Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 3/15/2002 8:48:44 AM EST
Wisconsin Betrayed: March 12, 2002 -- This is a brief Play-by-Play of efforts by the Democrats in the state Senate to thwart the will of the people and block a vote on SB357/AB675 ¡V the Personal Protection Act. The players are: Senate Majority Leader Chvala (D-Madison), Senate President Risser (D-Madison), 16 Democratic senators who give Chvala and Risser their power. None of them said a word in defense of representative government or of proper parliamentary procedure. Defense of the bill and the right of the people to be heard came from the bill¡¦s author, Senator Zien (R), Senate Minority Leader Panzer (R) and Republican Senators Welch, Schultz and Ellis. Every Republican senator spoke up to object to this travesty of proper parliamentary procedure and to adjournment without a vote on SB357/AB675. Every Democratic Senator is responsible for the actions of their leaders. Senator Jauch, the only Democrat who said anything during this charade, besides Chvala and Risser, actually spoke up to defend their actions. „h Zien (R) - moves to take the bill up under the 10th order of business. „h Risser (D) - responds that the motion would be proper under the 14th order of business and guarantees that he will allow senator Zien to make the motion at that time. The day passes and the Senate finally comes to the 14th order of business: „h Risser (D) - the Senate goes on to the 14th order of business ¡V (motions may now be offered) „h Zien (R) - moves that SB357/AB675 be withdrawn from the Senate Committee on Organization and taken up at this time; he argues the merits of the bill „h Chvala (D) - argues against the bill; raises a point of order that under Senate Rule 41(1)(a), the motion to withdraw the bill is not in order (this is a lie) „h [Senate Rule 41 (1) (a) - Any proposal or other matter may be rereferred at any time previous to its passage, except that a motion to withdraw from committee may not take effect before a committee hearing if a hearing has been scheduled when the motion to withdraw is made during the week in which the proposal or other matter is scheduled for a public hearing. „h March 9, 2002 - Senate Committee on Judiciary holds a public hearing on AB 675 „h March 11, 2002 - AB 675 is reported out of the committee after a 4-1 vote recommending concurrence (Because of these two facts Senate Rule 41 (1) A doesn't apply here.) „h Risser (D) - says he will take the point of order ¡§under advisement¡¨ (a move to subvert the will of the people by not allowing the bill to come to a vote.) „h Ellis (R) - argues that Senate President Risser should rule on the point of order, and that the point of order was raised to prevent a vote on the bill; asserts that Senate President Risser is abusing the integrity of the Senate. „h Welch (R) - makes a parliamentary inquiry as to where AB 675 is (just to clarify what the situation is with the bill) „h Risser (D) - answers that the bill is under advisement and can¡¦t be acted on (can¡¦t be voted on). „h Welch (R) - appeals the ruling of Senate President Risser „h Risser (D) - answers that it is not appealable (this is not true) „h Welch (R) - moves that the rules be suspended to withdraw the bill from ¡§being under advisement¡¨ and be taken up at this time; and asks for a roll call
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 8:49:47 AM EST
Continued: „h Chvala (D) - states that he made the point of order that the motion is not appropriate; He cites Senate Rule 8 in his point of order. „h Welch (R) - reads Senate Rule 8 out loud to the other senators. It relates to conduct on the Senate floor (eg. Proper attire to be worn, no smoking, eating or drinking in the Senate Chamber); asks that either Senate President Risser rule on the point of order, or that Senate Majority Leader Chvala withdraw his point of order (Chvala is obviously trying to pull something with this bogus point of order) „h Panzer (R) - speaks against Risser/Chvala¡¦s procedural maneuvering „h Jauch (D) -defends Senate President Risser¡¦s and Senate Majority Leader Chvala¡¦s actions (and states that the people don't always get what they want) „h Schultz (R) - reads Senate Rule 41 out loud, asks Senate Majority Leader Chvala what part of the rule is relevant to his point of order „h Chvala (D) - refuses to yield to the question (Chvala refuses to answer Schultz¡¦s question.) „h Schultz (R) - asks Senate President Risser to rule on the point of order before the session ends „h Risser (D) - abruptly moves to the 15th order of business (over many shouted objections by all Republican Senators. Democratic Senators say nothing.) „h Panzer (R) - says that she objected to moving to the 15th order of business „h Risser (D) - says he did not hear an objection (a lie) „h Panzer (R) - asks unanimous consent to move back to the 14th order of business „h Chvala (D) ¡V objects (this is an unwarranted objection) „h Panzer (R) - moves that the Senate go back to the 14th order of business „h Chvala (D) - makes a point of order that Senate Minority Leader Panzer¡¦s motion is out of order (this is a lie) „h Risser (D) - says he will take that under advisement (another move to suppress the proper legislative process) „h Panzer (R) - cites Senate Rule 72 that she is allowed to make a motion to go back to the 14th order of business (this is true) „h Risser (D) - says that motions were not in order as the Senate was on the 15th order of business (over the shouted objections made by all Senate Republicans that Senate President Risser ¡§did not hear¡¨) „h Chvala (D) - moves to adjourn (yet another move to suppress the proper legislative process) „h Risser (D) - gavels adjournment without a vote on SB357/AB675 (over the shouted objections of all Republican senator. No democratic senator objects.) End of 2002 Wisconsin Senate Legislative Session The above is a edit of Senator Zien's play-by-play account of the events. Style has been cleaned up and words have been added for clarity's sake. Thanks to Senator Zien
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 9:59:36 AM EST
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 10:13:16 AM EST
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 10:14:58 AM EST
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 10:42:29 AM EST
Don't worry, they were acting in your best interests...right....I mean they wouldn't do anything their constituents didn't want them too....right?
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 2:05:09 PM EST
Even the audio clip doesn't do justice to how infuriating this was in person.
Top Top