51
H 123
COMMITTEES - JURISDICTION AND REFERRAL,
GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS -----
Continued
7-4G.3
REFERRAL TO GAE, NOT REQUIRED; BILL RE BOARD WITH
LIMITED POWERS AND DURATION (
Formerly HP 537
)
One section of a bonding bill reported by the Finance Committee set up a board to make
recommendations concerning establishment and operation of a Connecticut Convention Center.
A member raised a point of order that the bill was not properly before the House because it had
not been referred to Government Administration and Elections. GAE has cognizance over all
matters relating to government organization.
The deputy speaker ruled the point not well taken. The board the bill set up was
similar in structure and authority to a legislative task force. It was made up of General
Assembly members and had the power only to make recommendations. Since most bills
creating legislative task forces were not referred to GAE and since the commission was
temporary, it was not necessary to refer the bill.
The ruling was appealed and sustained.
Lavine, May 4, 1988.
7-4H. INSURANCE AND REAL ESTATE
7-4H.1
REFERRAL TO INSURANCE, NOT REQUIRED; BILL DID NOT
MATERIALLY AFFECT INSURANCE STATUTES (
Formerly HP 539
)
The bill required the Second Injury Fund to pay for the health and accident insurance of any
employee receiving worker's compensation whose employer fails to do so because he shuts down or
leaves the state. It had received a favorable report from the Labor Committee. House "A," adopted by a
voice vote, required insurance companies to notify each employee covered under a group health and
accident policy if his employer cancelled or failed to renew the policy because he shut down his
business or moved it out of state. A member raised a point of order that the amended bill must be
referred to the Insurance and Real Estate Committee.
The speaker ruled the point not well taken. The amendment, although it touched on
insurance companies, did not materially affect the insurance statutes and so did not need to
be sent to the Insurance Committee. The bill affected only Title 31, the state labor laws.
The ruling was sustained on appeal.
Stolberg, March 9, 1988.
7-4H.2
REFERRAL TO INSURANCE, NOT REQUIRED; BILL RE
PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY (
Formerly HP 579
)
The bill as amended by Senate "A" required the Department of Agriculture to create and
maintain a website linking people who want to sell farms or farmland with people wanting to
farm or start an agricultural business. A member raised a point of order that the bill should have
been referred to the Insurance and Real Estate Committee because a section involved the
purchase of real property.
The deputy speaker ruled the point of order not well taken.
Fritz, June 7, 2005.
48
H 124
COMMITTEES - JURISDICTION AND REFERRAL -----
Continued
7-4I. JUDICIARY
7-4I.1
REFERRAL TO JUDICIARY, NOT REQUIRED; BILL RE
PERSONAL LIABILITY IMMUNITY (
Formerly HP 341
)
The bill, favorably reported by the Planning and Development Committee, guaranteed
immunity from personal liability to directors of the Connecticut Product Development Corp. A
member raised a point of order that the bill should have been referred from the Planning and
Development Committee to Judiciary, since immunity was part of Judiciary's charge.
The speaker ruled the point not well taken. The jurisdiction of the Judiciary
Committee did not extend to the matter contained in the bill. The bill could have been
referred to Judiciary if the Planning and Development Committee had wished its reaction
or advice; however, such a reference was not required under the rules.
Abate, May 11, 1979.
7-4I.2
REFERRAL TO JUDICIARY, REQUIRED; BILL CONTAINING
PRISON TERM (
Formerly HP 544
)
The bill concerned administrative enforcement procedures for collecting certain state
taxes. A provision in the bill prohibited a person from refusing to answer questions or produce
documents in accordance with a tax commissioner's subpoena, stated that no information
disclosed could later be used against him, and instituted penalties of up to 60 days in jail for
failure to comply. A member raised a point of order that the bill should have gone through the
Judiciary Committee since it contained a prison term.
The speaker ruled the point well taken and the bill was referred to Judiciary.
Stolberg, June 6, 1983.
7-4I.3
REFERRAL TO JUDICIARY, NOT REQUIRED; BILL RE
MORTGAGE APPLICATIONS, PROCESSING (
Formerly HP 339
)
The bill concerned mortgage processing. It was favorably reported by the Banks
Committee. When the bill was called, a member raised a point of order that the bill was not
properly before the House because the Banks Committee had not sent the bill to the Judiciary
Committee. JR 3(6) gives the Judiciary Committee jurisdiction over matters relating to
mortgages. During debate on the point, opponents of the point of order argued that the bill dealt
only with mortgage applications and processing and not with closings. It also concerned matters
that were under the jurisdiction of the banking commissioner.
