1 9 9 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of April 17, 1991 .......... Page: 170
Point of order:
654 Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 19 [relating to basic local exchange service offered by large telecommunications utilities] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (b) and (f).
[Note:] Although A.Rule 54 (1) states that the assembly "shall not consider" an amendment or substitute amendment which is not germane (relates to a different subject or intends to accomplish different purpose), the usual procedure is to consider pending amendments to the amendment or substitute because the adoption of an amendment might remove the objectionable parts.
Before reaching the question of adoption on A.Sub.Amdt-2 to 1991 AB 19, the assembly considered 7 amendments to that substitute.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not timely because there were simple amendments to assembly substitute amendment 2 pending. The simple amendments to the substitute amendment must be disposed of before a point of order on that substitute amendment would be in order.
1 9 8 7 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of February 17, 1988 .......... Page: 676
Point of order:
Representative Radtke rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 299 [relating to various changes in the campaign finance law] was required to be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance under section 13.093 of the Wisconsin Statutes because of the adoption of senate amendment 3 by the senate.
[Note:] S.Amdt.3 proposed to increase, from $1 to $2, the permissible income tax liability check-off for the Wisconsin election campaign fund.
While there are frequent questions concerning the need for Joint Finance referral of proposals acquiring a fiscal effect by amendment, in this instance the question was premature.
Following the ruling, all 97 members of the Assembly present voted to nonconcur in the S.Amdt.3. The bill went to conference, and the Senate receded from its position on the amendment as part of the conference report.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely because final action on senate amendment 3 had not been taken by the legislature.
Assembly Journal of February 11, 1988 .......... Page: 649
Point of order:
Representative Prosser rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 682 [relating to discontinuing the indexing of the motor fuel and special fuel taxes] was required to be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance under section 13.093 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
655 [Note:] Sec. 13.093 (1), stats., reads: "All bills introduced in either house of the legislature for the appropriation of money, providing for revenue or relating to taxation shall be referred to the joint committee on finance before being passed."
By freezing the rate of the motor fuel tax at the current 20% and abolishing future indexing, the bill was clearly a bill "providing for revenue or relating to taxation."
The point of order may not have been timely. The bill had been referred to, and reported by, the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. Under A.Rule 45 (1), it should have been referred to the Joint Finance Committee before being scheduled. Since that had not been done, and the Assembly had just considered and rejected A.SubAmdt.2, it might have been better first to complete 2nd reading in order to obtain the Finance Committee's report on the version of the proposal given preliminary Assembly approval.
However, following consideration and rejection of A.Amdt.1 to A.Sub.Amdt.1, Rep. Schneider, Assembly Cochair of the Joint Finance Committee, moved that the bill be referred to his committee and it was so so referred, ayes-52, noes-45.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not well taken.
1 9 8 5 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of May 28, 1986 .......... Page: 1130
Point of order:
Representative Becker introduced a privileged joint resolution.
Assembly Joint Resolution 2, relating to authorizing the convening of a 2nd committee of conference on Senate Bill 1 of the May 1986 special session. By Representatives Loftus, Becker and T. Thompson.
Representative Hephner rose to the point of order that a two-thirds vote was required for adoption of Assembly Joint Resolution 2, May 1986 Spec. Sess., under Joint Rule 96.
The chair [Rep. Clarenbach, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order not timely.
[Note:] A "parliamentary inquiry" might have informed the members as to the vote required. A "point of order" is appropriate only to obtain a decision by the presiding officer concerning an issue currently before the house. Had the resolution been adopted by a majority but less than 2/3, a point of order might have been appropriate (the actual vote was 76 to 21). Since the roll had not been called, there was no issue.
Although My6AJR 2 was adopted and concurred in, both houses subsequently agreed to the report submitted by the first conference committee.
Assembly Journal of February 11, 1986 .......... Page: 673
[Issue not before house:]
Representative R. Thompson moved rejection of assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 59.
Speaker Loftus in the chair.
656 Representative T. Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 59 [relating to 4-year terms of office for sheriffs (first consideration)] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f).
The speaker ruled the point of order not timely.
Assembly Journal of October 16, 1985 .......... Page: 450
Point of order:
Representative Clarenbach rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 45 [relating to excepting pari-mutuel betting on horse racing from the prohibition against legislative authorization of lotteries (first consideration)] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (e) because it negated the effect of assembly amendment 2 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 45.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken.
[Note:] A.Amdt.2 had removed from the proposal the requirement that the state's share of the proceeds of pari-mutuel betting be used "for property tax relief" as provided by law. A.Amdt.8 specified one form of property tax relief, "for property tax credits".
