iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Plain Writing Act To Take Effect Later This Year

No Gibberish Law

CALVIN WOODWARD   05/19/11 06:47 AM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — The federal government is rolling out a new official language of sorts: plain English.

That's right: Pursuant to regulations promulgated thereunder and commencing in accordance with a statute signed herein by President Barack Obama, the government shall be precluded from writing the pompous gibberish heretofore evidenced, to the extent practicable.

That sentence contains 11 new language no-nos.

Obama signed the Plain Writing Act last fall after decades of effort by a cadre of passionate grammarians in the civil service to jettison the jargon.

It takes full effect in October, when federal agencies must start writing plainly in all new or substantially revised documents produced for the public. The government will still be allowed to write nonsensically to itself.

Ahead then, if the law works, is a culture change for an enterprise that turns out reams of confusing benefit forms, tangled rules and foggy pronouncements. Not to mention a Pentagon brownie recipe that went on for 26 pages about "regulations promulgated thereunder," "flow rates of thermoplastics by extrusion plastometer" and a commandment that ingredients "shall be examined organoleptically."

That means look at, smell, touch or taste.

By July, each agency must have a senior official overseeing plain writing, a section of its website devoted to the effort and employee training under way.

"It is important to emphasize that agencies should communicate with the public in a way that is clear, simple, meaningful and jargon-free," says Cass Sunstein, a White House information and regulation administrator who gave guidance to federal agencies in April on how to implement the law.

Bad writing by the government, he says, discourages people from applying for benefits they should get, makes federal rules hard to follow and wastes money because of all the time spent fixing mistakes and explaining things to a baffled populace.

But can clarity and good grammar be legislated?

That remains to be seen. The law lacks teeth. You won't be able to sue the government for making your head spin after October. And regulations are exempted.

Annetta Cheek, a leader of the plain language movement for much of her 27-year career in government and now chairwoman of the Center for Plain Language, says the impulse to be vague and officious is hard to overcome because federal employees tend to write with their bosses and agency lawyers in mind, not the public.

Still, she predicts significant improvement. And she points to successes in Britain, Portugal, South Africa and elsewhere, where governments set out years ago to reinvent their communications with the public. "It's hard to find a high-level document in Sweden you can't understand," she says.

Cheek was one of the authors of the government's guidelines for plain writing, surely one of the breeziest federal documents around. It's packed with dos and don'ts for the coming transformation.

"Federal writers are not supposed to be creating great literature," the guidelines say. "You are communicating requirements, how to get benefits, how to stay safe and healthy, and other information to help people in their lives.

"While there is no problem with being expressive, most federal writing has no place for literary flair. People do not curl up in front of the fire with a nice federal regulation to have a relaxing read."

But it might be a friendlier read.

In one striking change, the government is becoming "we" and citizens are becoming "you."

So expect fewer statements like this:

"Before an individual can be determined eligible for Disaster Unemployment Assistance, it must be established that the individual is not eligible for regular unemployment insurance benefits."

And more like this:

"You can get financial help from Disaster Unemployment Assistance if your job was lost or interrupted as a direct result of a major disaster declared by the president of the United States."

Instead of this advice:

"Timely preparation, including structural and non-structural mitigation measures to avoid the impacts of severe winter weather, can avert heavy personal, business and government expenditures. Experts agree that the following measures can be effective in dealing with the challenges of severe winter weather."

Expect more like this advice:

"Severe winter weather can be extremely dangerous. Consider these safety tips to protect your property and yourself."

Instead of the government saying, "It is requested," expect the government to say "please."

And "It is required" is becoming "You must." This is a favorite of the Internal Revenue Service. One of its account notices has been revised so that it now strikes completely comprehensible terror in the recipient. "What you need to do immediately," it says.

The effort to have the government make more sense in its public dealings gained traction during the Clinton administration when Vice President Al Gore took on the task of "reinventing government." Cheek, a writer of federal regulations, became the chief plain language expert on Gore's team as it spread the gospel agency by agency, making incremental inroads until Obama signed the law.

"Most of what the government writes has too much stuff," she says. People just want to know, "What are you doing for me today?" Or, TO me.

The idea now is to purge a long list of words, phrases and grammatical practices that governments and lawyers love, and ordinary people don't. "Shall" is a prime target. It's seen as stuffy and obsolete.

Begone, too, with "pursuant, "promulgated," " thereunder," "commencing," "in accordance with," "herein," "precluded," "heretofore," "evidenced" and "practicable," to name just a sampling of the no-nos.

Some of the revisions are downright chatty.

"Cook the stuffing separately – it's MUCH safer!" the government says in turkey guidance reworked in the Clinton era. "Measure the temperature of both the turkey and stuffing! Don't just trust a pop-up indicator!"

But do not expect "LOL" from the feds anytime soon. Especially, of course, at the IRS.

