On Wednesday, October 21, 1987, the senator from the 19th, Senator Ellis, raised the point of order that a motion to appeal the decision of the Chair takes precedence over the motion to table a proposal.

  The senator from the 21st, Senator Strohl, had the floor after the Chair had ruled on a pending point of order in relating to Assembly Bill 462. The senator from the 21st asked unanimous consent that the bill be laid on the table. An objection was heard. The senator was then going to move to lay the bill on the table, when he yielded to the senator from the 11th, Senator Davis, who then appealed the ruling of the Chair. The senator from the 21st then moved to table the bill.

  Section 230, (7) of Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure reads as follows: "When an appeal has been taken from a decision of the presiding officer, no new business is in order until the appeal has been disposed of."

  The motion to appeal is an incidental question relating to the general procedural nature of the senate. Therefore, it takes precedence over any main motion relating to the matter under consideration.

429   Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the motion to appeal the decision of the Chair takes precedence over the motion to table, and the point of order raised by the senator from the 19th is well taken.

  Senator Fred A. Risser
President of the Senate

  [Background: 1981 SB 783, a multi-issue budget adjustment bill, had been special ordered for 10 a.m. on Thursday (4/8/82) but was not called up. According to the journal, the speaker called up the special order after the majority leader moved adjournment to 10 a.m. on Tuesday, but before the adjournment motion was put to the body.]

  Point of order:

  Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 783 was not properly before the assembly at this time because a motion to adjourn was pending.

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

  Point of order:

  Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 250 [relating to access to public records, creating an open records board, granting rule-making authority, making appropriations and providing a penalty] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) and (3) (f).

  The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] ruled the point of order not timely under Assembly Rule 62 (4) [timely only if raised before question is decided] and Assembly Rule 66 [incidental motions, requests and questions in order during debate] because the assembly had not completed action on amendments to the substitute.

  [Background: while disposition of A.Amdt.8 to A.Sub.2 to AB 452 remained undecided, Rep. Thompson (by unanimous consent) withdrew his pending motion to table AB 452 and then moved indefinite postponement of AB 452.]

  Point of order:

  Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order because assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 452 [relating to employment relations in higher education and making an appropriation] was pending.

  The chair [Rep. Clarenbach] ruled the point of order well taken.

  [Background:] Representative Ferrall moved that the rules be suspended and that assembly amendments 24 through 57 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 500 [relating to energy resources, granting rule-making authority, making appropriations and providing penalties] be laid on the table.

  Representative Shabaz moved that Senate Bill 500 be laid on the table.

  Point of order:

  Representative Ferrall rose to the point of order that the motion to table Senate Bill 500 was not in order under Assembly Rule 65 because a motion to suspend the rules was pending. ( The chair [Rep. Lee] ruled the point of order well taken.

  [Precedence of motions:]

  Senator Van Sistine moved nonconcurrence of assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 4, Special Session and requests a Committee of Conference. [Intervening text omitted.]

  Senator Bablitch moved that Senate Bill 4, Special Session be referred to committee on Aging, Business and Financial Institutions and Transportation.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that the motion to nonconcur takes precedence over the motion to refer the bill to committee.

  The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order not well taken.

[Point of order:]

  The question was: Rejection of senate amendment 6 to senate substitute amendment 1? Senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 6 to senate substitute amendment 1 offered by Senator Harnisch.

  Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 6 to senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 1, relating to increasing the amount of the 1978 special property tax credit, modifying the standard deduction, excluding from taxation a portion of the gain from the sale of a principal residence by certain persons, modifying and indexing for inflation the individual income tax rates and brackets, increasing personal exemptions, expanding the homestead tax credit, increasing the inheritance tax exemption for interspousal transfers and exempting home heating fuels from sales and use taxes] was out of order at this time.

  The point of order was well taken.

[Point of order:]

  The question was: Rejection of senate amendment 2 to senate amendment 49. ( Senator Sensenbrenner moved that senate amendment 3 to senate amendment 1 be removed from the table. ( The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that the motion to remove senate amendment 3 to senate amendment 1 from the table was not timely.

  [Background:]

  Senator Risser moved reconsideration of the vote by which Senate Joint Resolution 55 was adopted. Senator Risser asked unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider the vote by which Senate Joint Resolution 55 was adopted be laid on the table. Senator Swan objected. Senator Bablitch moved that the senate recess until 4:00 P.M.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Risser raised the point of order as to the precedence of the motions made. The chair [Sen. Kleczka] took the point of order under advisement.

  [Recess, 12:15 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.] The senate reconvened.

432   The chair stated that because a motion to stand recessed for the noon hour prevailed, a point of order regarding the precedence of a motion to reconsider was no longer under advisement of the chair and the question was reconsideration of the vote by which the Senate adopted Senate Joint Resolution 55.

  [Background:] The question was: Shall Senate Bill 324 [relating to authorizing credit unions as public depositories] be referred to committee on Commerce? Senator Braun moved reconsideration of the vote by which senate amendment 3 to Senate Bill 324 was adopted.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion to reconsider the vote by which senate amendment 3 was adopted was not properly before the Senate. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  On Thursday, February 23, 1978, Senator Braun moved reconsideration of the vote by which senate amendment 3 to Senate Bill 324 was adopted.

  At the time the reconsideration motion was made, the question before the Senate was: Shall Senate Bill 324 be referred to the committee on Commerce?

  Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that the motion to refer to committee should take precedence over the motion to reconsider the amendment.

  Senate Rule 67 (6) states that "reconsideration of amendments .... shall have the same priority as to order of action as to amend under rule 63."

  Since a motion to refer is listed before a motion to amend under Senate Rule 63, the point of order raised by Senator Bablitch is well taken and the question before the Senate is: Shall Senate Bill 324 be referred to the committee on Commerce?

  FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore

  Motion not timely:

  Representative Hauke moved that Part 2 of assembly amendment 10 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 91 [relating to state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget act of the 1991 legislature, and making appropriations] be taken from the table and taken up at this time. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-38, noes-60.] Motion failed.

  Representative Hauke moved reconsideration of the vote by which assembly amendment 11 [to AB 91] failed to be adopted.

  The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the motion not timely.

  Point of order:

  Representative Welch rose to the point of order that the motion for reconsideration, which was ruled untimely, was in order since he tried to be recognized immediately after the vote on concurrence in Senate Bill 65.

  The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken because there were two representatives standing at the same time seeking recognition and the speaker has the right to recognize either one. The chair also noted that the motion for reconsideration will still be in order during the eighth order of business on the next legislative day.

  Point of order:

  Representative Fergus rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 273 [relating to forced viewing of sexual activity and providing penalties] was not germane under Assembly Rule (54) (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].

  Representative Welch moved that Assembly Rule 54 be suspended.

  The speaker [Loftus] ruled the motion out of order because a point of order was pending. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.

  The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled that assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 273 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 and that the point of order raised by Representative Fergus was well taken.