Dress Code

[Guest Krista]

Hi! My sorority follows Robert's Rules of Order when holding our chapter meetings. We've had some disputes about appropriate dress and were wondering if a meeting held using Robert's Rules of Order is supposed to adhere to any specific dress code. Any information would be much appreciated! Thank you.

[Richard Brown]

1 minute ago, Guest Krista said:

Hi! My sorority follows Robert's Rules of Order when holding our chapter meetings. We've had some disputes about appropriate dress and were wondering if a meeting held using Robert's Rules of Order is supposed to adhere to any specific dress code. Any information would be much appreciated! Thank you.

I'm afraid there is nothing in RONR about a "dress code" of any sort.

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

27 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I'm afraid there is nothing in RONR about a "dress code" of any sort.

Which is not to say that it would be inappropriate for a society to adopt rules related to dress code - just that such rules would be ordinary standing rules, rather than rules of order.

In most cases i am aware of, dress "codes" are strictly a matter of local custom, and what any particular society does is related to how its members dress in other settings. 

[J. J.]

A dress code would probably be considered decorum.  A society could remove a person that showed up wearing an offensive tee shirt, if the majority found it offensive. 

It would probably be better to draft a dress code.

[Guest Krista]

Thank you so much for your responses! One of my sisters made this argument "In typical parliamentary procedure headwear is not worn unless for religious purposes. It's a respect thing. In most business places, your hat is removed when you enter the building. As a result, hats shouldn't be worn in meeting". I could not find anything on the internet that specified whether robert's rules of order/parliamentary procedure had a specific dress code. Anyway, I really appreciate all the comments! Thank you.

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

I find a good response when someone asserts that RONR/parliamentary procedure requires/forbids something is to ask for a page number, rather than doing the research yourself. 

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, Guest Krista said:

One of my sisters made this argument "In typical parliamentary procedure headwear is not worn unless for religious purposes. It's a respect thing. In most business places, your hat is removed when you enter the building. As a result, hats shouldn't be worn in meeting".

The member is mistaken.There is no parliamentary rule concerning the wearing of headwear. The organization is free to adopt its own rules concerning this subject if it wishes to do so, but RONR has nothing to say about it.

[Chris Harrison]

I'm sure there are plenty of organizations out there where a certain type of headgear or garb is normally worn to all functions (such as the Red Hatters or the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo ) which would include meetings.

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

The member is mistaken.There is no parliamentary rule concerning the wearing of headwear. The organization is free to adopt its own rules concerning this subject if it wishes to do so, but RONR has nothing to say about it.

Historically, it is.  Until the 1990's the UK House of Commons required a member making a point of order to wear a hat.  Jefferson's Manual includes the rules (with emphasis added in all cases): 

" If any difficulty arises in point of order during the division, the Speaker is to decide peremptorily, subject to the future censure of the House if irregular. He sometimes permits old experienced members to assist him with their advice, which they do, sitting in their seats, covered, to avoid the appearance of debate; but this can only be with the Speaker's leave, else the division might last several hours. (Rule LI, Order in Debate)."

" No member is to come into the House with his head covered, nor to remove from one place to another with his hat on, nor is to put on his hat in coming in, or removing, until he be set down in his place. "

and

" When any member means to speak, he is to stand up in his place, uncovered, and to address himself, not to the House, or any particular member, but to the Speaker, who calls him by his name, that the House may take notice who it is that speaks. (Rule XVII, Order in Debate)"

I believe that, until the current session, the US House maintained a rule against headgear.  

All that said, there is no specific rule in RONR prohibiting or permitting headgear.  There is no rule in RONR prohibiting or permitting a member to be naked during the meeting.  I would presume that a member appearing naked (and I can think of two cases within the last 20 years) could be removed as a breach of decorum (or even a breech of decorum).  That decision would be up to the membership attending the meeting, via point of order and/or appeal. 

 

[Joshua Katz]

4 minutes ago, J. J. said:

All that said, there is no specific rule in RONR prohibiting or permitting headgear.  There is no rule in RONR prohibiting or permitting a member to be naked during the meeting.  I would presume that a member appearing naked (and I can think of two cases within the last 20 years) could be removed as a breach of decorum (or even a breech of decorum).  That decision would be up to the membership attending the meeting, via point of order and/or appeal. 

 

Sigh. We got him off the stage as quickly as we could.

[Richard Brown]

4 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Sigh. We got him off the stage as quickly as we could.

Oh, jeez.... I remember it all too well!!! A valuable lesson was learned with that incident: the presiding officer should never leave the meeting room without assuring that someone else is available to take over and maintain order in his absence! 

[J. J.]

7 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Sigh. We got him off the stage as quickly as we could.

Yes, and there was another one where it was clearly not a violation of decorum.  It was the meeting of a society of nudists. 

[Joshua Katz]

Yes, although I'm not sure that's a lesson that should have been needed.