The deputy speaker ruled that the bill did not relate to the substantive laws dealing with
mortgages but only with mortgage applications and their processing. The bill did not come under
the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and the point was not well taken.
The ruling was appealed and sustained on a roll call vote.
Lavine, April 1, 1987.
54
H 125
COMMITTEES - JURISDICTION AND REFERRAL, JUDICIARY -----
Continued
7-4I.4
REFERRAL TO JUDICIARY, NOT REQUIRED PRIOR TO
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT CONTAINING CRIMINAL PENALTY
(
Formerly HP 543
)
A member moved for adoption of House amendment "A." Another member raised a point
of order that, since part of the amendment contained a criminal penalty, if it were adopted, the
amended bill must be referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The speaker ruled the point not well taken. If the amendment was adopted, a
member could move to refer the bill to Judiciary and the House as a whole could decide the
motion.
Ritter, April 29, 1994.
7-4I.5
REFERRAL TO JUDICIARY, NOT REQUIRED; BILL SUBJECTS
VIOLATORS TO EXISTING PENALTY (
Formerly HP 542
)
The amended bill barred candidates for public office from appearing in publicly funded
promotional advertisements during the nine months before the election. A member raised a point
of order that, because the fiscal note cited possible revenue from fines imposed on violators by
the Elections Enforcement Commission, the bill should be referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The deputy speaker ruled the point not well taken because the fines in question were
not new. The bill subjected violators to an existing penalty, no referral to Judiciary was
required.
Hyslop, April 29, 1998.
7-4I.6
REFERRAL TO JUDICIARY, NOT REQUIRED; BILL RE
OFFICE WITHIN AG'S OFFICE (
Formerly HP 541
)
The bill related to the retention of jobs in Connecticut and the United States. Among
other things, it established an office within the Attorney General's office to help Connecticut
manufacturers and other businesses protect their patents and operations from unfair and illegal
foreign competition. A member made a parliamentary inquiry as to whether the bill had to be
referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The speaker ruled that the bill did not require reference to the Judiciary
Committee.
Amann
,
April 20, 2006.
7-4I.7
REFERRAL TO JUDICIARY, NOT REQUIRED WHERE
UNDERLYING BILL WAS REFERRED (
Formerly HP 540
)
Senate amendment "A" was a strike-all amendment on the open-container laws. A member
pointed out that similar legislation was referred to the Judiciary Committee by the Senate after being
heard in several other committees. The Judiciary Committee did not act on it. The member made a
parliamentary inquiry as to whether the amended bill would be referred to the Judiciary Committee, if it
passed, because it added penalties and created a new offense.
50
H 126
COMMITTEES - JURISDICTION AND REFERRAL,
JUDICIARY ----- 7-4I.7
Continued
The speaker noted that, since the underlying bill had already been referred to the
Judiciary Committee, the amended bill would not have to be referred back to the committee.
Further, such a referral would effectively kill the bill.
Amann
,
May 6, 2008.
7-4I.8
REFERRAL TO JUDICIARY, NOT REQUIRED; BILL RE
DISCRIMINATORY HIRING PRACTICES
The bill concerned unemployed individuals and discriminatory hiring practices and was
favorably reported by the Labor and Public Employees Committee and the Judiciary Committee.
House amendment "A" altered the fine structure and removed the right to appeal in the
underlying bill. A member raised a point of parliamentary inquiry whether the bill as amended
required a referral to the Judiciary Committee.
The deputy speaker ruled that it has been the House procedure that if a bill has
been referred to and favorably reported by a committee, the bill does not need to be
referred a second time, and no referral to Judiciary was required.
Berger, April 25, 2014.
7-4J. LABOR AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
7-4J.1
REFERRAL TO LABOR, NOT REQUIRED; BILL RE TRAINING
PROGRAM FOR ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS (
Formerly HP 546
)
The bill established a training and certification program for animal control officers. A member
raised a point of order as to whether a referral to the Labor Committee was necessary.
The deputy speaker ruled the point not well taken. There was not a substantial nexus
between the bill and the Labor Committee's cognizance.
Godfrey, June 2, 2005.
