Building Rapport

This is the message circulated by Annetta Cheek, chair of the U.S. Plain Language Action & Information Network:

The House Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs introduced a bill, H.R.
4809:
Regulation in Plain Language Act of 2006, and sent the bill on to the full committee (House Committee on Government Reform). For anything more to happen, the committee has to vote the bill out so it goes to the House floor. If this does not happen by the end of this session of Congress, this bill dies.

Simply, this bill would require agencies to write regulations in plain language. To read the bill, go to http://thomas.loc.gov and enter 4809 in the search box.

We need you to ask your representative to support this bill. To get contact information about your representative, go to http://www.house.gov/ and enter
your zip code in the box near the top right. It will give you the mailing
address and phone number of the person you should contact. If you don’t know
your full zip code, the site will help you find it.

The most helpful step you can take would be to visit your representative’s
office in person. At least call or write a letter. E-mails have little effect on Congress.

It is especially important for you to help if you are in a district represented by one of the members of the House Committee on Government Reform. They are listed in the attached file.

To read the testimony given about the bill, go to http://www.ombwatch.org/.

“The ordinary man is involved in action. The hero acts.” — Henry Miller

via Anita Sharpe

So, I have designed a product line that promotes good writing and suits plain language advocates.

My CafePress store is also called Building Rapport, so the url is http://www.cafepress.com/buildingrapport/

The first series has a graphic expressing this view:

clear
simple
+ human
________
good writing

Take a look. There is a discount for bulk purchases, so if you are a trainer or consultant, consider using these in your work.

Cheryl

I have been made MORE aware recently that editors and writers without legal training are called upon by their corporate gods to edit legal writing, especially the drafting of contracts. Actually, they don’t get to edit it, just suggest changes. So, read this:

At law.com in house counsel

Use Cougar Spotting Techniques for Good Lawyering

Good lawyers know how to recognize a disaster — whether it’s lurking 100 miles away or just around the corner

Steven Lubet
The American Lawyer
March 9, 2006

From Language Log, historical notes about word rage — the habit of English fanatics to threaten physical harm to those who misuse words.

Bill Dubay has released his latest issue of Plain Language at Work which includes a discussion of the latest US literacy statistics and how the impact one particular US Supreme Court decision.

Using the Language of Democracy

Almost 50 per cent of American adults have difficulty understanding and using information in documents such as job applications, bus and train schedules, instructions for taking medicine or for operating machinery.

Every citizen has the right to understand the legal processes they are involved in. This includes the proceedings of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Democracy is achieved to the extent that citizens participate in it. Justice is achieved to the extent that citizens understand what is going on in their courts. The courts have to make sure citizens know what is going on. If this is not done, citizens are not truly informed and therefore cannot truly exercise their rights. This often results in a denial of justice. Rights not understood are rights denied…

And…

National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL)
11 Million Americans Cannot Read English

On 15 December 2005, the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) released the results of the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). The report compared the results of the 2003 study with the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) of 1992 and produced these findings:

* Five percent of American adults is not literate, totalling 11 million. That number includes those who may be fluent in Spanish or other languages but cannot read English.
* Twenty-nine percent of American adults has only basic reading and math skills…

For more on legal language visit my Squidoo lens http://squidoo.com/legallanguage

People who work in corporations are often asked to rewrite some legalese into customer-friendly language.

I have found it best to be conciliatory in your approach to the legal department. I am sure you are all always diplomatic in your relations with them, but here is what I have learned from my experience.

Give them what you can afford to sacrifice: usually a recital of consideration is not required but if it can be understandable and brief, leave it.

Then be sure to cover off all points in the legalese, even if the lawyers get snooty and say that it is redundant or repetitive once you translate. In fact, suggest that it is so when you forward your draft, asking their permission to delete some.

Forward your revision identifying it as a draft with a disclaimer that is for their consideration and say that you would like to discuss it with them.

Once you force a lawyer to justify his or her junk words, they will seek to exceed your expectations (read as: show you up) by doing an even better job of clearing up your draft version.

As to technique, I find it helps to sort out the sentence segments of the legalese into small units of thought before trying to clear it up or even to make sense of the legalese. Like this:

Break it down
In consideration for
my ability to participate
in this [experimental]program,

I agree, for myself
and my successors, administrators, heirs and assigns,

to fully and generally release, waive and forever discharge [name of agency] , any affiliated companies or subsidiaries, their predecessors, successors, affiliates, assigns, directors, officer, employees, agents and attorneys, whether past, present or future

from any and all actions,
suits, debts, demands, damages, claims, judgments, liabilities, benefits or other remedial relief of any nature, including, costs and attorneys’ fees,

related in any way to
my failure
to honor
my agreements and
comply with
the conditions and guidelines contained in this Agreement.

Get Positive and Normal
Converting to positive constructions is the next step. Concerning this, where one side is required to do or not do something, I figure we should state what the other side should or how that affects the other person — in the interest of full disclosure to the consumer.

Also, the thinking process of going positive with the language usually brings you into standard English. Then you can rethink and shorten.

Luckily for me, I am never the final authority on the legal mumbo-jumbo. So the lawyers would definitely go over my draft below and have their input. Also, I have ente

A draft for a revision:

I agree as follows in return for being allowed to participate in this
[experimental] program. (This is a recital of consideration.)

I accept personal responsibility for any injury or damages arising
because I have not complied with the conditions and guidelines
communicated to me. (This is actually ALL that should be needed here.)

For myself and my successors, heirs and assigns,
* I release and waive [name of agency] and
* I discharge any affiliated companies or agents
(This I would leave to discuss with the lawyers because it could certainly be shortened.)
for any cause of action in tort or contract or otherwise that I now have
or may have arising from my failure to comply with the conditions and
guidelines contained elsewhere in this Agreement.
(This is also too wordy.)

I understand and agree that I will not make any claims against anyone
else that might result in that person making a claim for contribution or
indemnity against [name of agency] and I agree to protect [agency]
against loss or damage if any claims are made on my behalf.

I have read and understand this release. (Legal nicety but nonsense in reality.)

PS
I know I can be a bit snarky about lawyers but no offence (Cdn spelling) is intended. I have loved a few.