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.
Senate Journal of September 28, 1977 .......... Page: 1294
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
1 9 7 5 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of April 16, 1975 .......... Page: 519
[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.
Senate Journal of April 22, 1975 .......... Page: 546
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
Timeliness of point of order
1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 17, 1991 .......... Page: 170
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).
[Note:] Although A.Rule 54 (1) states that the assembly "shall not consider" an amendment or substitute amendment which is not germane (relates to a different subject or intends to accomplish different purpose), the usual procedure is to consider pending amendments to the amendment or substitute because the adoption of an amendment might remove the objectionable parts.
Before reaching the question of adoption on A.Sub.Amdt-2 to 1991 AB 19, the assembly considered 7 amendments to that substitute.
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.
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 17, 1988 .......... Page: 676
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.
[Note:] S.Amdt.3 proposed to increase, from $1 to $2, the permissible income tax liability check-off for the Wisconsin election campaign fund.
While there are frequent questions concerning the need for Joint Finance referral of proposals acquiring a fiscal effect by amendment, in this instance the question was premature.
Following the ruling, all 97 members of the Assembly present voted to nonconcur in the S.Amdt.3. The bill went to conference, and the Senate receded from its position on the amendment as part of the conference report.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely because final action on senate amendment 3 had not been taken by the legislature.
Assembly Journal of February 11, 1988 .......... Page: 649
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.
655 [Note:] Sec. 13.093 (1), stats., reads: "All bills introduced in either house of the legislature for the appropriation of money, providing for revenue or relating to taxation shall be referred to the joint committee on finance before being passed."
By freezing the rate of the motor fuel tax at the current 20% and abolishing future indexing, the bill was clearly a bill "providing for revenue or relating to taxation."
The point of order may not have been timely. The bill had been referred to, and reported by, the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. Under A.Rule 45 (1), it should have been referred to the Joint Finance Committee before being scheduled. Since that had not been done, and the Assembly had just considered and rejected A.SubAmdt.2, it might have been better first to complete 2nd reading in order to obtain the Finance Committee's report on the version of the proposal given preliminary Assembly approval.
However, following consideration and rejection of A.Amdt.1 to A.Sub.Amdt.1, Rep. Schneider, Assembly Cochair of the Joint Finance Committee, moved that the bill be referred to his committee and it was so so referred, ayes-52, noes-45.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 28, 1986 .......... Page: 1130
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.
[Note:] A "parliamentary inquiry" might have informed the members as to the vote required. A "point of order" is appropriate only to obtain a decision by the presiding officer concerning an issue currently before the house. Had the resolution been adopted by a majority but less than 2/3, a point of order might have been appropriate (the actual vote was 76 to 21). Since the roll had not been called, there was no issue.
Although My6AJR 2 was adopted and concurred in, both houses subsequently agreed to the report submitted by the first conference committee.
Assembly Journal of February 11, 1986 .......... Page: 673
[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).
The speaker ruled the point of order not timely.
Assembly Journal of October 16, 1985 .......... Page: 450
Point of order:
Representative Clarenbach rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 45 [relating to excepting pari-mutuel betting on horse racing from the prohibition against legislative authorization of lotteries (first consideration)] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e) because it negated the effect of assembly amendment 2 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 45.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] A.Amdt.2 had removed from the proposal the requirement that the state's share of the proceeds of pari-mutuel betting be used "for property tax relief" as provided by law. A.Amdt.8 specified one form of property tax relief, "for property tax credits".
While a motion to table A.Amdt.8 was pending, a 2nd point of order on the amendment was not timely.
Representative Clarenbach moved that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 45 be laid on the table.
Representative R. Travis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 45 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) [expansion of scope].
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely.
Assembly Journal of October 10, 1985 .......... Page: 415
Point of order:
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 141 [relating to interstate banking, the powers of banks, regulating control of certain deposit-taking institutions and granting rule-making authority] be adopted? Motion carried.
Representative Shoemaker rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 be adopted? Motion carried. [Intervening text omitted.]
657 [Note:] A point of order may be raised only while the question it concerns is before the house and not yet decided; A.Rule 62 (4).
When the pending question is action on a 2nd degree amendment to an amendment, a point of order questioning the germaneness of the first degree amendment is not proper under the rules, but was here allowed by unanimous consent to save time.
The bill was an annotated proposal, introduced by the legislative council, to adjust Wisconsin law on interstate banking and the powers of banks to the federal "Douglas" amendment to the bank holding company act, 12 U.S.C. sec. 1842(d). The Douglas amendment applies exclusively to financial institutions chartered as "banks".
A.Amdt.6 tried to expand the scope to include credit unions and savings and loan associations. When the point of order was raised, there were 4 amendments to A.Amdt.6 pending.
Representative T. Thompson asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that the speaker rule on the germaneness of assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 prior to the consideration of the amendments to assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 14. Granted.
Representative Shoemaker rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Representative Becker asked unanimous consent that the assembly stand recessed for ten minutes. Granted. [Intervening text omitted.]
The speaker [Loftus] ruled well taken the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1984 .......... Page: 1049
[Timeliness of point of order:]
The question was: Shall the vote by which Senate Bill 281 [relating to authorizing credit unions to act as depositories for public funds and designating the higher education corporation as a public depositor] was ordered to a third reading be reconsidered? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-53, noes-45.] Motion carried.
Representative Schneider asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "No" on the previous question. Granted.
Point of order:
Representative Potter rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely.
The question was: Shall the vote by which assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 was rejected be reconsidered? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-51, noes-47.] Motion carried.
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1984 .......... Page: 1050
Point of order:
Representative Potter rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The chair [Speaker Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely.