7-4J.2
REFERRAL DISCRETIONARY; BILL RE HEALTH COVERAGE
UNDER SELF-INSURED STATE PLAN (
Formerly HP 545
)
The amended bill required the comptroller to offer employee and retiree coverage under
the self-insured state plan to certain employers (1) after the General Assembly receives written
consent from the State Employees' Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) and (2) subject to
specified requirements and conditions. A member raised a point of order that the bill should be
referred to the Labor and Public Employees Committee.
The speaker ruled the point not well taken. House Rules state that it is not a
mandatory referral, but a discretionary one. He also cited House Precedent 541 (Altobello,
May 15, 2007) on discretionary references.
A member appealed the chair's ruling. Those speaking against the chair's ruling argued
that the bill dealt with binding arbitration and the rights of collective bargaining units, and
therefore should be referred to the Labor Committee.
43
H 127
COMMITTEES - JURISDICTION AND REFERRAL,
LABOR AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ----- 7-4J.2
Continued
They noted that the committee had never considered the bill and there were numerous
questions raised during the debate. A member speaking in favor of the chair's ruling indicated
that the speaker did not say the bill would not go the Labor Committee, only that the referral was
discretionary. She noted that the applicable rule, House Rule 20, was changed significantly in the
2007 and 2008 Sessions, removing the requirement of mandatory referrals for all but five
different instances.
The chair's ruling was upheld on a roll call vote.
Donovan, May 20, 2009
.
7-4K. LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT
7-4K.1
REFERRAL DISCRETIONARY; BILL RE REPORT TO
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES (
Formerly HP 551
)
The underlying bill established mandatory greenhouse gas emissions caps consistent with
the goals the legislature passed in 2004. A member pointed out that a section of the amendment
required the Department of Environmental Protection to submit a report to the Environment,
Energy and Transportation committees. He made a parliamentary inquiry as to whether the bill
would need to be referred to the Legislative Management Committee if the amendment was
adopted.
The speaker found that, under the Joint Rules, the referral would be discretionary.
Amann, April 28, 2008.
7-4L. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
7-4L.1
REFERRAL DISCRETIONARY; BILL RE SOLID WASTE
FACILITIES (
Formerly HP 547
)
The bill required at least two employees to be present in work areas at solid waste facilities
when moving waste with hydraulic equipment. It made exceptions for overhead crane loading and
facilities serving fewer than five municipalities. A member raised a point of order that the bill
should be referred to the Planning and Development Committee.
The deputy speaker ruled the point not well taken. House Rule 20 was changed
significantly for the 2007-2008 session, removing the requirement for a mandatory referral
of a bill if the speaker found a nexus between a bill and a committee. All questions of
reference, other than certain specified mandatory references, are now determined by the
House members.
Altobello, May 15, 2007.
48
H 128
COMMITTEES - JURISDICTION AND REFERRAL -----
Continued
7-4M. PUBLIC HEALTH
7-4M.1
REFERRAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, NOT REQUIRED; BILL RE
EMPLOYMENT DRUG TESTING AND SMOKING (
Formerly HP 549
)
The amended bill revised the law concerning employment drug testing and prohibited
most employers from discriminating against employees and job applicants who smoke. The bill
was reported favorably by the Labor and Judiciary committees. A member raised a point of order
that bills dealing with smoking and promotion of smoking must be referred to the Public Health
Committee.
The speaker ruled the point not well taken. The bill dealt with employment
discrimination and drug testing which have historically been within the jurisdictions of
Labor and Judiciary only.
The member appealed the ruling and, on a roll call vote, the appeal failed.
Balducci, June
1, 1991.
7-4M.2
REFERRAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, NOT REQUIRED; BILL RE
INSURANCE COVERAGE (
Formerly HP 548
)
A bill reported favorably by the Insurance Committee required health insurers that cover
ostomy surgeries to also cover related appliances and supplies. The House passed House
amendment "A," placing a yearly cap on "medically necessary" supplies. After expressing
concern that "medically necessary" was not defined, a member made a parliamentary inquiry
whether the bill should be referred to the Public Health Committee.
The deputy speaker explained that the bill was an Insurance Committee bill and did
not have to go to any other committee. He indicated that the member could make a motion
to refer the bill.
Hyslop, April 12, 2000.
