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„h Zien (R) - moves that SB357/AB675 be withdrawn from the Senate Committee on Organization and taken up at this time; he argues the merits of the bill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