49
S 21
AMENDMENTS - PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED
----- 2-5.2
Continued
The president pro tempore ruled the point of order not well taken. The programs
referred to in Senate "A" were different from those mandated by House "A" and thus a
change to permissive language would not be contradictory.
After several rulings concerning whether referral of Senate "A" to Appropriations was
proper, a fifth senator raised a point of order that Senate "A" was the same as a bill already
passed by the General Assembly earlier in the session. That bill required certain state agencies to
develop and implement, with municipalities and public and private agencies, programs to
enhance the work training, education, and support services available to the chronically
unemployed, with special emphasis on the needs of welfare recipients. Under the rules, no
question, once decided, may be reintroduced in the same session (
Mason
401(4)).
The president pro tempore ruled the point not well taken. It was not uncommon for
the General Assembly, at different times during the same session, to discuss and vote on
bills covering the same subject. The rules cited by the senator referred to the resubmission
of identical questions. Though Senate "A" and the earlier bill concerned the same subject,
Senate "A" was a new proposal.
The fifth senator then asked the Labor Committee chairman his opinion as to whether Senate
"A" and the earlier bill were essentially the same. The chairman agreed that the concept behind both
was the same. The senator renewed his point of order based on that reply.
The president pro tempore restated his earlier ruling.
The senator appealed the ruling and asked for a roll call.
The president pro tempore explained the vote for the benefit of senators who had
been out of the chamber.
The fifth senator attempted to explain his position to senators returning to the chamber.
The president pro tempore ruled the senator out of order as he had not invited
debate.
On a roll call, the ruling was sustained.
Murphy, May 30, 1979.
2-5.3
AMENDMENT EXACT REVERSE OF PREVIOUSLY DEFEATED
AMENDMENT, OUT OF ORDER; ADDITION OF NEW WORDS
NOT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE, OUT OF ORDER (
Formerly SP 72
)
The bill concerned last-best-offer binding arbitration for teacher contract disputes. The
amendment (Senate "A") exempted certain matters from binding arbitration. A senator raised a
point of order that Senate "A" was the negative of an amendment defeated earlier. Since to
amend the bill by Senate "A" would have precisely the same effect as to amend it with the
previously defeated amendment, Senate "A" was out of order (
Mason
159(5); 398(2); 401(4)).
The president ruled that Senate "A" was the exact reverse of a previously defeated
amendment and was, therefore, not in order.
The ruling was appealed and sustained.
57
S 22
AMENDMENTS - PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED
----- 2-5.3
Continued
Another amendment, Senate "C," was then introduced to exempt certain matters,
specifically including contract duration, from binding arbitration. A senator raised a point of
order that Senate "C" was not only identical to an earlier, defeated amendment, it was the
affirmative of Senate "A" already ruled out of order.
The president ruled the point well taken. The addition of the words "contract
duration" did not substantively change Senate "C" from the earlier amendments (
Mason
159(5), 398(2), 401(4)).
The ruling was appealed and sustained.
O'Neill, May 30, 1979.
2-5.4
AMENDMENTS PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL, OUT OF ORDER
(
Formerly SP 71
)
The bill concerned the state's fiscal management procedures. A senator introduced an
amendment (Senate "C") to require the governor to document an anticipated deficit or "change in
circumstances" before withholding funds appropriated by the General Assembly. On a voice
vote, Senate "C" was defeated. The senator introduced Senate "D" which included the same
requirement and, in addition, set up a replacement for the Finance Advisory Committee. A
senator raised a point of order that Senate "D" was essentially the same as "C" and was therefore
not in order (
Mason
401(4)).
The president ruled the point well taken. The two amendments were practically
identical in effect and wording. In addition, Senate "D" created a new legislative committee
and it was too late in the session for such a change.
O'Neill, June 4, 1979.
2-5.5
AMENDMENT IDENTICAL TO BILL PERMITTED (
Formerly SP 70
)
The bill raised the penalties for certain violations of the deer hunting statutes. A senator
moved an amendment (Senate "A") banning the use of steel-jawed leghold traps in the state.
Another senator raised a point of order that Senate "A" was not proper because the issue raised
by it was identical to one already decided earlier in the session in the form of a bill ruled out of
order (
Mason
401(4)).
The president ruled the point not well taken. The earlier bill had been ruled out of
order because it had not been raised by the proper committee. It had never been voted on.
Therefore, it was in order as an amendment to the pending bill.
O'Neill, April 23, 1980.
2-5.6
AMENDMENTS DID NOT REPRESENT IDENTICAL
QUESTIONS DESPITE HAVING SAME SECTION (
Formerly SP 69
)
The bill was the proposed state budget for FY 1981-82. A senator introduced an
amendment (Senate "A") that proposed a different budget, changing most line item appropriations
from the amounts given in the bill. Senate "A" was defeated.
Another senator introduced Senate "B" which proposed effectively to eliminate the central
administrative offices of the trustees of the state, community, and technical colleges.