7-4N. PUBLIC SAFETY
7-4N.1
REFERRAL TO PUBLIC SAFETY, NOT REQUIRED; BILL RE
PERSONAL RISK INSURERS AND DOG BREEDS
(
Formerly HP 550
)
The bill prohibited personal risk insurers from considering a dog's breed when setting
policy rates or minimum premiums. It also prohibited them from using the dog's breed as the
reason for canceling, failing to renew, or not issuing a policy. The House adopted Amendment
"A" permitting insurers to consider dog breed when underwriting or rating policies, other than
those for search-and-rescue or guide dogs. A member made a parliamentary inquiry as to
whether the amended bill must be referred to the Public Safety Committee since it has
jurisdiction over canine-search-and-rescue dogs.
51
H 129
COMMITTEES - JURISDICTION AND REFERRAL,
PUBLIC SAFETY ----- 7-4N.1
Continued
The deputy speaker explained that the House need not refer to a committee a bill or
resolution that was reported by another committee unless the speaker determines there is a
substantial nexus between the bill and the cognizance of the committee. The speaker opined
that there was no such nexus.
Kirkley-Bey, May 4, 2005.
7-4
O
. TRANSPORTATION
7-4
O
.1
REFERRAL DISCRETIONARY; BILL RE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION REPORT (
Formerly HP 551
)
The underlying bill established mandatory greenhouse gas emissions caps consistent with
the goals the legislature passed in 2004. House amendment "A," among other things, required the
Department of Transportation to prepare a report on alternative transportation. A member raised
a point of order to inquire whether the amended bill should be referred to the Transportation
Committee.
The speaker noted that such a referral is discretionary pursuant to House Rule
20(c).
Amann, April 28, 2008.
SECTION 8 -- CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
8-1.1
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS; APPLICATION OF FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION LAW TO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
(
Formerly HP 350
)
Appointment of a conference committee was necessitated by the Senate's insistence on
one of its own amendments (Senate "A") to the revenue bill. Senate "A" had been rejected by the
House on a unanimous voice vote. The speaker appointed himself and two other House members
to the conference committee. The minority leader asked how the speaker chose these members
since the rules require appointment of one member not on the prevailing side in a disagreeing
action and, in this case, the disagreement had resulted from a voice vote. In such a situation,
without a roll call, how was the speaker to know which members had not been on the prevailing
side?
The speaker replied that, since the vote to reject Senate "A" had not only been a
voice vote, but a unanimous voice vote, he was technically unable to appoint any member
not on the prevailing side on that vote. Consequently, he had looked to the final roll call
vote on the bill as amended and had chosen someone on the losing side of that vote. He
stated that he would follow the same process in any similar situations in the future.
The minority leader suggested that where an action could put the House in disagreement
with the Senate, the speaker order a roll call vote. The speaker agreed that it would be best to do
so but noted that disagreements were sometimes hard to predict.
51
H 130
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ----- 8-1.1
Continued
Another member asked where the conference committee's meetings would be held and
whether those meetings would be subject to the Freedom of Information law.
The speaker gave his opinion that a conference committee's meetings were required
by the Freedom of Information law to be public. However, there was nothing to prevent the
committee's members from voting to recess and reconvene as a caucus. Caucuses are
exempt from freedom of information requirements. Such a caucus could legally be held in
private.
Abate, May 12, 1981.
SECTION 9 -- CONFLICT OF INTEREST
9-1.1
VOTING BY MEMBERS NAMED IN RESOLUTION (
Formerly HP 353
)
A member questioned, on the ground of interest, the right of members named in a
resolution to vote.
The speaker ruled the point not well taken. The motion to suspend the rules so the
resolution could be immediately transmitted to the Senate was entirely a matter of
procedure.
Hanna, 1935.
9-1.2
QUESTION OF DISQUALIFICATION A PERSONAL ONE
(
Formerly HP 352
)
A member rose to a point of order inquiring whether another member was disqualified
from participating in the debate because he held a judicial position.
The speaker stated that if a member is so interested in a matter that he is not
eligible to vote on it, he cannot remain in the House while the bill is debated. The speaker
stated that the question of whether a member is so interested as to be disqualified was a
personal one on which each member could make his or her own decision.
Sprague, 1951.
9-1.3
NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST AS LONG AS BILL DOES NOT
BENEFIT MEMBER SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN OTHER
MEMBERS OF PROFESSION (
Formerly HP 351
)
A member moved adoption of a bill that would benefit pharmacists and neighborhood
pharmacies. Another member raised a point of order that the first member's action was improper
because, as a pharmacist and pharmacy owner, he had a personal interest in the bill's passage.