___

Online:

Federal plain language guidelines: http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/guidelines/bigdoc/fullbigdoc.pdf

Center for Plain Language: http://centerforplainlanguage.org

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — The federal government is rolling out a new official language of sorts: plain English. That's right: Pursuant to regulations promulgated thereunder and commencing in accordance wit...
WASHINGTON — The federal government is rolling out a new official language of sorts: plain English. That's right: Pursuant to regulations promulgated thereunder and commencing in accordance wit...
Filed by Elyse Siegel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 45
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
04:53 PM on 05/20/2011
There are some issues with this. One is certian concepts can only be discussed in technical language. It may be dense for the average reader, but the document is designed for an advanced reader.
One of the golden rules of writing is that it should be written for its target audience. For example if you are writing for the general public, it should be written in plain language. Oftentimes in government the target audience is not the the general public, sometimes it is for highly educated professionals within a state agency or a business. It is sometimes difficult, if not impossible, to explain these concepts in plain english. The concepts themselves are often ones that only engineers and lawyers understand, and explaining these concepts in plain language can actually significantly leangthen the document.
I think while taking out the legalize from IRS documents that every american recieves makes sense, taking out the technical and legal language for regulating smokestacks for example or chemical compounds in that are allowed in water will always be written in technical language.
Also just because something involves technical or legal writing does not make it "bad writing" sometimes these things require expertise to understand in the first place, technical writing is often a way that people who have this knowledge can communicate quickly and effectively.
The average reader just may not understand it, but the average reader may never understand these concepts. The rule with any writing is to know your audience.
theepoxyman
Reaching point of diminishing returns in 3,2,1
03:55 PM on 05/20/2011
But do not expect "LOL" from the feds anytime soon. Especially, of course, at the IRS.

When the govt. uses LOL, they mean "lots of luck (sucker)".
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ianmcc
Those who you let anger you conquer you
03:30 PM on 05/20/2011
Is this so the new tea bagger politicians in office can understand documents not written in crayon?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
last man standing
and that's just the way it is!
03:22 PM on 05/20/2011
What a great idea!

Have you ever tried to read any of the bills of legislation proposed by federal agencies? They are written in a language called legalized language, which unless you are a trained lawyer or paralegal you would have a hard time understanding.

Do you remember when Pelosi said “You won’t know what is in the obamacare health bill until it is passed away from all the smoke and fog of controversy?”

The bill wasn’t written by them, but rather the unions, the Apollo group and other progressive far left groups. What was it at the end 22K pages or something like that?

Well here we are over a year away from when the democrats shoved this down our throats and we all are still finding out what gems are hidden in it.
nothingchanges
too soon old, too late smart
03:08 PM on 05/20/2011
I doubt these rules will apply to the legislature. Congress people have a vested interest in writing laws that NOBODY really understands.

If the public can't figure it out, they can't blame us for it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pakaal
Pigs, in cages, on antibiotics
02:38 PM on 05/20/2011
Eschew obfuscation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pakaal
Pigs, in cages, on antibiotics
02:35 PM on 05/20/2011
"It's hard to find a high-level document in Sweden you can't understand," she says."

Unless you're someone like myself who cannot speak, read or write Swedish.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
annasophie1228
how you like them apples?
02:33 PM on 05/20/2011
cool.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cherie Lyon
The truth sets you free-lies are chains
02:10 PM on 05/20/2011
I recall a line from a movie (I think it was an actual event re-enacted) where an Indian chief (I know, not pc) was invited to Washington and told by a politician to 'Endeavour to Persevere'...
When the tribe figured out what that meant, they declared war on the US.

I'm not quite as ready to declare war, now.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mwilbur137
Political Junkie/Intellectual Elitist
01:53 PM on 05/20/2011
Imagine if we had gone the other direction and called for the “smartening-up” of people, rather than the “dumbing down” of legislative language….it is understandable why such legislation can be seen in a positive light, but I cannot help but have pity for society, as we seem to be a society that revels in mediocrity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Elizabeth Berry
01:16 PM on 05/20/2011
Can clarity, "plain English" and correct grammar be legislated? Most definitely and quite easily.

One of the requirements for any piece of legislation is the ability to quantify or measure its application in the real world.

As for measuring the readability of written passages, there are any number of readability indexes that can be applied to writing samples. For example, the Bob Gunning Fog index measures a passage according the number of years of formal education needed to easily comprehend the message. Most newspapers aim for 8th grade comprehension.

This is not a matter of dumbing down Americans. All of us, regardless our IQ, will always take longer to grasp the meaning of a passage written at university level than one written at an 8th grade level. Poorly written messages waste the reader's time.

The above passage, for example, weighs in at 8,8 years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CPAwADD
Always look on the bright side of life.
11:00 AM on 05/20/2011
Never use a long word when a dimunitive one will do.

William Safire
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
american-dolt
Divide and Conquer
12:52 PM on 05/20/2011
What does dimunitive mean? :-)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cherie Lyon
The truth sets you free-lies are chains
02:05 PM on 05/20/2011
Smarty-pants.
;p
photo
dim
one in a can
09:40 AM on 05/20/2011
Upon optical examination of the article promulgated hereunder, I have concluded that the imperative for decyphering fiats behooves us to undertake remedial action in a chronologically efficient manner.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheMuckraker
War is Murder
01:24 AM on 05/20/2011
OH MY FREAKING GAWD!
i love this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Savage Saint Roger
Card Carrying Liberal
12:34 AM on 05/20/2011
Oh, the bankers aren't going to like this! Bankers do not like plain speaking. When the bankers find out they have to use plain english their inconsolable anger will drive ATM fees up again!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joel Redman
Proud liberal
01:20 PM on 05/20/2011
Unless those bankers work for the government, they can use all the obscure language they please.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Savage Saint Roger
Card Carrying Liberal
06:07 AM on 05/21/2011
Work for the government? Doesn't the government work for them?