49
S 36
COMMITTEES - REFERRAL, APPROPRIATIONS
----- 6-3A.2
Continued
The third senator moved that the amendment be pass retained pending a new fiscal note, or
that Senate "A" be referred to Appropriations.
The president pro tempore ruled that a motion to refer one amendment to a
committee was improper. The amendment had already been ruled proper. The motion to
pass retain was in order, but the whole bill had to be pass retained, not just Senate "A."
A fourth senator raised a point of order stating that the president pro tempore's ruling was
in direct contradiction to the ruling on House "C," that all matters with fiscal impact must be
referred to Appropriations. It was ruled that House "C" had no impact on the overall budget, and
thus did not need to be referred to Appropriations. However, Senate "A" would have such an
impact.
The president pro tempore stated that the rulings were not inconsistent. The earlier
point had concerned the reference of the entire bill to Appropriations. The fourth senator
wanted only Senate "A" referred. This would not be proper.
Murphy, May 30, 1979.
6-3A.3
AMENDMENT ALONE NOT TO BE REFERRED; FISCAL NOTE
(JR 15); PASS TEMPORARILY, PRECEDENCE OF MOTION TO (SR 28)
(
Formerly SP 239
)
A series of amendments to a bill required towns to institute mandatory workfare and job
training and education programs for certain welfare recipients. A senator offered a further
amendment (Senate "G") to require the state to reimburse towns for their expenses incurred as a
result of these added provisions.
A second senator raised a point of order that Senate "G" was not proper because it was
not accompanied by a fiscal note. The amendment required the state to cover all town costs and
this was not provided for in the budget. He also moved that the amendment be referred to
Appropriations.
The acting president ruled that amendments alone may not be referred to
committees. If the amendment were adopted, then the question of referring the whole bill
could be raised. With respect to the question of a fiscal note, the president ruled that the
bill could be pass retained and a fiscal note obtained if desired. However, the amendment
was properly before the chamber without a fiscal note.
The second senator moved to pass retain the amendment to obtain a fiscal note.
The acting president ruled the motion out of order. Amendments may not be pass
retained. If the amendment were adopted, the whole bill could be pass retained or the
amendment could be passed temporarily while a fiscal note was obtained.
The senator moved to pass the amendment temporarily. A third senator asked whether the
first senator's original motion to adopt Senate "G" should not take precedence over a motion to
pass it temporarily.
The acting president ruled the motion to pass temporarily took precedence and was
in order.
The second senator withdrew his motion to pass temporarily. After further debate, Senate
"G" was withdrawn.
Murphy, May 30, 1979.
51
S 37
COMMITTEES - REFERRAL, APPROPRIATIONS -----
Continued
6-3A.4
REFERRAL TO APPROPRIATIONS, NOT REQUIRED;
MOTION CONSIDERED TWICE (SR 26) (
Formerly SP 238
)
House amendment "A" was adopted by a roll call vote. A senator moved to refer the bill
to Appropriations. The motion was defeated. A senator moved House amendment "C" which
added a $2 million appropriation to the bill. A senator raised a point of order that the bill must be
referred to Appropriations as the $2 million had not been approved by that committee.
The first senator raised a point of order that the second senator's point was not in order
because the question of reference to Appropriations had already been decided by the Senate and
the same question could not be considered twice without reconsidering the first vote.
The acting president ruled the senator's point regarding reconsideration not well
taken. Raising a point of order was different from moving to refer to Appropriations. Since
the point of order had not already been decided, it was proper. On the point concerning the
reference, the acting president ruled that, although House "C" required expenditure of up
to $2 million, it was not $2 million in new money, but a reallocation of money previously
appropriated. Therefore, referral to Appropriations was not required.
Murphy, May 30,
1979.
6-3A.5
CONDUCT OF DEBATE ON REFERRAL (
Formerly SP 237
)
A senator explained the bill. Another senator raised a point of order that, due to its fiscal
impact, the amendment should be referred to Appropriations. The chairman of the
Appropriations Committee quoted a fiscal note estimating that the cost of the amendment would
be substantial. Since adoption of the amendment would create an imbalance in the budget
already adopted, he asked that the amendment be ruled out of order.
The president pro tempore invited limited debate.
The proponent argued the cost of the amendment. A senator raised a point of order that
the senator was speaking to the amendment rather than the point of order.
