Help us keep Rapport useful and available to you.

This is the final issue of Rapport that will be widely distributed on paper. Rapport will appear on the Internet in future at http://rapport.bc.ca. Those subscribers who cannot access the Internet are invited to contact the publishers to make arrangements to receive hard-copy.

Please continue to send in your reports, exemplary documents, event announcements, book reviews and so on. Looking forward to seeing you in the next issue.

In this issue:
• Plain Language in Progress 97: Biennial Conference, Janet Dean

• Update on Plain English Plus , Judith Bennett

• State Bar of Michigan Announces Clarity Awards,

• Writing to the Reader - Reaching Generation X , Janet Dean

• Book Review The New Doublespeak: Why No One Knows What Anyone’s Saying Anymore, William Lutz, Ann Semple

• A Few Myths about Plain Language, Cheryl Stephens

• Australian Centre for Plain Legal Language Closes

• Plain Language in Progress 1995: Conference reports
  • Drafting Regulations in Clear Language
  • Legislating Plain Language: Yes or No?

The Plain Language Consultants Network is once again sponsoring the "Plain Language in Progress" conference. The Conference sessions will be held at the Bankers Hall, September 24 - 26 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. For registration and information, see Plain Language Consultants Network Index or call 1.604.739.0443. The early registration rate expires August 19 (postmark). The Ramada Hotel is the official Conference Hotel at 1-800-661-8684. Reserve soon.

After the success of our first conference in 1995, we look forward to an even bigger and better event this year.

In particular, we are adding a trade show section to our conference for individuals and organizations to display their products and services.If you would like to participate in the trade show or advertise in the program, please call me at 604.521.5473 or send e-mail to jde@web.net.

1995 and 1996
Throughout 1995 and 1996, Plain English Plus has been a resource and network group for people involved in clear communication and access to the law. Based in Melbourne, Victoria, (Australia) we have over 80 members involved in legal writing with diverse expertise - a majority are lawyers. Monthly meetings are divided between planning & strategy and continual learning. What follows are highlights of talks by our talented and provocative guest speakers on diverse aspects of plain language.

How do you know if plain English actually works?
For our first talk, Dr Jim Stockton was the guest speaker. Jim asked "How do you know if plain English really works?" His answer is testing. Jim looked at why testing is so important and its major issues, while seeking to answer "What is a pragmatic, simple, affordable and yet robust means of testing documents?" He discussed tests of language and of documents, and how to analyze test data. Jim also outlined his theory as to why intelligent people get the simplest questions wrong.

Putting linguistic theory into plain language
Our second speaker was Professor Terry Threadgold, Head of Monash English Department. Terry challenged the concept that language can ever be "plain" - using history and examples. Communication is never easy or unilateral. It is simplistic to ignore the power relations embodied in daily life and culture. Similarly if we are only about changing language, this will not answer access and equity issues in the law. To address these issues, plain language can be guided by other disciplines and their experiences.

Will the will go "all the way?"
Phillip Hamilton, then partner in Tuzsynski Hamilton Linacre & Sacks, merged law and clear drafting in this talk. Phillip compared a typical will with suggested plain language re-drafts. He emphasized the need for accuracy - so that you do not give the judge the ability to meddle with the intention of the will maker - using convoluted examples to make this point.

Managing a plain language campaign
Plain language involves change. And to manage this best, a change program is needed. Sean Kidney, director of Social Change Media, outlined the way to manage such a program successfully. Sean explicated four steps:

• establish the need
• develop a vision, strategy and practical plan
• target the responsible people
• implement the plan.

"And remember that this all takes time!" he concluded.

"How does plain language fit with adult literacy?"
So asked Jan Kindler, educational consultant (with 17 years experience in adult literacy) and editor of the newsletter Literacy Update. For a long time, plain language had a low profile in adult literacy, partly because teachers concentrated on student needs and partly because it was seen as simplistic – The plus in our name (PEP) is a positive step. Jan looked at the use of plain language in influencing workplace documents - particularly in occupational health and safety.

