Law

January 06, 2008
Amanda J. Crawford
The Arizona Republic

If any government entity can confuse the public, it's the tax collectors.

That's why Gale Garriott, director of Arizona's Department of Revenue, was so intrigued when he heard tax collectors from Washington state raving about a program there that was making government easier to understand.

At a conference in late 2005, Garriott heard about Washington's "plain talk" initiative. The revenue department there claims to have collected millions more after rewriting confusing letters to taxpayers.

"I'm thinking 'Really? You just change words on paper and good things will happen?' " he recalls. Garriott began talking to Washington officials to find out more.

The plain-language movement has been around for decades, said Don Byrne, executive director of the Center for Plain Language. The Maryland-based non-profit advocates the use of plain language in government, law, business and health care. In the federal government, it geared up when Vice President Al Gore led a plain-language initiative. A handful of states now have plain-language requirements.

The goals are simple: Make documents understandable on the first read. Make them useful and easy to scan for information through better design, headings and bullets. Use language geared for the intended audience. Avoid jargon.

Improving government communication, Byrne said, can save money and help people comply with laws. In Washington, state officials hired consultants to help them rewrite government correspondence and train thousands of state employees in the principles of plain talk. After Garriott approached them, officials there agreed to send two Washington state employees to Arizona to share plain talk concepts with Garriott's staff.

Since then, a team within the Arizona Department of Revenue has identified about 400 form letters it would like to redo. So far, it has completed rewrites on about 100 of them, working to simplify, organize, shorten and make sure that they say what they are supposed to say in a way that doesn't require an accountant's interpretation.

From: www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0106plaintalk0106cappage.html
Note: Article may no longer be available, or you may have to register or pay to read it.

May 18, 2007
Peter Wong
Statesman Journal

Now hear this, Oregonians: Your state government has banned gobbledygook.

Or at least state agencies will give it a try as the result of a bill that Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed Thursday.

House Bill 2702 directs the state to come up with a plan by Nov. 1 on how agencies will use plain language in documents. The governor must report to the Legislature by February 2008 or January 2009 on the progress of that effort.

"We need to make sure that when we talk to the people of our state, we talk in language that is understood," said Rep. Chuck Riley, D-Hillsboro, the bill's chief sponsor. "There is no point in making contact with citizens when we talk in language they do not understand."

"Gobbledygook," a term coined by a Texan during World War II, is defined as nonsensical language related to jargon or bureaucratese.

-----

Plain language details

According to House Bill 2702, which was signed Thursday by Gov. Ted Kulongoski, written state documents must:
# Use everyday words that convey meanings clearly and directly.
# Use the present tense and the active voice.
# Use short, simple sentences.
# Define only those words that cannot be properly explained or qualified in the text.
# Use type of a readable size
# Use layout and spacing that separate the paragraphs and sections of the document from each other.

OREGON LEGISLATURE:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/searchmeas.html

NURSING MOTHERS COUNSEL OF OREGON:

http://www.nursingmotherscounsel.org

Guide for employers about breast-feeding:

http://www.oregon.gov/dhs/ph/bf/working.shtml

From: www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007705180335
Note: Article may no longer be available, or you may have to register or pay to read it.

May 16, 2007

ABC2 Baltimore, Maryland

It’s all over the news. The mortgage industry is a mess and too many of our neighbors are going into foreclosure. ABC2 News Investigator Tisha Thompson realized most folks don’t really understand what the heck everyone is talking about…literally.

After 34 years in the same house, Bill Jones is getting ready to move…

“It’s a lot of memories,” he says. “A lot of memories.” Against his will.

“Exactly when we got to go, I don’t know.”

After a two year legal battle, Jones is about to go into foreclosure. "What should have been an ordinary business transaction has turned into a nightmare.”

Jones says it all started when he tried to refinance his mortgage two years ago. “They promised me a 30 year conventional loan at a fixed rate,” he says.

But he ended up with an adjustable rate mortgage with an exploding interest rate. “I’ll be paying about twice what I was promised.”

Jones says he only figured this out after he deciphered all the words in his loan agreement…after he signed the documents.

We got hold of a basic contract for a traditional 30 year mortgage. Its one of the simplest contracts out there. But read a typical clause:

“'Lender may, at lender's option, without giving notice to or obtaining the consent of borrower, borrower's successors or assigns of or any junior lien holder or guarantors...”

After reading it three or four times, we still don't know what it means. So we brought it to the experts:

Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation Secretary Thomas Perez, the man in charge of Maryland’s mortgage laws…

And Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) who says, "I call this lawyer talk."

Both are powerful lawyers and both men had to stew over the document before they could explain it us. "Basically what this saying is that the lender can extend the time you can you will have to make a payment,” Cummings says. “I would know that only because I'm a lawyer. The average person wouldn't have a clue."

Both agreed we become easy targets because most of us don’t know what the words in our loan agreements mean. "That is not fair and that is not legal,” Perez says. He believes the complicated language is the main reason why our ABC2 News Investigation found Maryland Latinos were three times more likely to end up with a high-risk loan than their white, non-Hispanic neighbors.

"I don't think I have limited English proficiency and I had a heck of a lot of trouble interpreting this,” Perez says. “I've met way too many people who did have limited English proficiency and it was precisely that language barrier that allowed them to be taken advantage of." But Perez admits he can’t make lenders use plain English in their documents. "At the moment I can't force the lender to do this."

He and Cummings are still encouraging lenders to use simple English in their contracts. "We need to simplify these documents as best we can," Cummings says.

But Bill Jones says it’s already too late for his Pimlico neighbors. "People have had to move after 30, 40, 50 years because they took out loans they didn't understand. I think it should be made simple where people can understand it. We're not trained mortgage bankers, finance agents, were just normal folk."

Full Story: www.abc2news.com/content/investigators/story.aspx?content_id=adbe76eb-becd-4cd3-8334-03ef47866aef
Note: Article may no longer be available, or you may have to register or pay to read it.

May 10, 2007

Press Release

The Burton Awards (www.burtonawards.com) has named the project to clarify the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, used in federal trial courts, as the winner of its 2007 "Reform in Law" award. The awards program is run in association with the Library of Congress and the Law Library of Congress, and the ceremony will be held at the Library of Congress, in Washington, D.C., on June 4, 2007.

The newly rewritten rules are the product of an intensive four-year effort by federal judges, practicing lawyers, law professors, and a drafting consultant. The new rules were approved by the Supreme Court of the United States and sent to Congress on April 30. They are scheduled to take effect on December 1, 2007.

The awards will be given to three recipients: the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, which carried out the project; to the Standing Committee on Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which supervised the project and two earlier projects to rewrite the Federal Criminal and Appellate Rules; and to Professor Joseph Kimble from Thomas Cooley Law School, who served as the drafting consultant.

The civil rules-more than 300 pages as approved by the Supreme Court-were originally written in 1937 and have never been completely rewritten since then. The rules govern the procedure in all federal trial courts (U.S. District Courts); are relied on daily by countless judges and lawyers; serve as models for state courts; are studied by law students in a year-long course; and have produced many volumes of commentary.

The difference between the old and the new rules is striking. Here, for example, is an old rule:

"When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them
if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements."

Here's the new version:

"If a party makes alternative statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient."

The new rules will have great practical and symbolic importance. On the practical side, judges, lawyers, and law students will find them much easier to learn and use: they are shorter, clearer, plainer, more internally consistent, and much better organized and formatted. At the same time, they will help put to rest the mistaken notion that laws and rules must be written in the archaic, inflated, verbose, and convoluted style that has come to be known as legalese.

According to Judge Rosenthal, chair of the Advisory Committee, "Our goal was to make the rules clearer, more readable, and more consistent-without   changing the substantive meaning. We think we have achieved that goal and are honored to receive this award."

Additional Examples from the Civil Rules

Old:

There shall be one form of action to be known as "civil action".

New:

There is one form of action - the civil action.

Old:

When an order is made in favor of a person who is not a party to
the action, that person may enforce obedience to the order by the
same process as if a party; and, when obedience to an order may be
lawfully enforced against a person who is not a party, that person
is liable to the same process for enforcing obedience to the order as if a party.

New:

When an order grants relief for a nonparty or may be enforced
against a nonparty, the procedure for enforcing the order is the
same as for a party

Old:

The practice as herein prescribed governs in actions involving the
exercise of the power of eminent domain under the law of a state,
provided that if the state law makes provision for trial of any
issue by jury, or for trial of the issue of compensation by jury
or commission or both, that provision shall be followed.

New:

This rule governs an action involving eminent domain under state
law. But if state law provides for trying an issue by jury - or
for trying the issue of compensation by jury or commission of both
- that law governs.