The president pro tempore ruled the point well taken and advised the proponent that
he had strayed from the central issue. The president then ruled the original point was not well
taken and that the amendment was proper.
Fauliso, May 31, 1979.
6-3A.6
REFERRAL TO APPROPRIATIONS, NOT REQUIRED
(
Formerly SP 102
)
The bill allowed former governors up to $10,000 in the first year after leaving office for
expenses. The amendment appropriated $5,000 from the Finance Advisory Committee account
for an oil portrait of the chief justice of the state Supreme Court. A senator raised a point of order
that the amendment was improper because it proposed an FAC appropriation without having
been to the Appropriations Committee.
The president ruled the point not well taken.
Fauliso, May 14, 1981.
52
S 38
COMMITTEES - REFERRAL, APPROPRIATIONS -----
Continued
6-3A.7
REVISED FISCAL NOTE (
Formerly SP 236
)
The bill concerned state revenue for the coming year. When it was called, a senator raised
a point of order that it was not properly before the Senate. He said that it should be referred to
the Appropriations Committee because its fiscal note indicated a $1 million cost (JR 3(1) and
CGS § 2-35). The bill's proponent stated that a revised fiscal note showed that no appropriation
was needed.
The president ruled the point not well taken based on the revised fiscal note.
The ruling was appealed and sustained.
Fauliso, June 2, 1983.
6-3A.8
NEW FISCAL NOTE (
Formerly SP 235
)
The bill required anyone who arranged, advertised, or provided homemaker health aides
or homemaker health services to be licensed and regulated by the Health Department. The fiscal
note showed state costs of $18,750 in the 1985-86 fiscal year. The bill had been favorably
reported by the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations chairman asked that the bill be
sent back to his committee because the fiscal note was new and the bill's cost was not included in
the budget. The proponent argued that the fiscal note was in error.
The acting president said the rules required the bill to go back to Appropriations as
long as the fiscal note remained on it. He said the proponent could move to pass retain the
bill to work on it.
On the proponent's motion, the bill was pass retained.
Morano, May 28, 1985.
6-3A.9
SUSPENSION OF RULES (
Formerly SP 234
)
The bill required the commissioner of environmental protection to report to the General
Assembly within two years on options for managing the state's public groundwater supplies. The
fiscal note showed a state cost of $125,000 for the bill. A senator moved Senate amendment "A,"
which appropriated $75,000 for a study of algae problems at Lake Waramaug. The Appropriations
Committee chairman said the majority planned to reduce an appropriation attached to another bill
coming up from the House in order to provide enough money for the Waramaug study. On a voice
vote, Senate "A" was adopted.
The minority leader moved to refer the bill to Appropriations. The proponent moved to
suspend the rules to dispense with referral.
The acting president ruled the motion to suspend the rules took precedence over the
motion to refer, and that the vote on suspension would also, in effect, decide the question of
referral.
The minority leader opposed the motion to suspend the rules and objected to the
process by which the Lake Waramaug appropriation was being enacted. The bill's proponent
raised a point of order that a motion to suspend the rules was not debatable.
The acting president ruled the point well taken.
On a roll call vote, the rules were suspended. The bill was then passed on consent.
DiBella, May 29, 1985.
46
S 39
COMMITTEES - REFERRAL, APPROPRIATIONS -----
Continued
6-3A.10
REFERRAL TO APPROPRIATIONS, NOT REQUIRED
(
Formerly SP 233
)
The fiscal note on the amendment showed a $60,000 state revenue loss. A senator raised
a point of order that the amendment was out of order because it had not been considered by the
Appropriations Committee.
The president ruled the point not well taken because amendments to bills cannot be
sent to committees before they are adopted.
Fauliso, March 16, 1988.
6-3A.11
REFERRAL TO APPROPRIATIONS, REQUIRED (
Formerly SP 232
)
Senate amendment "A" provided several types of residential property tax relief. The
fiscal note estimated that the amendment would cost $1 million in FY 1988-89. Senate "A" was
adopted. A senator raised a point of order that the amended bill had to be referred to
Appropriations because it would put the state budget out of balance. Other senators argued that
the money would come from a special fund and would not unbalance the budget.
The president ruled the point well taken (JR 3). All matters carrying appropriations
must be referred to the Appropriations Committee. The potential of a particular
amendment to balance or unbalance the budget is irrelevant to the issue of reference.