An editor’s perspective
Marty Schiel, editor of the Law Institute Journal, has a broad background covering music to physics. For a different perspective, Marty began her talk by investigating creative writing. She emphasized the personal nature of writing, the need for reflection (interpreted by our more formal colleagues as "staring out the window" or gossiping), and the need to systematically record those rare and random flashes of brilliance. Marty next moved to discussing professional editing - giving helpful hints in the subjects "Before you start writing" to "What editors look for in an article - how to get published". As part of illustrating the many problems facing a professional editor who edits lawyers’ work, Marty had us nodding in recognition during her list of "awful lawyerisms".

The quality of plain English
Kriss Will, then practice manager at Allan Moore & Co, spoke on quality and plain English. Buzz words of "quality" and "kaizen" were defined in the context of legal work. Kriss then looked at how plain language can fit into a quality assurance program: she explained how quality can assist in ensuring plain English is used effectively in business. Indeed quality assurance is a vehicle for change – providing guidelines for precedent management, communication style, and training.

Human factors and communication
Elizabeth Gray, human factors expert, gave a thorough and engaging introduction to the multi-disciplinary study of human factors (also known as ergonomics). Following time and motion studies in the 1900s , the study of human factors developed in the 1940s with aircraft & military needs, expanded in the 1970s with information technology, and in the 1980s with human caused disasters and litigation such as Bhopal or Chernobyl.

Why bother with human factors? The answers are to decrease frustration and to increase productivity, safety, and satisfaction. Parallels with the aims of plain language were drawn in the focus on the user and testing. Human factors aim to design objects according to human capacities and limitations as well as to integrate people into systems. As part of the role, you become a user-advocate for hands on people as well as management.

Four guiding principles are:

• remember you are part of the system
• know your user
• make mistakes
• measure

Your voice and communication
Ever been misunderstood? Does your voice always work for you when you need it to?/ Do you make the best impact when you give a speech? Do you know how to use our voice to calm your clients? These were some of the questions Sandra Baigel asked and answered in this talk. Highlights included the "ning nang nong" song and exploring Strine (also known as Australian). As a professional voice trainer, Sandra believes that "Your voice is your passport to communication".

Is plain English a microeconomic advance?
Is legalese a restrictive trade practice? What are the demands for plain English in the legal marketplace? Is information a commodity? What strategies does the law recognize for managing information overload? How can we ensure comprehension? Peter Tsingos, VUT law lecturer, translated plain English into money in this talk. If plain English translates into being more efficient, then the law will cost less. This has many benefits.

A Canadian guest
On a whirlwind visit to Australia after working in South Africa on human rights laws, Phillip Knight gave a compelling talk, merging his recent and past experiences in plain language. Phillip’s presentation of the thorough research comparing comprehension levels of traditional and plain language laws fascinated the audience. The results were compelling - from many perspectives - that of justice in clarity of ideas and policy, of access to the law for a people who have 11 national languages, and from an economic perspective in terms of cost-benefits.

1997 and the future
With a new year, it is now time for a change in direction. Stay tuned!

Meanwhile, if you have any inquiries, please contact:
· Judith Bennett
phone 61-3-9534 6936 or 61-2-9498 3954 or email jm.bennett@pgrad.melbuni.edu.au
· Jude Wallace
phone 61-3-9642 4022
· Sophie Papapostoulou
phone 61-3-9643 5527

The State Bar of Michigan's Plain English Committee has announced the winners of its sixth annual Clarity Awards for legal documents written in the modern style: plain English.

"The best way to persuade lawyers to write in plain English without legalese is to publicize and promote the many legal documents that are now being written in clear language," said George Hathaway, chair of the Plain English Committee. "Clarity Award documents prove that legal documents can be written effectively in plain English without legalese."

This year's winners include documents written or promoted by Vice President Gore's National Performance Review, the chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, staff members of the U.S. Department of Interior, a Michigan state representative, two Michigan circuit-court judges and a number of Michigan lawyers.

