[Point of order:]

  Senator Lorge raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 19 [relating to raising the drinking age to 19 and providing a penalty] was not germane.

  Senator Kleczka asked unanimous consent that the bill be referred to joint committee on Finance. Senator Lorge objected.

  Senator Bablitch moved that the rules be suspended and the bill be referred to joint committee on Finance.

[Point of order:]

482   Senator Lorge raised the point of order that the chair took his point of order under advisement, that the bill is in the possession of the chair and, therefore, that the motion to suspend the rules and refer the bill to the joint committee on Finance is not proper. The chair took both points of order by Senator Lorge under advisement.

  The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled that senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 19 is germane. With that decision the question of suspending the rules is moot and the point of order raised by Senator Lorge in reference to suspending the rules is moot.

  At the time the point of order was raised there was a unanimous consent request by Senator Kleczka that the bill be referred to joint committee on Finance. Senator Lorge objected.

  Senator Kleczka moved that Senate Bill 19 be referred to joint committee on Finance.

  Point of order:

  Representative Tropman rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 1067 [relating to the licensing of medical practitioners, creating a council on physicians' assistants, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty] was not germane under Assembly Rule 55. The speaker took the point of order under advisement. [AA-4 and AA-5, also pending, considered. Then:]

  The assembly proceeded to the next bill pending the ruling on the point of order on assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 1067.

  The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order on assembly amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 1067 not well taken.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that Senate Bill 227 should be before the senate at this time. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  On February 17, 1976, Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that the required time for the presiding officer to rule on the point of order raised on February 4, 1976, relating to Senate Bill 227, has expired and the bill should be before the senate at this time.

  The chair rules that under Senate Rule 7 (2), the point of order is well taken.

  Respectfully submitted,
FRED A. RISSER
President pro tempore

[Senate Bill 5, (Spring 1974) Special Session, relating to regulation of elections and campaign contributions and expenditures, providing for public financing of certain political campaigns, granting rule-making authority, providing penalties and making appropriations.]

[Point of order:]

  Senator Dorman raised the point of order that senate amendment 3 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

[Subsequent action:]

  Senator Petri called the chair's attention to senate amendment 3 which had been under advisement by the chair on a point of order. As the chair had not made a ruling within an hour, the question should be submitted to the body pursuant to the rules.

  The chair submitted the question to the body.

  The question was: is senate amendment 3 germane?

  Senate amendment 3 was considered germane.

[Point of order:]

  [On 10/2/73, the Senate was on the calendar for 5/11/73.] Senate Resolution 19, "to amend senate rule 7 (2), relating to the time for rendering a decision on points of order taken under advisement". Read.

484   Senator Keppler raised the point of order that Senate Resolution 19, pursuant to senate rule 90, was not properly taken up earlier. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  [Ruling of the chair:]

  As it relates to the point of order raised on Senate Resolution 19, the chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled that one week did indeed mean seven days and not seven legislative calendar days. As these bills must go somewhere, it is

  necessary that the chief clerk put the bill on a calendar, but after one week (seven days) the bill would be considered privileged and could be taken up by a majority of the members present.

  Therefore, pursuant to senate rule 90, the chair ruled the point of order well taken.

  By request of Senator Petri, with unanimous consent, Senate Resolution 19 was laid on the table.

  [Ruling of the chair:]

  State of Wisconsin Office of the Lieutenant Governor January 24, 1973 To the Honorable Senate:

  Since the beginning of this legislative session allegations have been made by the leadership of the Republican caucus of the Wisconsin State Senate that during the 1971 legislative session I abused my rights to rule on points of order to the consistent advantage of members of my own party.

  During the 1971 legislative session, 125 points of order were raised by members of both parties. Of those 125 points of order ruled upon by me, 32 were appealed - and out of those 32 appeals only nine times was the chair not upheld by the Senate. It is important to remember that during this time the majority party had a 20-13 margin which put a simple majority within easy reach, should it have been determined that these rulings were not based on an impartial decision. Being overruled nine out of 125 times means that the Senate body concurred in my rulings 92.8% of the time.

  Examining the Senate Journal of the 1971 legislative session you will find that in nearly one-half the cases (9 of 19), in which points of order were taken under advisement and rulings were subsequently forthcoming, those rulings were made either on the same day or on the next succeeding day. The average length of time that a point of order was taken under advisement was 2.7 days or just over half the time currently permitted under the rules adopted by the Republican controlled Senate in 1969.

  It should be noted that it is not always in the best interest of the Senate for the chair to make an immediate decision. One will find that, for example, the chair took seven legislative days to rule on a point of order raised by Senator Knowles, that point of order being that senators may not explain their votes during a roll call on a nondebatable motion. Adjudication of this question required not only that I examine precedent but also that I discuss the matter individually with senators to allow them to fully express their individual feelings prior to ruling. This ruling was not appealed.

485   Another point of order requiring deliberation was raised by Senator Risser to the effect that a resolution calling for an Attorney General's ruling was not privileged. The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled against Senator Risser. These and other points of order highlight the fact that if the body is to operate effectively, fairly and democratically it will occasionally be necessary for the chair to take the time for essential research before ruling. That this

  privilege is not being abused is clear from the statistic that only thirty times out of 125 points of order was a point of order taken under advisement.

  On 52 occasions the chair ruled a point of order not well taken. In order to substantiate the charge that the President of the Senate is unfair to the detriment of the opposition party it should be shown that the overwhelming majority of unfavorable decisions by the chair were decided against the opposition party.

  A careful review of the Senate Journal indicates that in 52 rulings against a senator raising the point of order, 28 were against members of the majority party while 24 were decided against the minority party. This is as close to impartiality as is possible in view of the fact that the majority party maintained a 20 to 13 margin in membership.

  The Constitution clearly provides that the Lieutenant Governor shall be the President of the Senate. The history of my exercise of that authority indicates that basic fairness has prevailed.

  I wish to emphasize that I will continue to exercise that basic fairness in all matters before the Senate. Only when the majority party abuses its responsibility will it be dissatisfied with the manner and method in which I fulfill my responsibilities in presiding over the Senate of the State of Wisconsin.

  Yours very truly
MARTIN J. SCHREIBER
President of the Senate

  [Motion for previous question tabled:]

  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.

486   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.

  [Previous question: motion not applicable to chair's ruling]

  Senator Knowles raised the point of order that Senator Johnson had the floor as yielded from Senator M. Swan who had the floor as yielded by Senator Dorman.

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

  Senator Johnson appealed the ruling of the chair. Senator Johnson moved the previous question.

  Senator Risser raised the point of order that the previous question could not be put on an appeal of the ruling of the chair.