For your information and use in the 2010 session, we enclose summaries of the House Rulings for the 2009 regular and special sessions. These summaries will be included in the House Precedents section of the 2011 edition of Rules and Precedents of the General Assembly. They will also be searchable on-line from the General Assembly's “Legislative Documents” link.

As always, our goal is to make these summaries as complete, accurate, and useful as possible. If you or your staff have any comments or suggestions, we hope you will let us know.

AMENDMENT NOT GERMANE

The bill reduced the projected state General Fund deficit for FY 09 by reducing FY 09 General Fund appropriations for several agencies and programs and transferring money from other funds to the General Fund. House “B” included a number of measures aimed at providing mandate relief and cost-saving measures to municipalities. A member raised a point of order that the amendment was not germane to the underlying bill.

The deputy speaker ruled the point well taken. Citing Mason's section 402, she noted that the underlying bill reduced expenditures and implemented cost savings for the state's General Fund for FY 09. The amendment included various provisions for potential savings for municipalities in the near future. It was not designed or related; relevant; appropriate; or in natural logical sequence to the subject matter of the original proposal, which was to reduce the current state budget deficit.

The amendment's proponent appealed the chair's ruling. A member speaking against the ruling expressed his belief that providing relief to towns and municipalities was relevant to a bill discussing the state deficit. The member who raised the point of order reiterated that the bill was about deficit mitigation for the state budget and that every provision of the amendment related solely to municipalities and mandate relief and did not relate to budget line items in the underlying bill.

The deputy speaker's ruling was upheld on a voice vote.

Merrill, May 22, 2009

AMENDMENT NOT GERMANE

The amended bill related to election-day voter registration and presidential ballot procedures. House “B” eliminated the Citizens Election Program. A member raised a point of order that the amendment was not germane to the underlying bill.

The deputy speaker ruled the point well taken. Citing Mason's section 402, she noted that the underlying bill related to election registration and the amendment dealt with campaign finance. While one section of the amendment defined the term “elector,” this was merely technical and convenient and did not form the reasonable relationship the rules require.

A member appealed the ruling, noting the amendment's numerous references to the word “elector” and that Mason's requires the amendment to relate only to the same subject as the bill. It may change the effect of, or be in conflict with, the original measure and still be germane. Other members speaking against the ruling highlighted that the amendment and bill addressed the same section of the statutes and pointed to House Precedent 35 (Currey, June 2, 2003). The member who raised the point of order reiterated that the bill and amendment were on different subjects, as opposed to the cited precedent, where the two were on the same subject.

The deputy speaker's ruling was upheld on roll-call vote.

Orange, May 26, 2009

AMENDMENT NOT GERMANE

The amended bill allowed a general contractor on a public construction project to raise an affirmative defense in certain actions brought by the labor commissioner, based on a subcontractor's certification that it had complied with the prevailing wage law. House “B” increased the tip credit for employers in the hotel and restaurant industries, and for employers of bartenders. A member made a point of order that the amendment was not germane to the underlying bill.

The deputy speaker ruled the point well taken. The two subjects are not related. Additionally, the bill and amendment do not amend the same statute.

A member appealed the deputy speaker's ruling. A member speaking against the deputy speaker's ruling noted that the bill and amendment both amended CGS Title 31. He also referred to the earlier debate on another Labor Committee bill. Although no point of order was raised, he noted that the underlying bill in that situation concerned electronic payments and the amendment related to credit report checks. Others speaking against the deputy speaker's ruling argued that the bill and amendment need only relate to the same subject and, in the case at hand, both dealt with the issue of wages. Additionally, a member urged consideration of past practice, rather than formal challenges and rulings. Finally, another member cited House Precedent 89 (Stolberg, June 3, 1983), where the speaker found an amendment raising the minimum drinking age to be germane to a bill eliminating the special alcohol education and treatment fund because both related to alcohol. The member who raised the point of order reiterated that the bill and amendment were not on the same subject. Additionally, citing Mason's section 402, she noted that the amount of minimum wage paid to bartenders does not flow logically from a discussion of unpaid wages for certain contractors and subcontractors.

The deputy speaker's ruling was upheld on a roll-call vote.

Kirkley-Bey, June 2, 2009

AMENDMENT NOT GERMANE

The amended bill related to longitudinal studies of student achievement. House “A” generally made budget appropriations. A member raised a point of order that the amendment was not germane to the underlying bill.

The deputy speaker ruled the point of order well taken. Citing Mason's section 402, he noted that the underlying bill had no fiscal impact or relationship to the state budget, while the amendment set forth a biennial budget for the state.

A member appealed the ruling. The amendment's proponent argued that the bill dealt with two state agencies, which was relevant to the state budget as a whole. Additionally, the amendment included fees, as did the underlying bill. The member raising the point of order noted previous rulings regarding appending an entire budget to a bill with a limited scope.

The deputy speaker's ruling was upheld on a roll-call vote.

Altobello, June 3, 2009

DISAGREEING ACTION

The bill regulated the sale, manufacture, or distribution in the state of certain products stored in containers made with bisphenol-A and certain containers made with bisphenol-A. The House passed the bill as amended by House “A”, which eliminated one the bill's provisions. The Senate passed the bill as amended by House “A” and Senate “A”, which eliminated another provision. When the bill was called again in the House, a member raised a point of order questioning whether the bill was properly before the body.

The speaker explained that the bill was properly before the body. He indicated that there was a disagreeing action from the Senate, requiring the bill to come back the House for action.

Donovan, May 22, 2009

REFER TO LABOR

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. 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

SC:ts