1997 Clarity Award winners are:

• a federal rule concerning leasing of solid minerals, written by the Bureau of Land Management and promoted by the National Performance Review;
• a Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus from Bell Atlantic and NYNEX, actively promoted by Arthur Levitt, Jr., chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission;
• the proposed new Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, written by Bryan Garner, of LawProse, Inc.;
• a resolution offered by State Rep. Karen Willard in plain English without the formalism whereas;
• recent Michigan statutes written by Charles Dmochowoski, John Juroszek, and Larry Olivares, of the Legal Division of the Legislative Service Bureau;
• recent Michigan administrative rules written by Norman Shinkle, Peter Kopke, Susan Elder, and Robert Nelson, and edited by Kevin Foran of the Legal Editing Division of the Legislative Service Bureau;
• a guilty-plea form used in Oakland County Circuit Court by Judge Gene Schnelz and Deputy Administrator Margaret Garvin Blanchard;
• an opinion and order by Macomb County Circuit Court Judge George Steeh;
• Michigan Causes of Action Formbook, published by the Michigan Institute of Continuing Legal Education and written by a group of Michigan lawyers;
• a consulting agreement written by a team from the Chrysler Corporation;
• the 1997 Ford Proxy Statement written by a team from Ford Motor Company; and
• a sales contract of the Ann Arbor Area Board of Realtors promoted by their CEO, Peter Cornell.

According to Prof. Joseph Kimble of Thomas Cooley Law School, who edits the committee's monthly Plain Language column in the Michigan Bar Journal, "We know that most legal writing is too long, too dense, and too stuffy. It doesn't have to be that way. Legal documents can be made a lot clearer without sacrificing accuracy or precision. These Clarity Awards prove it, and these winners are modern-day revolutionaries."

Contact George Hathaway, Chair of the Plain English Committee of Michigan, 800-968-1442; or Joseph Kimble, Prof. of Thomas Cooley Law School, 517-371-5140

This is an excerpt from an award-winning power of attorney from the Michigan Bar Association Plain Language Committee:

Before:

I give my Agent the power to exercise or perform any act, power, duty, right or obligation whatsoever that I have or may hereafter acquire, relating to any person, matter, transaction, or property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, now owned or hereafter acquired by me, including, without limitation, the following specifically enumerated powers. I grant to my Agent full power and authority to do everything necessary in exercising any of the powers herein granted as fully as I might or could do if personally present, with full power of substitution or revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that my Agent shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this Power of Attorney and the powers herein granted.

After:

I give my agent the power to do anything that I have a right or duty to do, now or in the future.

Writing to the Reader: Reaching Generation X

In a recent issue of the McLuhan and Davies Communications Inc. publication, Roger Davies identifies some specific communication strategies to use when communicating with Generation Xers. These techniques can be easily modified to be used in the plain language process.

First, lets find out who is that Generation X reader
Various demographic "gurus" have given Generation X an age range of 20 to 35, although not all agree on the range. As with any generalization, it is easy to find exceptions. However in my experience, I have found that the majority of people in the 20 to 35 range can be effectively reached using techniques designed for Generation X.

Next, what are they about?
Generation X is the generation that has been raised on visual stimulation and the "sound-bite". They tend to deal with things in the moment and make decisions quickly. Many other characteristics of the "visual communicator" (remember those communication style inventories?) apply to Generation X.

Such characteristics include:
* action oriented
* crave interaction
* fast
* jump from topic to topic
* flexible
* to the point
* not impressed by rules, structure
* hate monotony
* direct
* energetic
* intuitive

When you are writing with this reader in mind, you are only generalizing that MOST of the time the Generation X reader has these characteristics.

How they prefer to receive communications
Roger Davies writes that "they clearly prefer receiving their communications verbally and in person. . . . They’d like to receive a summary with few details."

So ask yourself if your project really must be in writing before you begin. If your answer is yes, make sure your document is short, clearly summarized and contains only vital information. Its a good idea to provide opportunities for the reader to "interact" with your writing. For example, you could include a telephone number so people can decide whether to call for more information. Generation Xers are more likely to call than their Boomer (36 to 55) counterparts.

How they prefer to transmit communication
Again, verbal communication in person or over the phone is preferred. When conducting audience research, don’t rely on written surveys for this group; use in-person focus groups and personal and telephone interviews. When evaluating your writing, get back out there with your audience for in-person feedback.

