[Senate Bill 185, relating to recodification of the laws pertaining to special education of children with exceptional educational needs, authorizing payment of state aids, granting rule-making authority and increasing an appropriation]

[Point of order:]

  The question was: Concurrence in assembly amendment 12? Senator J. D. Swan moved nonconcurrence in assembly amendments 12 and 18.

  The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-3, noes-25.] So the motion did not prevail.

  Senator J. D. Swan raised the point of order that Senate Bill 185 required another fiscal note to comply with Wisconsin Stat. 13.10 (2) (a). ( The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order untimely as the question was only one of concurrence in the amendments.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Parys raised the point of order that Assembly Bill 689 [relating to filling mid-term vacancies on the Milwaukee county board of supervisors] required a fiscal note. The chair took the point of order under advisement. [Intervening text omitted.]

  As it relates to Assembly Bill 689, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled a fiscal note was not required.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Hollander raised the point of order that Senate Bill 203 [relating to the right to be reimbursed under accident and health policies for chiropractic services] required a fiscal note.

  The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order not well taken.

[Point of order:]

  Senator George raised the point of order that Senate Bill 781 [relating to persistent serious felony offenders and providing penalties] does not have a reliable fiscal estimate pursuant to Joint Rule 43 and 49.

  The Chair ruled the point not well taken. Senator George appealed the ruling of the Chair. The question was: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?

  The ayes and noes were required and the vote was: [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-16, noes-16.] The decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Senate.

  The Chair asked the Chief Clerk to request from the Reference Bureau a supplemental fiscal estimate to be prepared pursuant to Joint Rule 23.

  Point of order:

  Representative Tregoning rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 71 [relating to fair-share and maintenance of membership agreements under the state employment labor relations act] required a fiscal estimate and was required to be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance under section 13.10 (2) of the Wisconsin Statutes. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.

  A fiscal estimate having been received on Senate Bill 71, the point of order raised by Representative Tregoning on Tuesday, February 9 was ruled moot.

  Point of order:

  Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 322 [relating to public employe occupational safety and health and granting rule-making authority] required a local fiscal estimate under section 13.10 of the Wisconsin Statutes. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order on Assembly Bill 322 moot because a local fiscal estimate had arrived.

  Point of order:

  Representative Murray rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 185 [relating to arrest powers for conservation wardens] required a local fiscal estimate under section 13.10 (2) of the Wisconsin Statutes. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order on Senate Bill 185 moot because a local fiscal estimate had been received.

  Point of order:

  Representative Murray rose to the point of order that the local fiscal estimate on Senate Bill 185 was obtained from the wrong agency. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order on Senate Bill 185 moot because a local fiscal estimate had arrived.

  Point of order:

  Representative Ferrall rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 1228 [relating to industrial revenue bonds and projects] was not properly before the assembly under Joint Rule 49 (2).

  Representative Ferrall asked unanimous consent to withdraw his point of order. Granted.

  Point of order:

140   Representative Hauke rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 156 [relating to deletion of the requirement for an affidavit from the circulator of nomination papers and providing a penalty] was not properly before the assembly because the bill required a fiscal estimate under Wisconsin Statutes 13.10 (2) and Joint Rule 41 (1). Representative Hauke cited the speaker's ruling on 1977 Assembly Bill 108 (1977 Assembly Journal, page 1068; penalty bills require fiscal estimate) as precedent for his point of order. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  Because fiscal estimates on Senate Bill 156 had been received, the speaker ruled the point of order raised by Representative Hauke on Wednesday, October 3 (Assembly Journal, page 1198) to be moot.

  Point of order:

  Representative Lee rose to the point of order that the local fiscal estimate on Senate Bill 569 was not proper under Joint Rule 42 (1) (c).

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

  Point of order:

  Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 297 [renaming the department of public welfare in populous counties] required a local fiscal estimate.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Tuczynski rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 322 [relating to permitting credit unions to levy maintenance charges on dormant accounts] required a fiscal estimate.

