by Kurt Woock

Expletives have nothing to do with four-letter words.¹ But, once you know what they are, you might utter a four-letter word when you see an expletive in print. Learning to recognize and avoid them will increase the clarity of your writing.

Expletives are often placed at the beginning of sentences and, based on that position, sound as if they have something to do with the subject. They don’t. The combination of words to watch out for is “there” or “it” followed by some variation of the verb “to be” (is, are, were, etc.). A few examples:

There is a new restaurant in my town.
It’s raining.
It is going to be a busy day.
There are 35 senate districts in Colorado.

In each of the examples above, find the subject. Of course, that’s a trick question. There is no subject. (See what I did there?) The words “there” and “it” are expletives; linguistic imposters that look like subjects and smell like subjects but, in fact, are just shadows of the real thing. They are empty shells, devoid of all meaning and offering nothing to the sentence. Try to diagram the sentences, if you’d like. Or, try to explain what the “there” refers to or what function “it” serves. If you try, you’ll just spin in circles. Now, look at modified versions of the sentences above. In each example, the expletive was replaced with a real subject.

My town added a new restaurant.
The rain just started.
Today is going to be busy.
Colorado has 35 senate districts.

These sentences offer more to the reader. The meaning is more direct. So why do expletives exist at all?

Expletives are shortcuts. They can help a speaker deliver information quickly. If the context surrounding the expletive is rich enough to inform the listener adequately, it’s hard to even spot them when they occur. Especially when the recipient of the message is a listening audience, expletives can smooth out awkward constructions: “There’s no place like home!” is much more appealing than “Home is a place unlike any other!”

But writing is a more deliberate form of communication. We take the time to write and edit and rewrite until we arrive at the best way of saying something. The situations in which using an expletive is the best way to communicate something in writing are much rarer than in speech. The truth is, using an expletive won’t send your sentence or paragraph tumbling down into an unrecognizable heap. Instead of seeing them as an outright problem, look for expletives as an indication that you can make that sentence stronger.

Searching the statutes, you’ll find thousands of expletives. Some are more avoidable than others. “There is hereby created…” probably isn’t going anywhere soon. But many could be easily reworded for the better. The following passages from the C.R.S. contain expletives (including examples with expletives in the middle of a sentence) followed by a simple rewrite that makes the passage more direct.

BEFORE: If the commissioner finds that there are sufficient assets of the insurer located in this state to justify the appointment of an ancillary receiver…
AFTER: If the commissioner finds that the insurer has sufficient assets located in this state to justify the appointment of an ancillary receiver…
BEFORE: There are people in Colorado communities who are experiencing mental health or substance abuse crises…
AFTER: People throughout Colorado communities are experiencing mental health or substance abuse crises…

The changes are simple and don’t threaten the sentence’s meaning. A sentence that begins with a subject instead of an expletive gives the reader a firmer toehold for the rest of the sentence. An internal expletive that is subbed out for something clearer prevents readers from stumbling and missing the point you’re trying to make.

The effect a single change might have in an isolated sentence might seem marginal, but, when clear language is used consistently, a reader’s ability to read a text quickly and accurately becomes much easier.

__
1. Four-letter words aren’t expletives at all, actually. Depending on the word, it would be either an obscenity (if it deals with a bodily part or function) or a profanity (if it deals with a diety). But that’s a different story altogether.

by Julie Pelegrin

As legislators, lobbyists, and stakeholders turn their attention to preparing bills for the 2016 legislative session, many may wonder, “Is this really a new idea, or has someone tried this before?” Or maybe someone’s looking to strengthen an existing statute and wondering, “When did they first pass this statute, and has it always had these problems?” The answers to these questions are easily found with just a bit of research. The key is knowing where to look.

Bill Title Histories

Every bill introduced in every regular and special legislative session since 1997 is available on the General Assembly’s website under “Session Information – Prior Sessions.” The bills are organized by year, and the database of each year’s bills is searchable . You can also search for a keyword or phrase by clicking “Search” near the top of the page.

A legislator may also ask a drafter to search the OLLS database of bill and resolution titles, which goes back to 1999. This search identifies bills and resolutions that included a particular term or phrase in their titles.

Legislative History

Just knowing whether a bill has been introduced to address your topic is not enough. It’s also helpful to know how the bill was amended, who testified for or against it, what issues were debated, and whether the bill passed. This information is also available, but it takes a bit of digging.

