While I applaud Ezra Klein’s notion (Making transparency into a reality, Ezra Klein’s Washington Post blog, January 7, 2009 at 12:15 p.m.) of disseminating the plain English documents that are created as the underpinning of Senate legislation, rather than the Bills themselves, why doesn’t anyone ask why the final Bill must be unintelligible? Why are we going through a two-step process to complicate and mystify if we have a source document which is straightforward and intelligible? Perhaps it makes more sense to rethink the structural outline of Senate legislation.
Archive for the ‘government solutions’ Category
Jan 7th, 2010 by Irene Etzkorn
Legislation that starts as plain language, should stay as plain language
Nov 3rd, 2009 by Alan Siegel
Alan Siegel Radio Interview on Simplification
Alan Siegel describes the communication gap between government and the citizens it is supposed to serve in an interview with Federal News Radio.
Oct 30th, 2009 by Alan Siegel
Time for a plain-language revolution
Sometimes Uncle Sam sounds like he has marbles in his mouth.
Read, if you can, the accompanying excerpt from an Education Department regulation, which was printed in Wednesday’s Federal Register. This one sentence has more than 220 words, nearly the equivalent of a typed page, double-spaced. It’s typical of impenetrable fedspeak that produces more indigestion than information.
Click here to read the full article.