  Representative Duren rose to the point of order that Representative Tuczynski's point of order was not timely.

  The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.

  The chair ruled Representative Tuczynski's point of order well taken.

  The chief clerk was directed to obtain a fiscal estimate for Senate Bill 322.

  Point of order:

  Representative Flintrop rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 108 [relating to battery to persons age 62 or older and providing a penalty] required a fiscal note under Wisconsin Statutes 13.10. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.

141   The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Flintrop on April 13, 1977 that Assembly Bill 108 required a fiscal estimate. The complete text of the speaker's ruling will be printed at a later date.

  On April 13, 1977 the gentleman from the 56th Assembly District raised the point of order that 1977 Assembly Bill 108, relating to battery to persons aged 62 or older and providing a penalty, requires a fiscal estimate under Joint Rule 41 (1) and section 13.10 (2) of the Wisconsin Statutes. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  These two similarly worded regulations require that "any bill making an appropriation and any bill increasing or decreasing existing appropriations or

  state or general local government fiscal liability or revenues" be accompanied in the legislative process by a reliable estimate of the bill's anticipated fiscal effects. Whether or not bills that establish or alter penalties, but do not contain appropriation language, fall into this category of legislation, and thus are subject to the fiscal estimate requirement, is not readily apparent, but rather is a matter for reasoned inference and interpretation.

  In making that interpretation, the chair is persuaded that it should be guided by the purpose, nature and significance of the fiscal estimate requirement; existing precedents; the general significance of the fiscal implications of penalty legislation; an assessment of our capabilities to obtain reliable fiscal information for such legislation; and a consideration of the potential impact of this ruling on the legislative process.

  Purpose, Nature and Significance of Fiscal Estimates

  In 1957, the Wisconsin Legislature became the first state legislature in the Nation to require the publication of fiscal estimates as appendices to certain pending bills. Although the text of this requirement has undergone modification since its original enactment as Joint Rule 24 of 1957, the basic thrust and intent have remained the same: to supply legislators with reliable and handy financial information on bills under consideration in order to facilitate informed decision-making. Fiscal estimates provide information about the availability, source and proposed utilization of financial resources associated with legislative proposals. They are the "price tags" and "financial terms" attached to "commodities" in the legislative "marketplace". In the course of a legislative session, lawmakers are faced with making decisions on a great many separate proposals dealing with a wide variety of subjects, while at the same time they also experience a need to establish and pursue comprehensive goals and policies reaching beyond the purposes of specific pieces of legislation. Because financial considerations are an important "common denominator" of many legislative proposals, fiscal estimates can be a useful, important tool not only for evaluating specific proposals, but also for ordering priorities among them in the pursuit of broader public policies. Their importance takes on added dimensions when one considers the great reliance of legislatures on "the power of the purse" to exert influence in our tripartite framework of government.

  Precedents

142   A Legislative Reference Bureau review of rulings from the chair for the past 20 years located two which are clearly relevant to the current point-of-order. The first of these was established on April 21, 1959, when Lieutenant Governor Philleo Nash ruled (1959 Senate Journal, page 575) that 1959 Senate Bill 284, a penalty bill making it a felony to issue checks with intent to defraud, did not require a fiscal estimate. This ruling appears to be based primarily on an assessment that the fiscal impacts stemming from this legislation could not be reliably estimated. The ruling states in part:

  "...The only increase in the State's fiscal liability would arise in the event of a conviction under the criminal statutes and imprisonment at State expense." "In the opinion of the Chair, to require a fiscal note for such a remote, indefinite and uncertain obligation of the State, goes far beyond the meaning of Joint Resolution (sic) 24 and the intent of the legislature in enacting it."

  This 1959 ruling appears to have served as the generally controlling precedent for legislative practice with respect to penalty bills for nearly two decades.