What works for them
Generation X craves variety and speed. They don’t have the patience to wade through your writing to find the message; their attention span is short. Therefore in your writing, remember to use memory chunking techniques and limit concepts to groups of three to five.

It is particularly important for this audience that you don’t overwhelm them with information. Instead, set up a guide to what is to come and allow them to decide which path to take to get to that information. This concept of "interactive" information design is very appealing to them.

Generation X was brought up to examine the big picture. For your writing, this means framing your presentation in the context of larger concerns. And don’t get bogged down in providing details.

Davies recommends using the following words for maximum impact with Generation X:
* now
* big picture
* quick
* achieve
* variety
* resolve
* flexible
* action-oriented

What doesn’t work
Davies’ research indicates that Generation Xers don’t like dealing with written material or filling out forms. If your communications involve either of these, rethink your options. Is there another way you could communicate to better reach your audience? Can you use a website, interactive voice mail, video or CD ROM?

This group also tends to be impatient but well informed. So your writing must get to the point quickly. Write using strong thesis and topic sentences and KEEP IT SHORT. Don’t include general knowledge details; this group tends to be well informed and possess a surprising amount of common sense.

Finally
If your audience demographic is primarily North American adults between 20 and 35, consider some of their unique needs in information design and delivery. Use plain language process not only to make your writing clearer but also to ensure you are reaching your Generation X reader.

Janet Dean is Director of Research and Education with Plain Language Partners Ltd., http://plainlanguage.com and operates UserFocus Group.

Ann Semple, Reviewer

What William Lutz is saying about doublespeak is clear. In The New Doublespeak: Why No One Knows What Anyone’s Saying Anymore, he is adamant that the use of deceptive, evasive, self-contradictory, or misleading language is contributing to a communication crisis in our society.

He says we must fight. The energetic tone in his newest book does incite thought. However, whether it spurs us to action may be another matter. Either way, it’s a wonderful read.

Many are familiar with Lutz’s Doublespeak: From Revenue Enhancement to Terminal Living, in which he encouraged the awareness of doublespeak as a tool of social, economic, and political control. His new book has a more friendly tone. His sense of humor peeks through. And this time, he gives very specific suggestions for action.

The first three chapters introduce doublespeak itself, the importance of language, and how we interpret language. Lutz explains and gives clear examples of cognitive dissonance, misinterpretation, signal reactions, the differences between signs and symbols, and a variety of common abstractions.

How hot is too hot?
Then comes the first real test of my reading enthusiasm: a chapter each on the doublespeak of law, business and economics, and government. Because I felt sure that my background included only the second, I feared the other two. But Lutz is good; each chapter was equally enticing in its descriptions and suggestions. For example, in a section entitled "How Hot Is Too Hot?" (the title of which may have caught me off my ‘usually keen and almost fifty’ guard), Lutz entertains with details of the McDonald’s trial in which the definitions of hot and too hot depended on the people using the coffee.

In another tale, the use of "consensual" gives a new meaning to the word. According to Lutz, this meaning could have interesting implications in the relationships between men and women, employers and employees, and a whole range of other relationships.

But pointing out implications and humorous examples is not alone on the Lutz agenda for this book. His challenges begin to take shape. Instead of talking at one another, Lutz suggests that we begin to talk with one another. In this way, he says, we’ll work to build a shared vocabulary. He asks why companies don’t use the word "fired" instead of doublespeak words such as "uninstalled," "unassigned," "redundant," "excessed," or "transitioned."

Many such thought provoking examples of doublespeak in the worlds of business, economics, government and politics follow, along with specific warnings for each of us.

As long as we allow others to control the definitions of words that affect our lives, we will continue to be controlled, manipulated, and mislead by such words as "clean," "biodegradable," "recyclable," "degradable," "environmentally friendly," "photodegradable," and "educational and informational television for children."