While a motion to table A.Amdt.8 was pending, a 2nd point of order on the amendment was not timely.
Representative Clarenbach moved that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 45 be laid on the table.
Representative R. Travis rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 8 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Joint Resolution 45 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) [expansion of scope].
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely.
Assembly Journal of October 10, 1985 .......... Page: 415
Point of order:
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 4 to Assembly Bill 141 [relating to interstate banking, the powers of banks, regulating control of certain deposit-taking institutions and granting rule-making authority] be adopted? Motion carried.
Representative Shoemaker rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 be adopted? Motion carried. [Intervening text omitted.]
657 [Note:] A point of order may be raised only while the question it concerns is before the house and not yet decided; A.Rule 62 (4).
When the pending question is action on a 2nd degree amendment to an amendment, a point of order questioning the germaneness of the first degree amendment is not proper under the rules, but was here allowed by unanimous consent to save time.
The bill was an annotated proposal, introduced by the legislative council, to adjust Wisconsin law on interstate banking and the powers of banks to the federal "Douglas" amendment to the bank holding company act, 12 U.S.C. sec. 1842(d). The Douglas amendment applies exclusively to financial institutions chartered as "banks".
A.Amdt.6 tried to expand the scope to include credit unions and savings and loan associations. When the point of order was raised, there were 4 amendments to A.Amdt.6 pending.
Representative T. Thompson asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that the speaker rule on the germaneness of assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 prior to the consideration of the amendments to assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 14. Granted.
Representative Shoemaker rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
Representative Becker asked unanimous consent that the assembly stand recessed for ten minutes. Granted. [Intervening text omitted.]
The speaker [Loftus] ruled well taken the point of order that assembly amendment 6 to Assembly Bill 141 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54.
1 9 8 3 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1984 .......... Page: 1049
[Timeliness of point of order:]
The question was: Shall the vote by which Senate Bill 281 [relating to authorizing credit unions to act as depositories for public funds and designating the higher education corporation as a public depositor] was ordered to a third reading be reconsidered? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-53, noes-45.] Motion carried.
Representative Schneider asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "No" on the previous question. Granted.
Point of order:
Representative Potter rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
The speaker [Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely.
The question was: Shall the vote by which assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 was rejected be reconsidered? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-51, noes-47.] Motion carried.
Assembly Journal of March 27, 1984 .......... Page: 1050
Point of order:
Representative Potter rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
The chair [Speaker Loftus] ruled the point of order not timely.
Assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 offered by Representative Johnson.
658 Representative Tesmer moved rejection of assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 be rejected? [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-37, noes-59.] Motion failed.
Representative Roberts asked unanimous consent to be recorded as voting "No" on the previous question.
Granted.
The question was: Shall assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 be adopted? Motion carried.
Point of order:
Representative Potter rose to the point of order that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 281 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] A.Amdt.2 removed the income tax-exempt status from the income which any credit union might derive from acting as a state or local public funds depository.
The chair [Speaker Loftus] ruled the point of order not well taken and the amendment germane under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (e) [relating only to particularized detail].
1 9 8 1 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 4, 1982 .......... Page: 2505
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).
[Note:] The point of order would have to be raised when the pending question is adoption of the substitute. Instead, it was raised while the assembly was considering amendments.
Although the journal records the official offering of A.Amdt.2 after the above point of order was raised, it is likely that copies of A.Amdt.2 and many additional amendments had already been xeroxed and distributed.
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.
Assembly Journal of February 16, 1982 .......... Page: 2202
659 [Background: when the assembly reached AB 600, "relating to requiring the use of child restraint systems in motor vehicles, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty", the calendar already showed A.Sub.1 by Reps. D. Travis and Ulichny, A.Sub.2 by the Committee on Children and Human Development, and 8 amendments to A.Sub.2.
Reps. D. Travis and Ulichny offered A.Sub.3. Under A.Rule 55 (1) (b), A.Sub.3 could be considered only "if no other substitute amendment has been adopted".]
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 600 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 600 had not been acted upon.
Assembly Journal of February 16, 1982 .......... Page: 2208
[Intervening business. The question was: Shall assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 600 be adopted? Motion carried.]
Point of order:
Representative Wood rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 600 was not germane under Assembly Rule 53 (3) (f).
The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] ruled the point of order not timely under Assembly Rule 54 (2) [a question of germaneness .... "shall not be in order once an amendment has been adopted"].
