RULES AND RULINGS: DEVELOPING A CONSENSUS


     The rule in part states that an amendment amending a section repealed
by the origi-
   nal proposal is not germane.
     Senate substitute amendment 1 attempts to amend a section repealed by
Assembly
   Bill 320 [relating to eliminating the expiration date for collective bargaining
impasse
   resolution procedures for local government employes other than law enforcement
and
   fire fighting personnel]. The substitute amendment is attempting to change
the intent of
   the bill and is therefore not germane.
      Therefore, the point of order is well taken.
  The bill to make mediation-arbitration permanent passed both houses.
One week later, Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus had vetoed it, "because
the
binding arbitration law is unacceptable to me without a sunset provision....
I
will sign legislation which continues the substance of the current law and
which contains a responsible sunset provision" (Assembly Journal 6/2/81,
page 590).
The issue was resolved in the budget bill. Sections 1322e-h and 1841m of
Chapter 20, Laws of 1981, extended the sunset to July 1, 1987.
   Expanding the scope of a proposal is not permitted. In placing a proposal
before the Legislature, the author determines the extent to which he, or
she,
wants to address the problem. That limitation is known as the "scope"
of the
proposal. Any other legislator wishing to deal with the problem on a broader
basis is free to introduce a different proposal, but the rules protect the
right of
the first author to determine the scope of the original proposal.
   Under Wisconsin Senate Rule 50, "an amendment limiting the scope
of the
proposal is germane" [sub. (7)] and "new material added which does
not af-
fect the subject or purpose" of the proposal is a matter of detail and
is ger-
mane [sub. (9)]. Assembly Rule 54 says that an "amendment which substan-
tially expands the scope of the proposal" is not germane [sub. (3) (f)],
while an
"amendment relating only to particularized details" is germane
[sub. (4) (e)].
   The endorsement of amendments limiting the proposal's scope, by Senate
 Rule 50, implies the prohibition of amendments to expand the scope. Senate
 President Risser pointed this out in ruling on a point of order concerning
 1979 Senate Bill 189, "relating to collective bargaining units consisting
of
 supervisors". Both the bill and the substitute amendment contained
an ex-
 ception limited to the Milwaukee school system. The amendment proposed
 to make the exception available to all "school district professional
employes"
 at the management level (Senate Journal 2/19/80, page 1390):
       Earlier today Senator Harnisch [Dem., Neillsville] raised the point
of order that sen-
    ate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 189 was
not germane.
    The Chair took the point of order under advisement.
       Senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 would expand the
scope of the
    bill to the entire state. Senate Rule 50 (7) states only amendments limiting
the scope of a
    proposal are germane. Therefore it is the opinion of the Chair that the
point of order
    raised by Senator Harnisch is well taken.
    The rules of germaneness are not self-executing. They come into play
only
 when debate of the proposal is interrupted by a point of order. As a matter
of
 courtesy, expanding amendments are seldom challenged when they are of-
 fered by the bill's author or recommended in the standing committee's report.
 Based on information received after the bill was introduced, such amend-
 ments tend to represent a better solution to the problem.


161