[Point of order:]

  Senator Dorman raised the point of order that Senator Knutson's point of order was not timely.

  The chair ruled the point of order not well taken as the senate remains in control of its members appointed to the Committee of Conference.

  The question was: Shall the point of order, as raised by Senator Knutson, stand as the ruling of the senate?

73   Senator Risser moved a call of the senate. [Display of roll call omitted; present-29, absent-1, with leave-3; intervening text omitted.]

  Senator Schuele called the chair's attention to the fact that all members being present the question was: Shall Senator Knutson's point of order stand as the ruling of the senate?

  Senator Thompson asked unanimous consent that the question be laid on the table. Senator Knutson objected.

  President of the senate in the chair.

  Senator McKenna moved that the senate recall its members on the Committee of Conference on Senate Bill 9 and appoint new members pursuant to joint rule 2.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the question on Senator Knutson's point of order took precedence over the motion made by Senator McKenna. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  By request of Senator Knutson, with unanimous consent, his point of order as it related to the membership of the conference committee on Senate Bill 9 was withdrawn.

  The question was: Adoption of the conference committee report on Senate Bill 9?

  The report was adopted.

  By request of Senator Risser, with unanimous consent, Senate Bill 9 was ordered immediately messaged.

  [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.

  [Special conference committee created by joint resolution:]

  Assembly Bill 300 [relating to state finances and appropriations constituting the executive budget bill of the 1973 legislature, and making appropriations].

  Senator McKenna moved that the Senate Conference Committee on Assembly Bill 300 be recalled.

  Senator McKenna asked unanimous consent that the motion to recall the Senate Conference Committee on Assembly Bill 300 be made a special order of business at 11:00 A.M. on Thursday, June 28. Senator Johnson objected.

  Senator McKenna moved that the motion to recall the Senate Conferees be made a special order of business at 11:00 A.M. Thursday, June 28.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Hollander raised the point of order that the motion must be in the form of a joint resolution as it affected both houses.

  Senator Keppler raised the point of order that it took a joint resolution to create the Compromise Committee, therefore, it would take a joint resolution to recall the committee. The chair took the points of order under advisement. [No ruling given?]

[Point of order:]

  Senator Lee raised the point of order that senate amendment 2 [to Assembly Joint Resolution 3, relating to removing obsolete provisions of the state constitution regarding elections and suffrage so as to revise the article on suffrage without impeding any voting rights granted under the constitution or laws of this state (2nd consideration) was not germane.

  The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.

  Point of order:

75   Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the language on page 1, lines 18 and 19 of the conference committee report on Assembly Joint Resolution 2, June 1980 Special Session [relating to revising the right to bail and authorizing the legislature to permit circuit courts to deny release on bail for a limited period to certain accused persons (first consideration)] was not germane to the special session call as required by Assembly Rule 93 (1).

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken because the language in the conference committee report related to the regulation of bail and was self-executing.

  Point of order:

  Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 99 [relating to county responsibility for the acts of the sheriff] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Swan raised the point of order that senate amendment 2 to Senate Joint Resolution 28 [to amend section 3 of article XI of the constitution, relating to Milwaukee city or county indebtedness for a sewage collection or treatment system (first consideration)] was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:

  Yesterday, Senator Swan raised the point of order that senate amendment 2 to Senate Joint Resolution 28 was not germane. The question of germaneness is sometimes a close one and any judgment by the Chair could be validly question.

  Senate Rule 50 (1) reads in part: "nor should the Senate consider any substitute or amendment which relates to a different subject, is intended to accomplish a different purpose, would require a title essentially different or would totally alter the nature of the original proposal".

  In this case it is the Chair's opinion that the purpose of Senate Joint Resolution 28 is to expand the repayment period for indebtedness specifically for cities of the first class and Milwaukee County for the purpose of

  purchasing, constructing or improving a sewerage collection for treatment system. It is the opinion of the Chair that senate amendment 2 is intended to accomplish a different purpose and therefore the point of order is well taken.

[Background: Senate Joint Resolution 7, [to amend section 1 of article VIII of the constitution, relating to allowing the legislature to provide relief to persons for the tax imposed relating to improvements made on homes (1st consideration)]. Read first time and referred to Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions.]

  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.

77   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".

  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.