How to fight doublespeak
Here comes the real agenda: How to Fight Doublespeak. Within this chapter, Lutz includes the following:

• First, you must appreciate just how powerful language is, how words have the power to pre-persuade us, how words and labels come to define and create our world for us, how words influence and direct our thoughts and feelings, and how words thus influence out behavior. . . . And you must be aware of and take seriously the consequences of language misuse, the consequences of doublespeak.
• Second, you must appreciate that doublespeak affects you personally. . . . As long as you excuse doublespeak by saying that it doesn’t affect you, you can’t even begin to attack the problem.
• Third, you need a sense of humor. Using laughter to confront those who use doublespeak reveals just how absurd such language is.
• Fourth, since doublespeak affects you personally, you must appreciate the seriousness of the problem emotionally, not just intellectually. That is, doublespeak should evoke a kind of righteous anger in you.

Yes. We can fight back. We are not powerless. We should never be passive consumers of language, especially doublespeak. According to Lutz, there are specific things each one of us can do. If we find doublespeak in a memo or other printed form, we should highlight the doublespeak. Whenever we encounter doublespeak in a newspaper, magazine or other publication, we should write a letter to the editor. With our e-mail and fax machines we can build networks of people who want to fight doublespeak.

After listing more specific actions we as a society can take, Lutz reminds us that knowledge is power and that, although we won’t win today, or tomorrow, or even the day after tomorrow, we will win in the struggle against doublespeak.

The book ends with a Doublespeak Quiz. For now, I’ll leave that to you. Let me know how it goes.

Ann Semple is a plain language communications specialist with A&S Communications in British Columbia (asemple@istar.ca) with a voracious appetite for plain language initiatives in a variety of public and private environments.

Plain language is fast becoming the accepted standard in many industries. It is accepted because it offers benefits like customer-friendliness, time savings for staff, and marketing advantages.

But there are many misconceptions about plain language, how it works and who uses it. Let me try to dispel some common myths.

Myth #1: There is only one plain language. Plain is plain.
Plain language is language that is easily understood by the intended reader. It changes with different audiences. If you write for insurance agents, you can use industry jargon. If you write for first-time auto-insurance buyers, you need to offer more definitions of insurance jargon. If your reader’s first language is not English, you need to avoid culturally specific concepts.

Plain language is targeted to particular readers, so there is always a range of plain language.

Myth #2: Plain language documents are short.
To make information understandable, you have to provide disclosure, context, and definition. These may make your document longer than would otherwise be necessary.

You may have to assume your reader doesn’t know the context. First-time insurance buyers won’t be familiar with industry practice. You may also need to define industry-specific terms. You may want to include examples using mathematical formulas that apply.

You may have to provide both sides of an issue in order not to be misleading. A lawyer’s retainer letter that has a section headed: "When we may decide to stop being your lawyers…" needs to include the information: "How you may cancel our retainer and replace our firm . . ."

You may have to repeat some basic information in different sections of the document in order to ensure comprehension.

Plain language documents are as long as necessary to provide the needed information, explain unusual terms or concepts, and fit the readers’ needs.

Plain language is about giving all the necessary information and explanations. It is not about brevity.

Myth #3: Plain language is only about words.
Plain language has come to mean a modern communications process involving several stages. The process requires that you:

• research the subject
• research the readers' interests and abilities
• brainstorm the purpose and message of the communication
• plan the best format
• draft by committee or individual
• edit by a second person
• lay-out and design to serve the purpose and message
• try-out the document with readers who represent the target audience
• revise the text and design after receiving feedback.

Plain language is a multifaceted approach to writing style and a communications process.

Myth #4: Plain language is OK for correspondence but we don’t have time for any new schemes.
Plain language is OK for correspondence and for every other kind of document you circulate internally or externally. It has been applied to contracts, annual reports, prospectuses, marketing brochures, forms and so on.

Plain language is easily integrated into customer-service or other communications or quality-improvement programs.

Myth #5: There are no plain language experts.
There is a wealth of research available to support best practice standards for plain language process. For plain language writers, there are many courses available in general writing, technical writing, and even legal writing as professional upgrading. Training is also available in how to conduct evaluations and audience research.

For example, in Sweden over 150 plain language consultants have graduated from a two- year college certificate program in plain Swedish. For years, the Law Faculty of the University of Sydney, Australia operated the Centre for Plain Legal Language. Other centers have operated in other countries. Plain language experts are found in several countries and have experience in many industries.

