a clean election campaign fund, granting rule-making authority, making appropriations and providing penalties] was not properly before the Senate. He argued that placing Assembly Bill 664 under the 9th order on the calendar of September 28 for final reading was in violation of senate rule 18 (2). He claimed that the senate organization committee was required by senate rule 18 (2) to provide at least 18 hours notice of matters to be taken up by the Senate and that such notice had not been provided in this case.

  Senate rule 18 (1) makes it clear that the scheduling authority of the senate organization committee extends to many matters. Senate organization's scheduling authority does not extend, however, to bills, resolutions or other business which senate rules or precedent clearly provide shall be handled in another manner.

  Although current senate rules do not address the present question directly, old senate rules are explicit on the subject and at least one recent ruling of the chair reaffirms the well-known rule that legislation ordered to a third reading but not considered for final action on that day will be placed on the next calendar.

  A good example of the old senate rule can be found in the 1957 senate manual. Senate rule 38 reads in part:

  "Each bill or resolution ordered engrossed and read a third time shall be delivered .... to the chief clerk, who shall .... place it upon the next calendar 'ready for third reading'."

  This language was dropped from the rules after 1965.

  The most recent and direct ruling on the subject can be found in the Senate Journal of April 22, 1975 on page 547 where the chair correctly ruled that in order to be consistent with the language and intent of the rules, a measure ordered to a third reading is automatically placed on the next calendar to be printed.

  There are other instances where the senate rules dictate what must happen to legislation. Senate rule 18 (4), for example, requires that unfinished calendars be carried over and taken up between the 9th and 10th order on the next calendar. Senate rule 17 (3) provides that special orders once established shall continue to be special orders, and when laid over under the rules shall be special orders on their proper calendar. These matters are clearly not within the scheduling authority of Senate Organization.

  Since Senate rules have always required bills ready for third reading to be placed on the next calendar, Senate Rules do not require special notice of such placement. Therefore no Senate Rules have been violated and the point of order raised by the Senator from the 4th is not well taken.

653   FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore

  [Background:]

  Senator Whittow moved that the bill be considered for final action at this time. The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-20, noes-12.] Less than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative the motion did not prevail.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Whittow raised the point of order that since the rules were not suspended that Senate Bill 120 would be placed on the second day's printed calendar. The chair [president pro tempore] took the point of order under advisement.

  On April 16, 1975, Senator Whittow raised the point of order that since the rules were not suspended to order an immediate third reading of Senate Bill 120 that the bill should be placed on the second day's printed calendar. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  Senate Rule 35 relating to separate readings and Senate Rule 18 (2) relating to the Daily Calendar cover this question:

  Senate Rule 35 reads: "Every bill, and every joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution, shall receive three separate readings by title previous to its passage except where otherwise provided but shall not receive two readings on the same day."

  Senate Rule 18 (2) reads: "The printed calendar shall be furnished to members before such a calendar is acted upon and shall provide at least 24 hours notice of matters to be taken up on the next session day. The printed calendar shall not be changed with that period."

  In order to be consistent with the language and intent of the rules cited, it is the chair's opinion that when a measure is ordered to a third reading, it is automatically placed on the 13th order of business on the next calendar to be printed.

  Respectfully submitted
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore

  Point of order:

654   Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 19 [relating to basic local exchange service offered by large telecommunications utilities] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (b) and (f).

  The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not timely because there were simple amendments to assembly substitute amendment 2 pending. The simple amendments to the substitute amendment must be disposed of before a point of order on that substitute amendment would be in order.

  Point of order:

  Representative Radtke rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 299 [relating to various changes in the campaign finance law] was required to be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance under section 13.093 of the Wisconsin Statutes because of the adoption of senate amendment 3 by the senate.

  The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely because final action on senate amendment 3 had not been taken by the legislature.

  Point of order:

  Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 682 [relating to discontinuing the indexing of the motor fuel and special fuel taxes] was required to be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance under section 13.093 of the Wisconsin Statutes.

  The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Becker introduced a privileged joint resolution.

  Assembly Joint Resolution 2, relating to authorizing the convening of a 2nd committee of conference on Senate Bill 1 of the May 1986 special session. By Representatives Loftus, Becker and T. Thompson.

  Representative Hephner rose to the point of order that a two-thirds vote was required for adoption of Assembly Joint Resolution 2, May 1986 Spec. Sess., under Joint Rule 96.

  The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not timely.

  [Issue not before house:]

  Representative R. Thompson moved rejection of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 59.

  Speaker Loftus in the chair.

656   Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 59 [relating to 4-year terms of office for sheriffs (first consideration)] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f).