The ruling was appealed but the appeal was later withdrawn and the bill was sent to
Appropriations.
Fauliso, April 26, 1988.
6-3A.12
REFERRAL TO APPROPRIATIONS, NOT REQUIRED
(
Formerly SP 231
)
A senator called Senate amendment "A" to a Judiciary Committee bill. Senate "A"
enacted a Commission on State Governmental Efficiency's recommendations concerning the
state's child support enforcement program. The amendment, in the form of a bill, had received a
public hearing in the Finance Committee. During debate on Senate "A," its proponent argued that
it would save the state money. The fiscal note reported that the cost of implementing the
amendment could not be determined. A senator raised a point of order that the amendment must
be referred to the Appropriations Committee.
The president ruled the point not well taken. If the amendment was adopted, the
senator could move to refer the amended bill to committee. Such a motion would be
debatable and votable. The president would not rule on the propriety of a reference, since
that was for the Senate to decide.
Fauliso, April 12, 1990.
51
S 40
COMMITTEES - REFERRAL, APPROPRIATIONS -----
Continued
6-3A.13
BILL INCLUDED MUNICIPAL MANDATE (
Overruled
)
(JR 3, CGS § 2-32b) (
Formerly SP 230
)
A senator moved to refer the bill authorizing video gaming machines and providing
revenues to towns to the Appropriations Committee under JR 3. JR 3 requires that bills creating
or enlarging state mandates as defined in CGS § 2-32b(a)(2) be referred to Appropriations unless
the reference is dispensed with by at least a two-thirds vote of each house. The senator
maintained that a requirement in the bill that municipalities send out a notice to property owners
was a mandate within the meaning of JR 3.
The president ruled the point well taken and invited debate.
The majority leader argued that "state mandate" under CGS § 2-32b(a)(2) means a state-
initiated constitutional, statutory, or executive action requiring a local government to expand or
modify activities in a way that requires expenditure of additional local revenues, and that the bill
was merely a "direct pass through" of funds.
The senator argued that the bill's requirement that towns send a notice was a mandate
because it required expenditure of additional dollars. He referred to the definition of "state
service mandate" under CGS § 2-32b(a)(6).
The majority leader countered that the senator was confusing "state mandate" as defined
in CGS § 2-32b(a)(2), with "state service mandate" defined in CGS § 2-32b(a)(6), which is not
covered by JR 3. A state service mandate is "a state mandate as to creation or expansion of
governmental services or delivery standards therefor and those applicable to services having
substantial benefit spill over and consequently being wider than local concern."
The senator maintained that the mandate in question would come within either definition
of mandate.
The majority leader argued that the bill did not fall within the definition of "state
mandate" necessitating additional expenditures from local revenues. On a $70 million bill, he
opined the effect would be "barely measurable" and would therefore "fall within the de minimis
rule if there is any."
The senator pointed out that the notice was an expensive proposition to small towns and
was clearly a mandate required to be reviewed by Appropriations.
On a roll call vote, the president's ruling that the bill included a mandate was
overruled.
Groark, April 29, 1992.
6-3A.14
FISCAL NOTE STATED REDUCTION IN EXPENSES TO TOWNS
(JR 3, CGS § 2-32b) (
Formerly SP 229
)
A senator raised a point of order that a bill changing the conditions under which a board
of finance must obtain town meeting approval prior to authorizing expenditures above
appropriated amounts was not properly before the Senate because JR 3 and CGS § 2-32b require
reference to the Appropriations Committee. The proponent of the bill argued that JR 3 and CGS
§ 2-32b did not apply because the bill did not place any mandate on towns, it simply allowed
them to use an existing process to authorize larger appropriations.
51
S 41
COMMITTEES - REFERRAL, APPROPRIATIONS ----- 6-3A.14
Continued
The senator argued that enlargement of an existing mandate requires referral to the
Appropriations Committee and that the fiscal note indicated possible additional expense to
municipalities. The proponent of the bill argued that the fiscal note indicated an indeterminate
savings for municipalities, not increased costs.
The president ruled the point not well taken because the fiscal note stated there was
a reduction in the amount of expenses to towns.
Groark, April 26, 1994.
