Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
Clear government is good government
By passing broadly applied plain-language acts, federal and state leaders could make it so.
By Ian Lewenstein
December 20, 2022 at 11:30PM
•••
On Dec. 7, the U.S. Senate provided some holiday cheer by unanimously passing the Clear and Concise Content Act. Drafted to replace the Plain Writing Act of 2010, the new measure would expand current federal law to ensure plain language is used not only for information necessary for obtaining any federal benefit or service but for agency operations, policies or guidance as well.
But bah, humbug: The new act has yet to receive a companion bill in the U.S. House. This is perplexing. If the staid Senate can unanimously pass a bill endorsing more plain language, why can't the "people's body" do the same?
Although the plain-language movement had been germinating since the 1940s, and presidents as far back as Jimmy Carter issued executive orders requiring federal agencies to use clear language, it wasn't until President Barack Obama signed the Plain Writing Act that a federal law established permanent plain-language requirements for federal agencies.
The act's purpose was to "improve the effectiveness and accountability of federal agencies to the public by promoting clear government communication that the public can understand and use." But while the act exempted agency regulations — and Congress — Obama issued complementary executive orders requiring agency regulations to be written in plain language.
The drawback to executive orders, of course, is that they are temporary and may be rescinded by newly elected presidents. In fact, President Ronald Reagan rescinded President Carter's executive orders on clear writing back in the 1980s, an odd decision given that we now have substantial evidence that plain language reduces costs, increases worker efficiency, and promotes public participation and trust in government.
As mentioned, the Senate's act provides a much-needed expansion of the federal documents that must be written in plain language. The act also would require annual reports on how well agencies are following the act. Additionally, agencies would need to get public feedback on their compliance and regularly user test their plain-language content. Not bad, but consider the act itself, which follows the usual federal model of heavy-hitting legalese.
For example, the act uses the archaic and ambiguous "shall" 14 times. In most cases, a simple word swap to "must" would work wonders for clarity.
Minnesota can do better. First, the state should pass a similar plain-language law but have it apply to all three branches of government (with due respect for separation-of-powers concerns). Although many states — including Minnesota — have plain-language laws for documents concerning consumer protection, commercial contracts and insurance, only two states have all-encompassing plain-language laws. Minnesota should become the third.
Second, Minnesota should define plain language in its law by the generally accepted definition: material that makes it easy for a reader to (1) find what they need, (2) understand what they find the first time they read or hear it, and (3) use what they find to meet their needs.
Third, Minnesota should establish a plain-language task force to develop comprehensive guidelines — like the excellent Federal Plain Language Guidelines — on using plain language and training state employees on plain-language best practices.
And fourth, Minnesota should publicly report on and measure compliance. For example, the state could follow the lead of the nonprofit Center for Plain Language, which publishes an annual federal report card on agency compliance with the Plain Writing Act. No one likes to get bad grades, especially publicly.
It is time, as a cosponsor of the federal Senate bill has stated, to "stop the 'government speak.' " Take a Minnesota administrative rule on arbitration hearings, which reads: "No issues shall be considered by the panel except as specified in the original agreement or a supplemental agreement executed and filed as herein provided."
A Minnesota plain-language law could transform this government-speak into something like this: "The panel must only consider disputes as specified in the original agreement or a supplemental agreement."
Now that's reason enough for some holiday cheer.
Ian Lewenstein is a board member for the Center for Plain Language.
about the writer
Ian Lewenstein
The Project 2025 vision that would break up the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration seems very much in play.
