Plain language laws: Can you read me now?

The proposed bill is short and simple.

The legislation, filed by State Rep. John P. Fresolo (D-Worcester), would require all documents published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be written for no higher than a third-grade reading level. That’s it.

The bill was filed by request of one of Rep. Fresolo’s Worcester constituents, Paul M. Leary, under the Legislature’s right of free petition, where a legislator files a constituent’s petition as a courtesy, but may not necessarily agree with the measure.

The bill has the same intent as a national law passed three years ago, the Plain Writing Act of 2010. The purpose of that law is to improve the effectiveness and accountability of federal agencies by promoting clear government communication the public can understand and use.

The national law covers documents the average citizen may encounter when applying for benefits or services, filing taxes or when the government explains to the public how to comply with any federal requirement. The law expressly excludes regulations, which are often complicated and require specific language relating to scientific or other complex issues not easily simplified.

Unfortunately, progress on making government easier to understand at the federal level has been rather slow.

According to Amanda Cheek of the Center for Plain Language, a national non-profit advocating for the use of easily understood language by government and business, by 2012, federal officials had translated just 10 percent of all forms, letters, directives and other documents into acceptable language. Plain language directors in several federal agencies say they are trying to comply, but there’s little funding for this effort.

In addition to the national law, the center says 32 states have a plain language program in at least one of their state’s agencies. In Massachusetts, laws relating to insurance, mortgages, real estate transactions and medical information, among others, have sections requiring documents to be in commonly-used language.

The center lists no state that has a comprehensive program like the federal law or one like the Massachusetts bill would presumably create.

But Rep. Fresolo’s bill has serious problems.

First of all, it exempts no state government document from its provisions, not even regulations. For anyone who’s had to read and understand the state sanitary code, clean air regulations, rules relating to the siting of landfills or any of the other provisions of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, it’s clear it would be impossible to write regulations in simple language to cover these complicated matters.

An equal problem is the proposed law’s requirement that all state documents be written at a third-grade level. Government’s a little too complex for language this simple, but the petitioner, Paul Leary, seems to have a pretty low opinion of our collective reading ability.

Of course, even a poorly written bill like Rep. Fresolo’s can be amended to make it sensible and useful, and the Legislature can then pass it and send it along to the governor. But no other legislator has signed onto the bill and no other bill covering similar subject matter has been filed this term in either the State House or Senate.

Concurrent filings of similar bills in both houses is often an indicator of significant support for a bill’s concept, but there’s nothing like that here.

Mr. Leary should get credit for his good intentions, as should Rep. Fresolo for sponsoring the bill, but it’s unlikely that this over-simple piece of legislation is going anywhere soon.

Which is too bad, because we need more clarity in government documents at all levels. But let’s have a realistic bill, please, because no third grader is filing a state tax return or applying for a driver’s license any time soon.

Posted by Bruce Garlow on March 7, 2013. Filed under Berkshire Beacon Hill Spotlight,Columns,Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry