Showing results 13 - 16 of 80
PREV | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | NEXT
House passes bill requiring plain language in federal documents |
April 15, 2008 The House overwhelmingly approved a bill Monday that would force the government to use plain English in its public reports, letters and documents. The bill, HR 3548, would give agencies flexibility to define “plain language” and write their own guidelines. The Securities and Exchange Commission is one agency that publishes its own Plain English Handbook. “This week, millions of Americans are finishing a confusing and oftentimes frustrating annual ritual: filing their federal tax return,” said Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, the bill’s sponsor. “The Plain Language Act requires a simple change to business-as-usual that’ll make a big difference for anyone who’s ever … received a government document.” A similar bill in the Senate, S 2291, passed the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee last week. It now heads to the full Senate for a vote.
Full Story: federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3479845
|
Commentary: Unclear communication is costly, time-consuming |
March 30, 2008 Today’s world is so complex that we must rely on others, especially the government, for information to keep us safe, secure and healthy. Taxpayers pay for the government, and they deserve to understand what it’s doing and what it’s telling them to do. Unfortunately, the government often serves up information in overwritten, wordy, highly technical language like the following: “The amount of expenses reimbursed to a claimant shall be reduced by any amount that the claimant receives from a collateral source. In cases in which a claimant receives reimbursement under this provision for expenses that also will or may be reimbursed from another source, the claimant shall subrogate the United States to the claim for payment from the collateral source up to the amount for which the claimant was reimbursed under this provision.” And what does all this mean? Simply that: — If you get a payment from another source, the government will reduce its payment to you by the amount you get from that source. — If you already got payments from the government and from another source for the same expenses, you must pay back what the government paid you. Difficult, obscure writing like this is expensive, time-consuming and annoying. It puts citizens at risk and makes it difficult for federal agencies to fulfill their missions effectively and efficiently. It discourages people from complying with requirements or applying for benefits. The owner of a small business in Tulsa, Okla., asked 13 clients about their responses to difficult government communications. Of the 13, 10 said they might never respond. When government communications are unclear, agencies have to write second documents to explain the original unclear document. They have to answer calls asking for explanations. They have to chase after people who fail to respond. They may even lose court cases because their communications violate rights to due process. The other side of the story is equally compelling. Plain language — language the intended reader can understand and use on one reading — can save the government and the public time and money and help the government fulfill its mission better. A Veterans Benefits Administration office rewrote one benefits letter in plain language. Calls to the office about that letter fell 90 percent. But even better, more veterans applied for benefits because they understood whether they were eligible and what they needed to do. In the end, more veterans got the help they needed because VBA rewrote this one letter. Arizona’s Department of Revenue started a plain language effort that spread to other state offices. Here are just two of the results: — The Department of Revenue saved $51,014 in a year from avoided phone calls after clarifying requirements. — The Department of Weights and Measures collected an extra $144,000 a year after clarifying payment instructions. Given such evidence, why does the government continue to use difficult language? It’s easier. Writing clearly takes hard work. And it requires clear thinking. It’s faster to pull out an old model and update it than to redo your document. And, often, government writers don’t think much about the most important aspect of communication — the audience. Fixing this problem will take focus and determination. Government writers will need new skills and will need to change the way they think about communication with the public. They need to recognize the huge costs imposed by poor communication and accept that it’s their job to be clear, not the job of the reader to figure out what they’re saying. Perhaps then government communication will serve citizens the way our democracy intends. ——— Annetta L. Cheek is chairwoman of the Center for Plain Language. She testified last month before the House Small Business subcommittee on contracting and technology on HR 3548, the Plain Language in Government Communications Act.
Full Story: federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3451004
|
Say what? |
February 06, 2008 Federal agencies have gotten better over the years at communicating clearly with the public. A quiet movement has bubbled along in pockets throughout the government for more than a decade, with advocates of plain language slowly making headway in convincing their bosses that it's more important to help people understand the government than to satisfy the general counsel offices and other protectors of bureaucratese. The application for federal student aid, for example, is still a bit clunky but is much easier to complete now than it was in the 1990s. The Social Security Administration's benefits application process also is much smoother. A key factor in the government's improved communications skills has been the shift from paper to online. Plain language advocates took advantage of the move to the Internet by arguing that attention spans are much shorter when people are looking at a computer screen rather than at a printed booklet. Of course, there's still much work to be done. Internal documents are written in laborious jargon, as are many regulations and Federal Register announcements. Annetta Cheek was one of the plain language advocates toiling in the bureaucracy until recently, when she left government to devote her attention to the Center for Plain Language, a nonprofit that pushes better communication both in government and in business. Cheek is helping push a bill through Congress that would call on federal agencies to write in plain language. In 2007, companion bills were introduced in both the House and the Senate. This year Cheek will be advocating for more and more lawmakers to get on board the bandwagon. It's a tough sell, in part, because it's such a mom-and-apple-pie idea. Who is against plain language? So why pass a law requiring it? But one previous lawmaker already is on board - former California Republican congressman Christopher Cox, who is now the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Last year, he pushed businesses to write disclosures required by federal law in language that the average investor could understand. For example, major public companies must publish documents each year justifying their executives' compensation plans. The SEC is encouraging companies to simplify the explanations. Bureaucratese is a problem in the private sector as much as in government. Indeed, Cox's agency is asking investors about the readability of all disclosure documents they come across. The agency will use the findings of their survey to help businesses write more clearly.
From: www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0208/020608mm.htm
|
State targets bureaucratese to improve communication |
January 06, 2008 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
|
PREV | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | NEXT