Once you find a bill using your search term, you can access:

• All versions of the bill;
• The history of the bill, which lists the committees the bill was assigned to, each action taken on the bill, and the date of each action;
• All versions of the fiscal note written for the bill;
• All of the committee reports on the bill, including the vote tallies for each report; and
• The third reading vote tallies for the bill. When you click on the third reading vote link, it takes you to the House or Senate Journal page for the day on which the House or the Senate voted on the bill on third reading. You may need to scroll through the page to find the bill you’re looking for.

To find a summary of a committee hearing on a bill, click “Committees” at the top of the page. Next, click “Summaries by Bill,” then select your bill, and you will see the bill summaries for each committee of reference that heard the bill. Click “Bill Summary,” and you will see a short summary of the bill discussion, any testimony provided on the bill, the amendments that were offered, the vote tally on each amendment, and the final vote tally.

Each bill summary also shows the date of the committee hearing and the times at which the bill sponsor spoke, witnesses testified, and the committee took action on the bill. This is important information if you want to listen to the testimony or debate. The state has recordings of committee hearings going back to 1973. To get a recording of committee testimony and debate, contact the Legislative Council Staff at 303.866.3521. To listen to a committee hearing before 2002, you must contact state archives.

You may also be able to watch or listen to the floor debate on a bill. Use the bill history to identify the date on which a bill was considered on second or third reading. Then, on the General Assembly homepage, click “Audio and Video Broadcasts” under “Session Information.” Then click the Colorado Channel home page link, click the button for archived legislative sessions, and follow the directions. Unfortunately, the video and audio recordings of floor sessions only go back to the 2010 session.

Source Notes

If you want to know when a statute was originally enacted and how it’s been changed since then, you must check the statute’s source note.

Every section of the Colorado Revised Statutes has a source note immediately following the text that indicates the year the section was added, any year in which it was changed, which provision of the section was changed, where in the Session Laws to find the bill that made the change, and the effective date of the change. For more of the specifics on interpreting source notes, see page vi at the beginning of each printed volume of the Colorado Revised Statutes or check out this memo on the OLLS home page. There’s also a very handy chart for decoding source notes.

If the source note tells you that your section has been amended, use the reference to the Session Laws to look up the bill that amended the section. For example, if the source note says “L.2015: (1)(c) amended, ch. 12, p. 27, §1, effective March 31,” open the 2015 Session Laws of the State of Colorado to page 27 and you’ll find the bill that amended the section. Or open the 2015 Session Laws on-line through the General Assembly website and click on chapter 12. Since 2009, the legislative editors in the OLLS have also included in each source note the number of the bill that adds, amends, or repeals a statute. If you’re checking the statutes on-line, the bill number is hyper-linked to the bill itself.

by Jery Payne

By 1215, King John (of Robin Hood fame) had made just about everybody mad. He raised taxes and regularly levied huge fines on trumped-up charges. He seduced several of his subject’s wives and daughters — saying “no” to the king’s advances wasn’t wise. He murdered his nephew Arthur of Brittany. He starved a mother and son to death in the same cell. And he captured and killed scores of hostages. The Pope had even excommunicated him.

Many of the lords were so sick and tired of being abused that they rebelled, which usually ended up with a new king sitting on the throne. But someone (believed to be the Archbishop of Canterbury) had another idea: Why not make the king obey the law?

So on a muddy field at Runnymede, England, these lords forced the king to sign a treaty that limited his powers.

This treaty contained some interesting ideas. One provision required King John to “at once return the son of Llywelyn, [and] all Welsh hostages.” That may not have exactly reverberated throughout the ages, but probably was a relief to Llywelyn — who, incidentally, was John’s son-in-law. (Remember that the next time you bemoan the in-laws—at least they’re not holding your child hostage!)

Clause 40 held wider application: “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” A nice idea, but clause 39 got more specific about how that would be enforced:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

The medieval world had used trials and juries for some time, but this treaty made due process of the law a right.

Now it wasn’t always obeyed, and King John tried to repudiate it. But this idea of basic fairness wouldn’t go away. John’s son, Henry III, was forced to obey it. And in Britain, clause 39 is still in effect and still guarantees people the due process of the law.

At the time, the treaty was called the “Runnymede Charter,” but over time it became known as “Magna Carta” — Latin for “The Great Charter.”

But the Magna Carta’s greatest legacy isn’t the idea of due process; its greatest legacy lies in the idea that a king (or president or governor) can be made to obey a document. Those lords had actually created a type of constitution.

One of the lords who confronted King John on that muddy field was Saer de Quincy, the Earl of Winchester. Five centuries later, Saer de Quincy’s descendant, Josiah Quincy, went to London to warn another English king, George III, that another revolution was brewing and it would cost England her American colonies if she did not grant the colonists the same rights and privileges enjoyed in England. The Declaration of Independence accuses King George of “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury,” which violated the Magna Carta. And John Adams agreed: “[H]ave not our kings broken magna carta thirty times?”

Quincy’s warning failed to convince the king. Quincy’s home, Massachusetts, and 12 other colonies, declared independence. This let to the Massachusetts Assembly appointing Quincy’s cousin, John Adams, to draw up the first constitution in the Americas.

John Adams wanted to make sure Massachusetts’s governors weren’t above the law. Not only did Adams draw inspiration from clause 39, but the very act of drafting a constitution can be traced to the precedent set by the Magna Carta. Adam’s constitution became very influential. The United States and 9 of the 13 states used Adam’s constitution as a model.

Interestingly, the monument in Runnymede commemorating the Magna Carta was actually dedicated, not by a British group, but by the American Bar Association.

After all, there wouldn’t be much point to a state legislature if the Governor didn’t feel the need to bother about the law.

Happy 800th anniversary Magna Carta!

by Jennifer Berman

Hardly anyone is neutral on the issue of net neutrality. Passions flare when the issue is discussed — from Netflix and Twitter participating in an “internet slowdown” protest last month to comedian John Oliver’s thirteen-minute rant on his late-night HBO show in early June.

Although virtually everyone who discusses the issue comes out in favor of net neutrality, the debate gets heated when discussing how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should achieve net neutrality. But before discussing which of the two major regulatory courses of action the FCC will likely choose, let’s get everyone up to speed on net neutrality.

What is net neutrality?

Understanding net neutrality first requires an understanding of how the internet works. There are three key players in the internet — the internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast and Verizon, the content providers such as Google, Facebook, and Netflix, and the end users such as you and me. Sometimes these three key players overlap. You were a content provider when you tweeted a funny comment last week— oh you, you’re so witty! But let’s keep things simple for now by assuming that the key players do not overlap.

We can use the overused internet highway analogy to demonstrate how the key players fit together. Think of the ISPs as toll booth operators, the content providers as drivers, and the end users as the drivers’ destinations. The toll booth operators can control which toll lanes are open, how fast the drivers get through the lanes, which drivers are allowed access to their destinations, and how much the drivers have to pay. If given free reign, the toll booth operators could make it very difficult and expensive for drivers.

Similarly, if given free reign, an ISP could block certain content providers from accessing the ISP’s “backbone network,” which is considered the “last mile” connecting the content provider to the end user. An ISP could also require content providers to pay for priority over other traffic — an internet “fast lane”. Finally, an ISP could discriminate against content providers by giving priority to the ISP’s own content over competing content providers’ content, such as a cable company blocking an online video provider like Netflix.

Net neutrality is a principle that requires ISPs to treat all content the same, regardless of its source. Net neutrality would prohibit ISPs from engaging in content blocking, paying for prioritization, and preferring an ISP’s own content over competitors.

Sounds good, right? So why is net neutrality in jeopardy?

How did we get here?

Before 1996, all communications systems were treated as common carriers, which meant that providers were required to serve all customers without discrimination. They had no say over the content and had to allow unfettered access.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 created differential treatment of “telecommunications services” — those communications networks that offered two-way connectivity to the public– and “information services” — the content and applications shared over telecommunications services. Telecommunications services were regulated but information services were not. Therefore, the FCC could regulate the ISPs, but not the websites and applications.

But starting in 2002, the FCC deviated from this clear distinction by classifying cable modem services, a subset of ISPs, as information services. In 2005, the FCC broadened the unregulated information services classification to broadband offered through other platforms. Thus, broadband generally became unregulated.

In response to a backlash for deregulating broadband, the FCC issued a policy statement containing a set of principles “to ensure broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable, and accessible to all consumers.” Sounds familiar, right? The 2005 Openness Principles embodied net neutrality.

In 2010, the FCC promulgated rules codifying the 2005 Openness Principles in an Open Internet Order that included anti-blocking, anti-discrimination, and disclosure rules governing ISPs. In Verizon v. FCC, Verizon challenged the FCC’s authority to issue the Open Internet Order. They argued that it lacked the statutory authority to do so and that the rules it imposed on ISPs were arbitrary and capricious.

