169


RULES AND RULINGS: DEVELOPING A CONSENSUS


on through highways in municipalities over 25,000 population". As intro-
duced, the bill required synchronized traffic signals on through highways
in
municipalities over 25,000 (22 cities and one village had that 1980 popula-
tion). The author, Representative Gus G. Menos (Dem., Brown Deer), of-
fered Assembly Amendment 1, increasing the minimum population to
50,000. A rural legislator proposed to amend the amendment to "500,000";
only the City of Milwaukee fits that criterion. The further limitation failed;
"50,000" was adopted so that the bill required synchronized signals
in the 14
largest cities.
   Assembly amendment 2 was offered. By changing "shall synchronize"
to
 "may synchronize", it affected the nature of the bill and the
amendment was
 challenged. Mandatory or optional, the amended bill would still deal with
 synchronized traffic signals on through highways. The amendment did not
 "relate to a different subject", "accomplish a different
purpose", or "require
 a title for the proposal which is substantially different". Speaker
Jackamonis
 (Assembly Journal 10/23/81, page 1467) ruled the point of order not well
taken.

 Amending an amendment. Like any other amendment, an amendment to
an amendment must observe the rules of germaneness with regard to the par-
ent proposal or substitute to which it is addressed. There are further require-
ments because, in a way, the targeted amendment now stands in place of the
parent proposal. An amendment to an amendment must be germane to both
the amendment and the original proposal [A.Rule 54 (5), S.Rule 50 (4)].
  The rule requiring an amendment to an amendment to be germane to the
bill as well as to the amendment was cited by Senate President Risser (Senate
Journal 3/2/82, page 1611) in agreeing with a point of order by Senator Susan
Shan-
non Engeleiter (Rep., Menomonee Falls):
      On Tuesday, March 2, 1982 the senator from the 33rd, Senator Engeleiter,
raised the
   point of order that senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 to Senate
Bill 519
   [relating to the reorganization of city school districts into common or
unified districts]
   was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
      Assembly amendment I1to Senate Bill 519 clarifies the action to be
taken by the Fiscal
    Board or Common Council in the event an action has been taken by the
electorate or the
    School Board to reorganize the city school district.
      Senate amendment 1 to assembly amendment 1 proposes a new procedure
to permit
    the Fiscal Board, Common Council or the electorate to retain the city
school district by
    referendum and prohibit further action by the Fiscal Board or Common
Council. Al-
    though the proposition would be germane to the bill it does appear to
accomplish a
    different purpose than that of assembly amendment 1, and expand the scope
thereof.
    Therefore it is the opinion of the chair that senate amendment 1 to assembly
amendment
    1 is not germane and the point of order raised by the senator from the
33rd, Senator
    Engeleiter, is well taken.
    The further amendment must not substantially change the nature or ex-
pand the scope of the target amendment. The further amendment may not
introduce a different individual proposition or try to substitute a general
proposition if the target amendment is comprised of one individual proposi-
tion. The further amendment is permitted to change the target amendment
so as to accomplish its purpose in a different manner, or to limit the scope
of
the target amendment.