6-3A.15
REFERRAL TO APPROPRIATIONS, NOT REQUIRED
(
Formerly SP 227
)
The bill concerned prison overcrowding and had been favorably reported by the Judiciary
Committee. The fiscal note indicated an indeterminate cost possibly reaching as high as $15
million to $20 million. A senator moved to suspend the rules to allow the bill to be taken up
without a referral to Appropriations.
The president ruled that no suspension and no referral to Appropriations was
required since the cost was indeterminate.
Rell, April 26, 1995.
6-3A.16
REFERRAL TO APPROPRIATIONS, NOT REQUIRED (JR 3)
(
Formerly SP 226
)
The bill concerned library construction grants. Among its provisions were appropriations
to vocational agriculture centers and to Project Concern. A senator raised a point of order that the
bill was not properly before the Senate because it had not been to the Appropriations Committee.
The rule requires "all bills or resolutions containing or requiring appropriations. . . shall be
referred to the (Appropriations) committee, unless such reference is dispensed with by at least a
two-thirds vote of each house. . ." (JR 3(b)(1)). The Education Committee chairman argued that
the rule did not apply to the bill because it did not contain a new or enlarged appropriation.
The president ruled the point not well taken. The fiscal note on the amended bill
stated that it would result in a net savings of $2.7 million and would redistribute these
excess funds into vocational agriculture grants. In accordance with Senate precedent, she
ruled that a bill that simply reallocates money previously appropriated was not subject to
the required referral to Appropriations under JR 3.
Rell, May 6, 1996.
6-3A.17
BILL NOT MUNICIPAL MANDATE (
Formerly SP 228
)
The bill required towns to maintain health insurance for retirees at the same level as
provided prior to retirement. A motion to refer the bill to the Appropriations Committee failed.
The moving party raised a point of order that under the rules, a bill that carries a municipal
mandate must be referred to that committee.
The president pro tempore ruled the point not well taken. Fiscal notes specifically
identify municipal mandates when they occur, and this bill's fiscal note does not do so.
Sulllivan, May 21, 2003.
49
S 42
COMMITTEES - REFERRAL, APPROPRIATIONS -----
Continued
6-3A.18
NO SPECIFIC IMPACT ON STATE OR MUNICIPALITIES
(
Formerly SP 225
)
The bill authorized two optional property tax relief programs. The fiscal note indicated
that implementing the programs could result in a cost to certain municipalities. The bill's
proponent raised a point of order that under the rules, a bill that carries a cost to municipalities
must be referred to the Appropriations Committee.
The president ruled the point not well taken because participation in the program
would be permissive and the fiscal note does not note a specific impact on either the state or
municipalities.
Rell, May 4, 2004.
6-3A.19
APPROPRIATION NOT REQUIRED IN CURRENT FISCAL YEAR
On a roll call vote, Senate amendment "A" to a bill repealing the death penalty was
adopted. A senator raised a point of order that the amended bill required referral to the
Appropriations Committee because the fiscal note of the amendment indicated a cost to the state.
The majority leader argued the fiscal note on the amendment and the fiscal note of the
underlying bill must be looked at in concert to get a true picture, and that the underlying bill
projects cost savings to the overall system.
The president ruled the point not well taken. The amended bill does not require an
appropriation in the current fiscal year or current budget and the timing of any future
potential course is indeterminate. The fiscal note on the amendment only predicts a
reduction in the savings that will be realized in the underlying bill.
The ruling was appealed and on a roll call vote, the president was sustained.
Wyman,
April 4, 2012.
6-3B. GENERAL LAW
6-3B.1
REFERRAL TO GENERAL LAW, NOT REQUIRED (JR 3, 8;
Mason
270)
(
Formerly SP 241
)
The bill dealt with identifying numbers on beer kegs and had been reported to the Senate
by the Transportation Committee. A senator raised a point of order asking the president whether
the bill should be referred to the General Law Committee.
The president entertained debate.
The proponent of the bill argued that a point of order was inappropriate since any senator
can move to refer a bill. The senator wanted to know whether there was a rule forbidding the
president from ruling on a matter appropriate for a motion.
The president ruled the point not well taken. If the rules allow for a motion on a
particular issue, there is no need for the president to rule from the chair. The body, by its
rules, had decided how it wishes to be governed.