In January of this year, the D.C. Circuit Court overruled the anti-blocking and anti-discrimination provisions of the Open Internet Order because those provisions essentially treated ISPs as common carriers, but the ISPs were explicitly exempted from common carrier regulations.

With the D.C. Circuit gutting the FCC’s Open Internet Order, net neutrality advocates worry that ISPs are free to block websites and applications from their network and implement pay-for-priority routing schemes.

Now what?

On May 15, 2014, the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to address net neutrality. In the notice, the FCC has proposed two avenues to codify net neutrality without running afoul of the Verizon ruling.

The first avenue is to use its authority under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to maintain an open internet. Section 706 requires:

[The FCC shall] encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans … by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.

Critics of this approach point out that, in light of the Verizon holding, it does not appear that the FCC’s authority under Section 706 would permit the agency to prohibit paid prioritization. To do so would be treating ISPs as common carriers without classifying them as common carriers.

The second avenue is to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. By reclassifying ISPs as common carriers, the FCC would presumably be able to prohibit paid prioritization because it can regulate against “unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, facilities, or services” under section 202 of Title II. Critics of the Title II approach point out that section 202 is just one of 47 statutes governing common carriers, and that imposing common carrier status on ISPs would stifle innovation and competition in internet services. And some ISPs think such a reclassification would not ban paid prioritization.

It’s a thorny issue. The FCC invited the public to comment on “the best way to define, prevent and punish the practices that threaten an open Internet” and “on the benefits of both section 706 and Title II, including the benefits of one approach over the other.” And comment we did …

The FCC received more than 3.7 million comments on its proposed rulemaking. This is almost twice the number of comments the agency received in response to Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show.

The FCC also sought expert opinions on the best way to ensure internet openness. On September 16th, the FCC hosted Open Internet Roundtables, at which panels of experts from a variety of disciplines debated three issues: threats to internet openness; the proper scope of internet openness rules; and how best to enhance transparency by internet service providers.

While the FCC wades through these comments and reflects on the recent roundtable discussions, there is talk of addressing the net neutrality issue through legislation. In June, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Representative Doris Matsui of California introduced the “Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act”. The Act would require the FCC to prohibit paid prioritization agreements between ISPs and content providers.

While we’re waiting to see what the FCC and Congress do about net neutrality, let’s enjoy this award-winning internet cat video: Winner of the Golden Kitty Award at the 2014 Internet Cat Video Festival.

by: Kurt Woock

The English language is rife with confusing words. In English classes, you likely studied various categories of linguistic confusion: homophones, heteronyms, homonyms, synonyms, antonyms. At the root of the confusion is the fact that words can have a lot in common, to the extent they deceive writers and readers into thinking the words are interchangeable.

Sometimes, a group of words signify a similar meaning, but with differing gradations or levels of emphasis. Those subtle differences allow writers to express nuance and help bring clarity to writing. Using these words incorrectly might blur the author’s true intent, but it won’t substantially alter the meaning.

However, in some cases, despite the similarities between words, an impassable chasm exists between the two meanings. Using these words interchangeably does alter the sentence’s substance.

Here are four word pairs that are commonly mistaken as synonyms when, in fact, each word expresses a distinct idea:

Impact-Effect

Impact and its variations (impacted, impacting, etc.) have become some of the most ubiquitous buzzwords today. You’ll see it (mis)used in writing of all types. In most cases, effect is the better option.

Impact, whether used as a noun or a verb, means the moment two objects collide. It means strong, often violent force. Strictly speaking, its scope in time is limited to the very moment of…you guessed it…impact.

Effect is a broader term that means the consequences or results stemming from an action. Rather than focusing tightly on the singular moment in which a sudden change occurs, it is oriented toward changes that occur after the initial point of inflection, and without any cap on time.

Consider this sentence: “The group will study the impact the construction will have on the neighborhood.”

In this case, effect would be a better choice. Construction does not collide with anything, nor is it sudden or violent. Instead, the author intends to say something about resulting changes (whether short-, medium-, or long-term) that will occur because of the construction.

Although-While

Although has a meaning similar to “despite that fact that…”. Often it is used to dispel a possible assumption the reader might have.

Example: Although I like most vegetables, I don’t like peas.

The word doesn’t give most people problems, but it’s important to understand the particulars of although because its cousin, while, tends to trip up writers. While is a function of time. It shows that two events occur concurrently:

Example: I went to the park while I was on lunch break.