The International Plain Language Consultants Network, based in Canada, provides an exchange of professional information, publishes a newsletter, holds regular conferences on plain language, and generally upholds professional standards for its members. Rapport: News about plain language keeps plain language practitioners up-to-date on current practices and research. The Plain Language Online Centre provides professional contacts and information of interest at http://www.web.net/~raporter/English.

Myth #6: Plain legal language is not always possible. The law has inherent complexities.
In Style: Toward Clarity and Grace, Joseph William wrote:

"Whether we are readers or writers, teachers or editors, all of us in professional communities must understand three things about complex writing:

• it may precisely reflect complex ideas,
• it may gratuitously complicate complex ideas,
• it may gratuitously complicate simple ideas."

Language regulating legal rights and duties can be comprehensible. It must precisely describe complex information. What use is it if people cannot understand their obligations? Many disputes could be kept from the court process if the parties were clear on their mutual commitments. The vast majority of disputes never make it to trial either. Plain language in contracts could reduce the pressures on the courts.

In 1992 The Legal Writing Institute, composed of more than 900 legal research and writing teachers, endorsed plain legal language, saying, "The language used by lawyers should agree with the common speech, unless there are reasons for a difference . . . Legalese is unnecessary and no more precise than plain language."

A three-year project by the British Columbia Continuing Legal Education Society provided enough evidence that plain legal language is possible. The Sydney Centre for Plain Legal Language continues to conduct research into the benefits of plain legal language as well as delivering it to its clients. Clarity is an international organization of over 400 lawyers, academics and others interested in simplifying legal language.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued a "profile prospectus" to demonstrate how companies can communicate with investors in plain language. Later this year the S.E.C. plans to adopt rules requiring clear-language disclosure filings. It will also be releasing a guide, "The S.E.C. Plain English Handbook".

The writing is on the wall and it is plain. Plain legal language is being written every day. Plain legal language may take more time, energy and resources but it is possible and always preferable.

Myth #7: Plain language leads to litigation.
Citibank came out with a plain language consumer note in 1973. In 1978 New York passed a law requiring residential leases be in plain language. Since then over 30 states have legislated requirements for plain language in consumer finance, real estate and insurance documents. There has been no avalanche of lawsuits arising from the plain language. Not even a trickle.

Poor legal writing is poor legal writing -- even when it is plain. Don’t blame the plain language, blame the drafter. In some contracts, the drafter has assumed that industry practice will still be used to interpret the language of the contract because this was done in the past when language was unclear or ambiguous. If the court finds that the plain language of the contract is clear and self-explanatory, it will not look outside the contract for meaning.

The courts will not correct sloppy drafting by looking to the surrounding circumstances, the industry practice, or oral interpretations that were offered. In fact, Canadian courts have begun to say:
The contract was in plain language. There was an obligation on the consumer to read it. They will be bound by the plain language of the contract.

Unfortunately for insurers, this plays both ways. If you are going to write a contract in plain language, make sure you know what you are doing.

Myth #8: Anybody can write a plain language document.
Anybody can excise a snakebite in an emergency, but, given the choice, would you have it done by your mechanic or your doctor? Many organizations have their own staff write material according to prior precedents, and assume it will be satisfactory when it hits the courts. Some try to do their own plain language revisions of legal documents. Anybody can rewrite a legal document but then, there is no guarantee that it will be legally effective. If you don't want to pay a lawyer to revise your documents, don't. But do send your plain language documents to your lawyer for a legal review.

There are lawyers who are also trained as plain language writers so it is possible to do one-stop shopping for good quality, effective, plain language legal documents. The Canadian Bar Association maintains an Internet listserv for lawyers interested in plain language (for more information, send email to raporter@web.net) Your local bar association may have a plain language professional interest group. Suggest that your lawyer join. The Michigan Bar Association has for years had one of the most active Plain Language Committees.

Break out of the mold and the myths.
Many of these myths are rooted in bad experiences or failed attempts at plain language. If at first you don’t succeed with plain language, take some training, work with plain language consultants, ask your clients for feedback on your document style. You will find that your plain language gets easier and increases in effectiveness, with time and practice. Plain language consistently creates more success stories than failures. Statistics show dollar savings and customer satisfaction arising from plain language.

