LEGISLATIVE DRESS CODE

Do Senate ties have chokehold on policies?

As the Legislature hunkers down to the very real business
conducted in conference committees, several penetrating questions
will surface. Here's one question you probably won't hear, but it
should be asked: "Why do all the male senators wear neckties?"

It's one of those little things that on first glance doesn't seem
like much. But it could be argued that the necktie is symbolic of
the very real differences between the House and Senate.

In recent years, the Senate has generally been more conservative
in its policies than the House and this year seems no exception.
The Senate tax bill calls for lower taxes than the House's, and
its spending bills are lower as well. Likewise, the Senate
wetlands bill is generally considered by environmentalists to be
the less progressive one.

Why does there seem to be such a difference between the two
bodies -- a disparity that is reflected in their unwritten dress
codes? Could the code itself be responsible for the Senate's more
conservative demeanor?

The answer probably will never be known. But one thing is
certain: The differences in dress codes weren't always so
pronounced.

"I can't remember anybody not dressing in a shirt and tie,"
recalled Lloyd Duxbury, who served as House speaker from 1963 to
1969.

But things began to change in a hurry. Former Rep. Rod Searle of
Waseca said it was toward the end of the 1960s that the standard
of dress in the House began to liberalize, as did the membership.

"They were just going to live by their own rules and they did,"
said Searle. Some of the first to break the unwritten rule
"flaunted the code by wearing turtlenecks," recalled Searle. One
liberal member from the Iron Range even wore beads.

"He was a real maverick. He would not bend to any rules except
his own."

As the standard of dress continued to change, there were attempts
to stem the tide in the House. In 1971, former House Majority
Leader Ernest Lindstrom attempted to ban female employees from
wearing pantsuits on the floor.

"Frankly, it wasn't very well-received," said Lindstrom, who
served from 1967 to 1974 and is now working full-time as an
attorney. "And I had more important things to deal with."

Lindstrom, like some others in the House, feared that allowing
one form of casual dress would lead to even more casual forms. "I
know by the time I left the Legislature that that legacy had been
borne out; the attire had become a great deal more casual."

Meanwhile, over in the Senate, it, too, was chafing under the
forces of social change. The opening days of the 1971 session
were among the most controversial in state history. For eight
days, both the DFL-leaning "Liberals" and the Republican-aligned
"Conservatives" claimed to be in control.

And the clash of fashions sported by each faction reverberated
through the Senate's august chambers. On opening day, the
Minneapolis Tribune reported that the former Sen. Baldy Hansen of
Austin strode into the chamber wearing a "bright red shirt." 

Sen. Florian Chmielewski (DFL-Sturgeon Lake) wore an "all-green
ensemble" and former Liberal Sen. Winston Borden of Brainerd, who
defeated the powerful and legendary Conservative Sen. Gordon
Rosenmeier of Little Falls, "favored a rust-colored sportcoat
which no one could mistake for the quiet raiment of Gordon
Rosenmeier, a foremost keeper of Senate tradition . . . ."

Although the dress in the Senate had shifted from the
conservative grays and pinstripes, there was a conscious effort
to maintain some of the tradition -- even if it was preserved in
technicolor plaids.

"It doesn't matter what you insist on, just so you insist on
something," said former Sen. Jack Davies of St. Paul, now a
Minnesota Court of Appeals judge. "We decided it was important to
preserve traditions and protect the dignity of the Senate. One
way to do that was to keep ice cream cones off the floor and to
keep ties on."

Although some in the House believe the Senate has a written dress
code requiring ties, that's not so, said Pat Flahaven, the
secretary of the Senate.

"The dress code in the Senate is really an unwritten rule and has
been observed further back than anyone can remember," he said.
"It probably has been in effect since the beginning of the
state."

So how was the Senate able to retain its strict policy while the
House couldn't preserve its fashion tradition?

It could be that the Senate has "annunciated" its unwritten
"appropriate attire" code, which has meant ties for the men and
more conservative dress for women [following Sen. Nancy Brataas'
lead], said Flahaven. 

That apparently hasn't been done in the House in recent years.

Chief Clerk Ed Burdick pointed to the Permanent Rules of the
House as the only authority on the subject, and they only touch
on fashion indirectly.

"The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum" and "the Speaker
shall have general control of the Chamber of the House" is about
as close as the rules come to the subject.

Several people have their theories for the disparity, however. 



Originally printed in 1991 in Session Weekly, a weekly
newsmagazine published by the Minnesota House Public Information
Office.

***Last Update 8/5/94 (jtt) Last Review 8/5/94 (jtt) ***