Try substituting the word “when” for while whenever you use it. If the sentence still makes sense, you’re likely using while right.

While is often used where although would be a more precise choice. Oddly enough, you’ll rarely see although as an incorrect substitution for while…perhaps an indication that the two aren’t interchangeable.

Here’s a sentence in which although would have been a more precise choice:

While the Broncos are a very good football team this year, I still think the team from ’98 could beat them.

Here’s a similar sentence in which while is perfectly fine:

While the Broncos are taking the field for the first time this season, their fans are surely going to be loud.

Since-Because

Because shows causation or association. Use if you can replace with “as a result of the fact that…”.

Example: Because I live in Denver, I can easily go to the mountains.

Example: I need a lawyer because I am in trouble.

Since shows that a period of time has elapsed.

Example: It’s been five years since I’ve been to Texas.

The two words, side by side:

1. Since you’ve been gone, I can breathe for the first time.
2. Because you’ve been gone, I can breathe for the first time.

These two samples show how a sentence’s meaning can change, depending on word choice. In the first example, using “since” shows that the writer is emphasizing the time that has passed between two events (and is not necessarily the cause of either). The person who has vacated the author’s presence might or might not be related to the increase in the author’s ability to breathe. The departure is simply something used to mark time. Perhaps the other person’s departure simply coincided with the opening of a few windows. You likely hear similar constructions daily: “Since lunch, my phone hasn’t stopped ringing”; “I haven’t been able to concentrate since I woke up.” In both these cases, the writer is trying to define a period of time, not a cause.

In the second example, “because” suggests that the breathing is directly related to the person leaving.

May-Might

When you were a child, you probably learned the difference between “may” and “can”. In recent years, OLLS has emphasized understanding the particular nuances of the terms “may”, “must”, and “shall” to express statutory requirements more clearly. However, the distinction between “may” and “might” is discussed less frequently.

May is best used to show that an action is dependent upon someone first granting permission. Take the following sentence:

“You may go on a short vacation during session if you are on top of your workload.”

Might is best used to show that a particular outcome, situation, or action comes about by chance.

The sentence “It might rain today” expresses might correctly. To say “it may rain today” would be incorrect. The rain does not occur because of any rational actor’s choosing, nor does it occur because it was given permission to do so.

Sometimes, both words can make sense in a sentence. However, this does not mean that both sentences mean the same thing. For example:

Alice may vote.

Alice might vote.

In the first example, the writer is expressing that Alice meets all the requirements to vote: She is 18, etc. However, it technically says nothing about the likelihood that she will do so. She might just stay home and watch TV. The second sentence considers just that—the chances that she’ll vote.

Use the distinctions found among these words to make your writing as clear as you can. Although we can write well, we don’t always. While we write, we too often choose the first word that comes to mind. We may choose whichever words we want, but we might not always choose the best ones. Because we strive to write as clearly as possible, we must be aware of this. Since you began reading this article, perhaps you’ve become more aware of the unintended effects that words such as “impact” can have.

by Jery Payne

Imagine that you get in your car, start the engine, and say “Take me to work.” Then, you begin reading the latest news while drinking your coffee. Thirty minutes later, you look up because the car is parking.

Does that sound nice? (more…)

by Chuck Brackney

The rise in the use of various social media tools and outlets such as Twitter and Facebook by groups associated with state legislatures has caught the eye of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), resulting in some interesting new research as well as educational webinars.

NCSL has created an online source for tracking the social media activity of legislative agencies as well as partisan caucus groups. It has found that no fewer than 48 states have at least some social media presence. (more…)

A Book Review by Chuck Brackney

The primary draw for citizens of Colorado in this recent book by financial analyst Meredith Whitney is her contention that the future of financial prosperity in the United States has shifted from the coastal areas like the northeast and California to a “central corridor” of states, running from Texas northward to North Dakota, including Colorado.

Whitney, a former senior analyst with Oppenheimer & Company, is credited by a number of financial industry observers with being among the first to predict that trouble in the housing and mortgage markets would lead to problems in the wider economy. She was named by Time magazine as one the 100 most influential people in the world in 2009. (more…)

by Jason Gelender

As of August 29, 2013, eleven Northeastern and Eastern Colorado counties (Cheyenne, Elbert, Kit Carson, Lincoln, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, Weld, and Yuma) and Moffat County in the Northwestern corner of Colorado have expressed interest in seceding from Colorado and forming the new state of North Colorado. Ten of the counties will submit the following ballot question to their voters at the November, 2013 election: (more…)