The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be taken from the table? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-44, noes-44.] Motion failed.
Representative T. Thompson moved that Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance.
The question was: Shall Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-9, noes-80.] Motion failed.
Representative T. Thompson moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be taken from the table.
Point of order:
Representative Clarenbach rose to the point of order that the motion to take assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., from the table was not proper under Assembly Rule 69 (2).
96 [Note:] A.Rule 69 (2) holds dilatory "two consecutive identical motions .... unless significant business has intervened between the motions.
The decision of what is "significant" business is made by the presiding officer based on the consensus of the body in the particular circumstances and time.
Repetition of the vote to take the amendment from table showed that the house was not as closely divided as the earlier vote had indicated. Immediately following (no other amendments were pending) the bill was ordered to the 3rd reading, the rules were suspended, and the bill was concurred in on a vote of 87 to 2.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 1, October 1985 Spec. Sess., be taken from the table? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-43, noes-46.] Motion failed.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1984 .......... Page: 1050
[Rejection motion, repetition at same stage and day not permitted:]
Representative Potter moved rejection of assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 be rejected? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-48, noes-49.] Motion failed. [Intervening business omitted.]
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1984 .......... Page: 1051
Point of order:
Representative Tesmer moved rejection of assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281.
Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that the motion for rejection was not in order under Assembly Rule 72.
[Note:] Although A.Rule 72 does not enumerate all of the "adverse disposition" methods shown in A.Rule 49 (1), the purpose of A.Rule 72 appears to include prevention of dilatory "same stage and date" repetition of all such methods [see A.Rule 69 (1)].
The chair [Speaker Loftus] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of June 16, 1983 .......... Page: 264
Repetitive calls dilatory:
Representative T. Thompson requested a call of the assembly. There were sufficient seconds.
The sergeant-at-arms was directed to close the doors and the chief clerk to call the roll. [Display of roll call omitted; absent with leave-0, absent without leave-1.]
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that the call of the assembly be lifted. Granted.
Representative T. Thompson moved a call of the assembly.
Speaker Loftus ruled the motion out of order under Assembly Rule 88.
[Intervening business: roll call vote to reject A.Res.13 failed.]
Representative T. Thompson requested a call of the assembly. There were sufficient seconds.
97 The sergeant-at-arms was directed to close the doors and the chief clerk to call the roll. [Display of roll call omitted; absent with leave-0, absent without leave-3.] Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that the call of the assembly be lifted. Representative T. Thompson objected.
Representative T. Thompson moved that the absent members be located.
The question was: Shall the absent members be located? Motion failed.
Representative Johnson asked unanimous consent that the assembly stand recessed for ten seconds.
Granted. The assembly stood recessed.
[Note:] Under A.Rule 87 (3), a call is lifted when the assembly recesses or adjourns.
The assembly reconvened. 5:48 p.m.
Representative T. Thompson moved a call of the assembly.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the motion out of order.
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 11, 1982 .......... Page: 2663
Point of order:
Representative Clarenbach rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 34 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 615 [relating to employes' right to know regarding toxic substances and infectious agents, providing a penalty and making an appropriation] was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
[Note:] The amendment read: "Toxic substance does not mean lutefisk".
Lutefisk is considered a Norwegian delicacy, prepared by soaking Whitefish in lye. Rumor has it that the amendment was ruled proper in the following words: "This amendment may be 'lutefisk', but it was not offered for the purpose of delay".
A.Amdt.34 was adopted and enacted; see s. 101.58 (2) (j) 2.f, stats.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 30, 1981 .......... Page: 1680
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Representative D. Travis and Representative Crawford were engaging in a dilatory procedure which was prohibited under Assembly Rule 69 (1). The chair took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled not well taken the point of order raised by Representative Shabaz that Representatives D. Travis and Crawford were engaged in a dilatory procedure prohibited by Assembly Rule 69 (1).
98Assembly Journal of October 13, 1981 .......... Page: 1215
[Repetitive motion: motion to reject 1981 AJR 70, "memorializing Congress and the President to seek the dismissal of the Secretary of the Interior, James G. Watt", failed (p. 1212); A.Amdt.13 adopted (p. 1213); call of the assembly (p. 1214); call lifted.]
Representative Shabaz moved rejection of Assembly Joint Resolution 70.
[Note:] Adoption of a substantive amendment usually constitutes the "significant business" required to permit repetition of a motion.
When no significant business has intervened, 2 consecutive identical motions may be ruled "dilatory"; i.e., used for the purpose of delay.
As affected by the adoption of A.Amdt.12, the joint resolution already required the chief clerk to append to the transmittal "a list of those who voted in favor" of the resolution. A.Amdt.13 merely added the words: "and of those who opposed".
Speaker Jackamonis ruled the motion out of order under Assembly Rule 69.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of June 25, 1980 .......... Page: 3640
Point of order:
Representative Loftus rose to the point of order that Representative Barczak was using "a procedure" which is dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
[Note:] The journal does not mention the nature of the procedure used by Representative Barczak, nor the bill affected by that procedure.
Asked about the incident 4 years later, Speaker Jackamonis believed that the dilatory procedure was "slow reading of lengthy public documents."
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled that Representative Barczak's procedure was dilatory because he had publicly stated that his intention was to delay a vote on the bill.
Assembly Journal of January 24, 1980 .......... Page: 1906
[Background:] Representative D. Travis moved that Assembly Bill 1065 [relating to injury by improper use of a noxious substance and providing a penalty] be referred to the committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety.
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 1065 be referred to the committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-42, noes-52.] Motion failed.
Representative D. Travis moved that Assembly Bill 1065 be referred to the committee on Veterans and Military Affairs.
Point of order:
Representative Donoghue rose to the point of order that the motion was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
The chair [Rep. Kirby] ruled the point of order not well taken.
99 The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 1065 be referred to the committee on Veterans and Military Affairs?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-37, noes-59.] Motion failed.
Representative Ferrall moved that Assembly Bill 1065 be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance.
Point of order:
Representative Donoghue rose to the point of order that the motion was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.
The chair [Rep. Kirby] ruled the point of order not well taken.
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 1065 be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance?
The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-37, noes-58.] Motion failed.
Assembly Journal of November 1, 1979 .......... Page: 1713
[Motion to take from table:]
Representative Shabaz moved that assembly amendment 5 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 169 be taken from the table.
Representative McClain rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order under Assembly Rule 69 (1) [dilatory motion] and Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided].
[Note:] On page 1705, the assembly had refused (49 to 50) Rep. Hauke's motion to place A.Amdt.5 after A.Amdt.6, and then approved (50 to 49) Rep. McClain's motion to place A.Amdt.5 on the table.
The express purpose of the motion to table, as stated in A.Rule 74, is to dispose of a matter only "temporarily". The motion does not decide an issue with finality.
Rather, "a tabled matter may be taken from the table at any time by order of the assembly".
The chair [Rep. Gerlach] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of October 25, 1979 .......... Page: 1581
[Repetitive motion: Representative Prosser moved that Assembly Bill 744, relating to strip searches and providing a penalty, be referred to the committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety. Motion failed; other intervening business.]
Representative Prosser moved that Assembly Bill 744 be referred to the committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the motion out of order because that motion had previously been made.
Representative Shabaz moved that Assembly Bill 744 be referred to the committee on State Affairs.
Point of order:
100 Representative Ferrall rose to the point of order that the motion was out of order under Assembly Rule 69 (1).
[Note:] The prohibition against repetitive referral motions is imposed under A.Rule 72, but applies only to repetitive motions for referral to "a specific standing or special committee .... on the same day at the same stage in the consideration" of the proposal.