44
S 43
COMMITTEES - REFERRAL, GENERAL LAW ----- 6-3B.1
Continued
The motion to refer was made and defeated. Another senator raised a point of order that
under JR 3, the General Law Committee has cognizance over alcoholic beverages, and since the
rules indicated what committees must consider a bill, the bill was not properly before the Senate
if it was not reviewed in the General Law Committee.
The president responded that JR 8 allows a committee chairman to request the
speaker or president pro tempore to refer a bill to his committee prior to final House or
Senate action and in cases of controversy to refer the bill to an ad hoc committee of
reference composed of legislative leaders. The president pointed out that the proponent of
the bill, the Transportation Committee chairman, had no problem with committee
jurisdiction.
The president also pointed out that under
Mason
270, the other way to refer a bill is
to have the entire chamber vote on a motion to refer. The Senate had just done this and the
motion was defeated. Thus, the president ruled the bill properly before the chamber.
Another senator appealed the ruling, arguing that the president's ruling suggested that the
impropriety of the bill's being before the Senate was based on its reference to the Transportation
Committee when the real issue was whether the bill should be referred to the General Law
Committee.
The president invited debate.
The majority leader stated that JR 8 indicates that the chairman of the committee of
cognizance can initiate a controversy over a reference. Since no chairman was objecting to the
cognizance of the Transportation Committee, the bill was appropriately referred to and reported
by that committee.
On a roll call vote, the president's ruling was sustained.
Groark, April 4, 1992.
6-3C. GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS
6-3C.1
REFERRAL TO GAE, REQUIRED (
Formerly SP 243
)
The bill gave the corrections commissioner the power to appoint and remove wardens and
superintendents of state prisons and detention centers. It had been favorably reported by the Judiciary
Committee. The minority leader raised a point of order that the bill changed the structure of
government and should be referred to the Government Administration and Elections Committee. The
Judiciary chairman argued that the bill did not have to be referred to GAE because its effect on the
state government structure was insignificant. He also argued that the Judiciary Committee has sole
jurisdiction over corrections.
The president ruled the point well taken. The bill did affect state government
organization and must go to GAE.
Fauliso, May 8, 1985.
47
S 44
COMMITTEES - REFERRAL, GAE -----
Continued
6-3C.2
REFERRAL TO GAE, REQUIRED (
Formerly SP 242
)
The bill established a council to administer the Children's Trust Fund and dedicated one-
half of one percent of state gaming revenues to the fund. The bill received an unfavorable report
from the Finance Committee. The unfavorable report was overturned and the bill was sent to the
Legislative Commissioners' Office. When the bill returned from LCO and was called in the
Senate, a senator introduced an amendment (Senate "A") which also created a council and
transferred to it the money appropriated to the Department of Children and Youth Services to
administer the fund. The amendment was adopted. The proponent moved to place the bill on
consent.
The minority leader raised a point of order that the bill, by creating a new council and
giving it various powers, changed government structure and should be sent to the Government
Administration and Elections Committee. The bill's proponent moved to suspend the rules to
dispense with referral to GAE. The motion failed to pass by the required two-thirds vote. The
proponent then asked for a roll call on the bill.
The acting president ruled the motion for a roll call out of order. He also ruled that,
since the motion to suspend the rules failed, the bill must be sent to GAE.
Markley, May 29,
1985.
6-3D. JUDICIARY
6-3D.1
REFERRAL TO JUDICIARY; PRECEDENCE OF POINT OF
ORDER; SUSPENSION OF RULES AFTER AN ADVERSE
RULING; TIMELINESS OF APPEALS FROM RULINGS (SR 3)
(
Formerly SP 250
)
The bill received an unfavorable report from the Environment Committee. The
unfavorable report was overturned. A senator raised a point of order that the bill must be referred
to Judiciary as it contained criminal penalties. Another senator moved to pass retain the bill prior
to the ruling to allow further amendments to arrive.
The president pro tempore ruled that the point of order took precedence over a
motion to pass retain unless the point was withdrawn.
The first senator declined to withdraw his point of order.
The president pro tempore ruled the point well taken. Because the bill contained
criminal penalties, it was not properly before the Senate without having been through
Judiciary.
The third senator moved to suspend the rules to consider the bill and asked for a roll call
on his motion. A fourth senator raised a point of order that once the matter had been ruled out of
order, the rules could not be suspended to consider it.
The president pro tempore ruled that his ruling must be appealed and overturned
before a motion to suspend could be entertained.
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