56
S 23
AMENDMENTS - PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED
----- 2-5.6
Continued
A third senator raised a point of order that Senate "B" was improper because it duplicated
part of Senate "A" upon which final action had already been taken (
Mason
398(2), 401(4)).
The president ruled the point not well taken. Although Senate "B" was the same as
one section of Senate "A," the two did not represent identical questions.
Fauliso, April 21,
1981.
2-5.7
CHANGE IN EFFECTIVE DATE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE
AMENDMENT A NEW QUESTION (
Formerly SP 68
)
The unamended House bill increased welfare benefits 5%. Two House amendments were
attached to the bill, one of which (House "A") terminated the Connecticut Assistance and
Medical Aid Program for the Disabled (CAMAD) effective August 1, 1981. When the bill was
taken up in the Senate, the Appropriations Committee chairman moved its passage as amended
by House "A" and "B."
A senator raised a point of order that House "A" was not properly before the Senate since
the Senate had already defeated CAMAD termination in the form of a bill and no question can be
voted on twice in the same session after the time for reconsideration has passed (
Mason
401(4)).
The president pro tempore ruled the point not well taken because, although House "A"
and the earlier bill both terminated CAMAD, the two had different effective dates. The change
in effective date was sufficient to make House "A" a new question. If this were not to be the
case, the Senate would be in the position of having to refer the bill to a conference committee
without ever acting on it.
Murphy, June 1, 1981.
2-5.8
DELETING ONE ITEM FROM LIST OF TEN INSUFFICIENT TO
CHANGE SUBSTANCE OF QUESTION (
Formerly SP 67
)
The bill established a task force to study medical assistance in the state. Senate
amendment "A" prohibited state reimbursement unless at least two physicians approved surgery
before it took place. Another senator raised a point of order that Senate "A" was not properly
before the Senate because it was substantially the same as a bill passed by the Senate the
previous week (
Mason
401(4)). The proponent argued that one of the surgical procedures listed
in the bill already passed had been removed from Senate "A." This deletion was enough to
change the question substantively and allow it to be brought up as an amendment. She cited a
Senate precedent where a change of effective date was ruled sufficient to allow a question to be
brought up again (
2-5.7, formerly SP 68
).
The president pro tempore ruled, however, that deleting one item from a list of 10 did
not change the substance of the question. The amendment was not in order because no
question can be considered again after the time for reconsideration passed.
The ruling was appealed and, on a roll call, sustained.
Murphy, June 2, 1981.
52
S 24
AMENDMENTS - PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED
-----
Continued
2-5.9
REMOVAL OF FEE INSUFFICIENT TO SUBSTANTIVELY
CHANGE AMENDMENT (
Formerly SP 66
)
The bill amended various statutes dealing with trusts and probate matters, including the
succession tax. The amendment required probate courts to set up a system for filing wills and
allowed them to collect a $5 fee per will. A senator raised a point of order that the amendment
had been previously considered and rejected. The proponent argued that the earlier amendment
imposed a $10 fee.
The president ruled the point well taken. The amendment was substantially the
same as one rejected earlier and was out of order.
Fauliso, May 17, 1983.
2-5.10
STANDARD OF REVIEW; SMALL CHANGES IN LONGITUDE
OR LATITUDE (
Formerly SP 65
)
The bill empowered the Commissioner of Environmental Protection to regulate lobster
fishing. It also extended for one year the expiration of lobster catch limits on trawlers operating
west of Milford, and repealed a prohibition on certain night trawling between the Stratford shoal
light and the easterly breakwater of the Housatonic River in Milford. The House rejected Senate
amendment "A" prohibiting night trawling west of the navigational setting 72 degrees, 40
minutes.
When the bill was called again in the Senate, the proponent of Senate "A" introduced another
amendment (Senate "B") prohibiting night trawling west of latitude 72 degrees, longitude 48
minutes. A senator raised a point of order that Senate "B" made no substantive change in Senate "A."
He asked that it be ruled out of order as having been previously considered. The amendment's
proponent argued that Senate "B" made a substantial change because the new line was three miles
from the line specified in Senate "A."
The president ruled the point not well taken on the grounds that
Mason
advises a
presiding officer never to rule an amendment out of order unless he is sure that it is
(401(5)). But he cautioned the proponent that any further amendments with only small
changes in longitude or latitude would be ruled out of order.
Fauliso, May 22, 1985.
2-5.11
AMENDMENT ESSENTIALLY IDENTICAL TO PREVIOUSLY
CONSIDERED AMENDMENT, OUT OF ORDER (
Formerly SP 64
)
The bill prohibited happy hours. A senator offered Senate amendment "A." A second
senator raised a point of order that Senate "A" was identical to an amendment the Senate had
adopted earlier in the session.
The president ruled the point well taken. Senate "A" was essentially identical to an
amendment previously considered and was therefore out of order.
Fauliso, June 2, 1987.
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
