WISCONSIN BLUE BOOK 1985-1986


   On the other hand, the original title of 1981 Senate Bill 407 may have
been
 too restrictive: "relating to establishing a homeownership mortgage
loan pro-
 gram in the department of development".... Wisconsin did-not have a
general
 homeownership mortgage loan program backed by the state; the objective of
 the proposal was to establish the program. Senate Substitute Amendment 2
 placed financial administration of the program in a Wisconsin Housing Fi-
 nance Authority. The substitute was challenged because the new title re-
 flected the program responsibility change. Senate President Risser allowed
 the substitute. Under Senate Rule 50 (9), "new material added which
does
 not affect the subject or purpose" of the bill is a matter of detail
and is
 germane.

   Perhaps nothing joins the issue of safeguarding the nature of the proposal
 more clearly than the attempt to substitute the study of a problem for a
bill
 proposing to take care of the problem. Two Senate presiding officers (Lieut.
 Gov. Warren P. Knowles in 1955 (Senate Journal 6/20/55, page 1520) and President
 pro tem. Frank E. Panzer in 1963 (Senate Journal 7/18/63, page 1620), contended
 that the "subject" of a proposal should be understood in its broadest
possible
 sense and allowed the study substitutes. In 1955, the study substitute was
 adopted but the bill failed in the Assembly; in 1963, the study substitute
was
 rejected and the bill (requiring use of biodegradable detergents) went on
to
 become Chapter 434, Laws of 1963. In 1984, Senate President Risser ruled
 (Senate Journal 3/28/84, page 801) that a proposed substitution of study,
for action,
 was not germane. The bill (1983 AB-58) related to "eligibility of employes
af-
 fected by lockouts for unemployment compensation benefits"; the substitute
 (S.Sub.1) would have directed the Council on Unemployment Compensation
 to study "the question of eligibility of employes affected by lockouts
for un-
 employment compensation benefits".
   The 1955 and 1963 rulings, because they considered only the broad subject
of the proposal, came to the wrong conclusion. In the 1984 instance, the
bill
proposed to decide an issue by making locked-out employes eligible for un-
employment compensation. The immediate impact of the study substitute
was to maintain the status quo; the same result could be reached by failure
to
enact the bill. Senator Robert P. Knowles, the President pro tem. from 1967
to 1974, frequently admonished his colleagues that the Senate should not
"do
by indirection that which can be done directly under the rules". Changing
the
nature of a proposal from action to study deprives the proponents of their
right to be heard. If it is the majority consensus that further study, rather
than immediate action, is the proper way to deal with the problem, then the
correct approach is to return to bill to committee (perhaps followed by a
joint
resolution requesting an interim study of the issue addressed by the bill).
  None of this applied to 1983 Assembly Bill 58. The Assembly vote on
passage (62 to 35) indicated that the representatives felt they had sufficient
information to make a decision. When the Senate concurred on a voice vote,
the issue of granting unemployment compensation to employes affected by
lockouts was settled. The bill became 1983 WisAct 468.


158