Formatting Plain Language
I essentially agree with everything Joe Davidson has to say in his column today about the need for bills and regulations to be written in plain language (although I don't particularly know anyone who doesn't!). As frustrating as they are to read, all the subsections amending specific lines of specific codes are actually necessary to make bills operative, of course. I wonder what the best way to condense--or work around--those sections is. Should they be footnotes that are operative, rather than just explanatory? Appendices? Should there be entirely separate plain-language translations of actual working legislation? I do wonder, if translation is the option, what happens if plain-language versions of legislation can be interpreted differently from working, operative versions of legislation. It seems like that could risk opening up ground for lawsuits. And plain language should definitely be adopted in a way that doesn't risk dramatically increasing the workload for Congressional staffers who actually write bills. Plain language is a critical goal, although not one with an immediate and clear solution.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
There are plain language summaries available on Thomas.
Bill Posted Friday, October 30, 2009 7:25 PMSometimes something as simple as "plain language" can make a world of a difference.
John Yeressian Posted Sunday, November 1, 2009 6:20 PMWouldn't plain language be too transparent? If our legislators were in an undeniable position to know what was in the bills they are voting on, they'd have no "cover" to deny awareness. If the public were able to more easily interpret the content of pending legislation, they could more easily ask the tough questions of legislators prior to votes being cast and hold their Senators and Congresspeople accountable.
Our systems of legislation and re-election rest upon the pillars of obfuscation, deniability, and ignorance. Plain language is a frontal assault on that heritage!
EJC in ATL Posted Monday, November 2, 2009 7:33 AMI think few citizens care about the process after the bill is passed, nor do they care about the legal details. What we want is just a reasonably easy to read, plain language version of the important elements: the "conceptual" language that the legislators themselves read. If that language is good enough to help the legislators know what's in the bill, surely it's good enough for the citizens who have to live with the results. Democracy demands an informed citizenry: we cannot be informed if we cannot understand.
Deborah S. Bosley Posted Monday, November 2, 2009 9:14 AMDon't even mention translation as an option for working legislation. There is no reason for any part of any bill to be difficult to read, except poor drafting and misguided tradition. Even the legislators are complaining about how poorly the health bill is drafted. It's their house, they can clean it.
Regarding those confusing little amendments to pieces of the code--there's no reason they can't include some of the original language, so you get some context. The Federal Register does this with revisions to regs--"Section X is revised to read as follows"--and then include the entire section, as changed.
Annetta Cheek Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:23 AM