Forget the reasons not to, try plain language -- you’ll like it.

Cheryl Stephens is Chair of the Plain Language Section of the Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch and a legal writing consultant with Plain Language Partners Ltd. (http://plainlanguage.com). She can be reached at (604) 739-0443 or plain@web.net.

The Centre for Plain Legal Language closed at the end of June 1997.

In Australia, the discussion about plain legal language started in the mid-seventies. The Centre for Plain Legal language was set up as a joint project of the Law Foundation of NSW and the Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, in 1991. In 1994 the Centre became self-funding and part of the Law School at the University of Sydney.

The Centre has been one of the few organizations in the world that was devoted to research into the use of plain language. In 1995, the Centre was involved in a major research project with the Centre for Microeconomic Policy Analysis, University of Sydney. The joint project investigated the costs and benefits of introducing plain language documents. A few years ago the Centre worked with the New South Wales Parliamentary Counsel’s Office on the "Legislation Review and Redesign Project". The project was able to demonstrate that by applying modern views of document design, legislation can be made easier to use and more accessible. The Centre has also written a monthly Plain Language column for the NSW Law Society Journal.

The Centre has helped to increase awareness in the legal profession, government and private industry, of the need for and the benefits of plain language. Through its publications and its drafting and training courses, the Centre has promoted alternatives to traditional drafting. It has recommended that drafters avoid archaic words, jargon, unnecessary technical expressions, and complex language. It has sought to focus the drafter’s attention on the needs of the intended users of the documents. It has encouraged drafters to try to communicate information in the most efficient and effective way possible, while remaining technically correct.

Recent legislative changes in Australia have given momentum to the plain language movement. In 1994 the Industrial Relations Reform Act came into force. Under this Act the Industrial Relations Commission must make sure that awards are written in plain English. At the same time, the uniform Consumer Credit Code began its passage through the Australian Parliaments. The Code which came into operation in late 1996, makes credit providers concentrate on the language and design of their documents. The Corporations Law Simplification Program, and the Tax Law Improvement Project have shown the Commonwealth Government’s commitment to plain language initiatives.

Plain language is not just about access to justice, although this is an important part of it. It is also about commercial advantage; it makes good business sense to use plain language documents. The support for plain language is gathering force. The Centre has played a part in this important movement.

Plain Language in Progress 1995
Reports continue . . .

Reporter: Brian Glabb, Senior Project Officer, Regulatory Affairs, Treasury Board Secretariat

Clear language is the art of communicating effectively. For policy makers and drafters of legislation, clear language means presenting a regulation or law in language that is understood by those meant to be bound by it.

The Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) consist of twelve parts and fourteen schedules. The schedules are at the end of the Regulations. There are approximately 500 pages, about 100 in text and the rest in schedules with the largest schedule being the list of shipping names based on the UN Recommendations on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods. There are many cross references, no table of contents, sporadic headings and lots of legalese.

The TDG Regulations are being re-written using clear language principles. What are clear language principles and how are they being applied to the TDG Regulations?

Clear language is more than writing an understandable sentence although that is a major component. It includes organization of material, how the material is presented, removal of archaic language, accessibility of information and explanatory material as required.

In the clear language re-write of the TDG Regulations, every section has a heading that tells the reader what the section is about and these section headings are being used to develop a table of contents for each part. Sections are being broken down to make them more manageable and sentences are being made as short as possible. In addition, each topic has its own part.

The format being used gives more white space on every page so that the sections are not crowded together. Section headings and numbers are in bold and in a font that is a bit bigger than the next of the section. There is a considerable effort being made to eliminate cross references and when this is not possible, explaining the cross reference so that the reader is not confronted with just a number but is given an idea of what is in the referenced section. Most of the schedules that are currently at the back of the Regulations are being moved to the part that they deal with.

The goal in re-writing the TDG Regulations is to give the people who are meant to be bound by them a set of regulations that are understandable, that are inviting to read and that give easy access to information. During informal consultation on some preliminary drafts individuals have commented on the content of what they have seen, which was substantially unchanged, rather than on the format, style and organization, which is very different, because for the first time they could understand the requirements.