The speaker ruled the point not well taken. As long as a bill would not benefit a member
substantially more than it would any other member of his profession, as was the case here, it is
not a conflict of interest for him to debate and vote on a bill (
Mason
522(1)).
The first member withdrew from the debate prior to the ruling.
Balducci, June 7, 1989.
47
H 131
SECTION 10 -- DEBATE
10-1. CONDUCT OF, GENERALLY
10-1A. FLOOR, POSSESSION OF
10-1A.1
YIELDING THE FLOOR TO DELAY ACTION (
Formerly HP 600
)
The state Constitution requires the General Assembly to adjourn its annual session at
midnight. With less than one hour to go, a member, during debate on a bill, yielded the floor to
other members and then reclaimed it each time to continue speaking in opposition to the bill.
Another member raised a point of order that it was not proper procedure for one member to
control the debate and the order of debate from the floor through yields to other members. Under
the rules, when a member yields the floor, he retains his claim to it "as a matter of courtesy and
not of right." (
Mason
95(1)). When a member's clear intention was to delay action until time ran
out and the bill was lost, he had no right to hold the floor in this way.
The speaker agreed that the member had stated the rule correctly but in this case,
the member had yielded to another member according to the rules and the speaker had
recognized that member, who now had the floor. This procedure followed usual House
practice, which allows one member to yield the floor to others and resume possession when
those others finish speaking.
Balducci, May 9, 1990.
10-1A.2
YIELDING THE FLOOR (
Formerly HP 506
)
The clerk called an amendment to the income tax and the proponent moved adoption. A
member moved to introduce a substitute amendment pursuant to
Mason
409 (1) and (3), which
addresses amendment of amendments.
The majority leader raised a point of order that the first member had the floor and any
proposal to substitute an amendment should come when a member is recognized after the floor
has been yielded.
The minority leader wondered whether the point of order was proper, given that the
member moving the substitute had been recognized.
The speaker said that the member with the substitute was recognized only to learn
why he had risen. The speaker had recognized him in expectation of point of order or
parliamentary inquiry, not to accept any amendment. He opined that the first member still
had the floor.
The minority leader argued that once a member is recognized, the speaker may not
presume what the member is to do.
The speaker ruled the majority leader's point well taken.
Balducci, December 17,
1991.
54
H 132
DEBATE - CONDUCT OF, GENERALLY - FLOOR -----
Continued
10-1A.3
IMPROPER YIELD OF THE FLOOR (
Formerly HP 362
)
During debate on an amendment to revise a ban on alcohol use in state parks, a member asked
the amendment's proponent a question. The proponent yielded the floor to another member, stating that
this member was an expert and had agreed to answer such inquiries.
A member raised a parliamentary inquiry whether the yield violated House rules.
The deputy speaker ruled that the yield was a rules violation and asked that the
question be re-framed and directed to the member to whom the amendment's proponent
had attempted to yield.
Currey, May 16, 2001.
10-1A.4
MAINTAINING THE FLOOR (
Formerly HP 354
)
A member asked a question of another member. The member then posed a question to a
second member. The deputy speaker indicated that the original member could pose the question
to the second member if the first member, who had the floor, did not object. The original member
posed a parliamentary inquiry as to whether he relinquished the floor by asking questions of
members.
The deputy speaker found that the original member did maintain the floor.
Altobello
,
May 6, 2008.
10-1B. NONMEMBERS' PARTICIPATION IN DEBATE
10-1B.1
NONMEMBERS ON FLOOR; PARTICIPATION OF NONMEMBERS
(
Formerly HP 493
)
During debate on a resolution, a member raised a point of order that two individuals sitting
behind another member giving him answers were not members of the House and must identify
themselves and receive permission of the speaker to sit on the House floor.
The deputy speaker ruled the point well taken.
The member raised a second point of order that the individuals were violating the rules in
supplying a member with answers to questions directed at him because that meant they were
indirectly participating in the debate.
The deputy speaker ruled the point not well taken. There had been no indication
that the individuals had participated in the debate.
Vicino, 1977.
10-1B.2
PLAYING OF TAPE RECORDING IS DEBATE BY NONMEMBER
(
Formerly HP 492
)
An amendment to a bill concerning the state song was under consideration. A member
attempted to play a tape recording of the song to be substituted for that in the bill. Another
member raised a point of order that playing the tape would constitute debate by a nonmember.
The speaker ruled the point well taken.
Kennelly, 1978.
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