The Transport Dangerous Goods Directorate would be pleased to send a draft of the Regulations when the re-write is complete to anyone who would like to see it. The fax number is (613) 993-5925 and the mailing address is Transport Dangerous Goods Directorate , Regulatory Affairs Branch (ASDD), 344 Slater Street, Canada Building, 14th Floor, Ottawa K1A ON5. Requests should be directed to Linda Hume, Chief, Legislation, Regulations & Permits Division, Regulatory Affairs Branch.

Reporter: John Mark Keyes, Senior Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice (Ottawa)

There Ought’a Be A Law?

There is a lively debate about whether the law should be used to require plain language. Vicki Schmolka and Phil Knight showed just how lively it can be as they traded points and explored the various aspects of legislating the use of plain language at the Plain Language in Progress conference in Winnipeg on August 24, 1995.

Phil opened the debate for the yeas, arguing from his 1993 report for the B.C. Plain Language Institute entitled, So people can understand, A proposal for a law to improve legal writing. The report was based on extensive surveys of residents of British Columbia. The surveys showed that people generally have great difficulty understanding legal documents, that they would like to be able to understand them, and that their understanding would be improved if legal documents were written in plain language. The surveys also showed that 66% of people would pay more for documents drafted in language they could understand and that 92% would support the passage of laws requiring legal documents to be in plain language.

Following up on these statistical salvoes, Phil discussed exactly what a plain language law would require. He rejected mechanical readability tests as legislative norms of plain language. Instead, the law would be cast in terms of how easily legal documents can be understood and used by the persons they affect.

Vicki began her reply by saying that, while she had great sympathy for Phil's objectives, she disagrees on the proper means to be used to reach those objectives. She then developed her argument in a question-and-answer format, inviting the audience to consider what a plain language law might look like.

The first aspect was what standard of plain language the law would require documents to meet. Vicki noted that many laws in the United States, such as one passed in New York State in 1986, require documents to meet very specific standards cast in terms of sentence length, the active voice, printing type and layout. These standards are sometimes not appropriate and create practical problems, such as when a ticket offence document has to be relatively small.

Phil responded by agreeing that these sorts of standards are inadequate, but that plain language laws would be more workable if they used the standards of readability he was advocating. The discussion then focused on exactly what these standards would be. One idea was to require readability testing to demonstrate whether a document met the standard. Another was to provide that testing would be evidence about whether a document met the standard if the document's readability were challenged in court.

The next aspect of a plain language law was its scope. Would it apply to all legal documents with specified exceptions, or only to specified documents? Would it apply to government documents directed to members of the public? These questions led into two additional aspects: what penalties would be imposed for not meeting the standards set by the law and who would be able to bring complaints?

The discussion of what a plain language law would look like clearly highlighted the many difficult questions to be answered in preparing an effective law. Despite this, Phil maintained that a law was needed to spur change and that good intentions were not enough. Vicki replied that governments should lead by example or through promotional techniques, rather than diverting their energies to wrestling with the difficulties involved in passing laws. Ought there to be a law? The jury still seems to be out.

John Mark Keyes drafts bills for the Federal Government to present in Parliament, and teaches courses on legal drafting and legislation at the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa.

Please write us for permission for any use of this copyrighted material.

Managing Editor: Cheryl M. Stephens, Vancouver, Canada

Editorial Advisors
Janet Dean, Vancouver, Canada
Kate Harrison, Winnipeg, Canada
Sotos Petrides, Vancovver, Canada

Copy Editors: Nicole Watkins Campbell, Halifax, Canada
Ann Semple, New Westminster, BC Canada

Contributors
Judith Bennett, Melbourne, Australia
Anne-Marie Maplesden, Sydney, Australia
Robert Eagleson, Sydney, Australia
Margaret C. McLaren, Waikatoa, New Zealand
Martin Cutts, Stockport, England
Vicki Schmolka, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Christine Mowat, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Readers' Panel
Alan J. Davis, Director of Tax Communications,
Price Waterhouse, Toronto, Canada
Mark Adler, Solicitor, London, England
Richard Yampolsky, Dept. of City Clerk, City of Toronto, Canada
Irene Leonard, Project Lawyer, Seattle, Washington, USA

Return to