Examples of "Legalese" or "Legislative Writing"

Q: Have you ever done any formal writing for Associations or Organizations which required a specific "tone" or authoritative stance on behalf of the Organization's Bi-Laws or Mission Statement?

Yes. I once had the privilege of serving as the Parliamentarian of a sports club for three years.

Luckily, the national director of the Organization was local and I could ask him advice. He told me "...an Organization's Constitution should stand the test of time and not be frequently changed."

To that end, we went over our local sports organization's documents with a sifter.

We pulled-out any dated materials, references to anything which would be seen as making it old "...if your check bounces..." (I mean who writes a check these days anyway).

Whereas I was not the only writer of the document, I was a major writer and influence on making sure it didn't have to be changed for the next 10 seasons. I am happy to say that it hasn't had more than a few word changes in the past 4 years. That document can be seen here: http://www.hotlantasoftball.org/constitution.php

One of the things I am most proud of is the legalese writing I had to do for that same Organization's Rules of Play.

"...One thing is guaranteed when men get together for sports," the Commissioner said to me on the first week of the volunteer job, "...winning is their only purpose. Given the chance to cheat so they can win, they will look for every possible way to take a short cut to that trophy. Rules exist because men cheat."

In this particular club the male species had to be rated so to keep the better players from wiping out all of the teeth and various hambones of their opponents. It's probably the only sports club in America whose rule of ratings was created-by a drag queen!*

The problem had been that the Executive Council could never get any work done because of the number of ratings meetings they were having to attend!

So the Commissioner tried a "Jury of Peers" approach to solve some bitch fights after the season ended.

Over the winter I wrote the following: legalese we added to the Rules of Play documents, which would in itself "legitimize the Jury of Peers" to keep anyone in their sports club from complaining they didn't get a fair shot or have options.

SECTION 14. JUDICIARY HEARINGS COMMITTEE

A.At the HSL Annual Spring Meeting, the Open Division Council will nominate and vote on a chairman to serve as head of a Judiciary Hearings Committee (JHC).B.This Chairman will preside over a "jury of peers" determined by the Open Division Council which will listen, debate, and decide on requests for ratings reductions and protests. C.The Open Division Council will nominate and then vote to determine two (2) Open Division HSL Members from each division of play and three (3) at-large alternates during the Annual Spring Meeting. Each of these Division Representatives will have one vote during JHC meetings, creating 8 available votes. (Quorum=5 voting members, not including Chairman).D.The Chairman will preside and keep professional order during JHC meetings, but will not vote, unless there is a tie. In the event that the Chairman cannot preside or attend a meeting, a Chairman Pro-Temp from the members of the JHC (including Alternates) may be assigned to act in his absence by the Chairman.E.The Chairman will call a meeting of the JHC and notify the JHC Representatives, the representatives of the team(s) involved in the protest or ratings reduction request at least five (5) days before the meeting as to the date, time, place, and reason for the meeting, including allegations.F.The Chairman will preside over the meeting. In the case of a game protest, a representative of the team filing the protest will present the case for the protest. The team representative of the team being protested will then respond. There will be a maximum of thirty (30) minutes allowed for questions and comments from the JHC. The team representatives will then leave the room for a maximum of thirty (30) minutes to allow for discussion by the JHC. At the end of the discussion by the JHC, the Representatives will vote by secret ballot to decide whether the game protest is upheld or invalid. In the case of a ratings reduction request, a similar hearing process will take place with the exception that there typically will be no presentation against the ratings reduction request. The JHC at its discretion may allow the presentation of evidence against the ratings reduction request.G.A game protest will be upheld if 75% or more of the JHC representatives voting concur with the protest. A ratings reduction request will be granted if a majority of the JHC representative voting concur with the request. In the event of an upheld protest, the effect will be in accordance with ASA rules. H.At the end of the vote tabulation by the Chairman, the Chairman will assemble all persons involved and the decision of the JHC will be presented. I.Once the JHC has reached a decision the decision WILL BE FINAL; unless convincing new evidence is presented within three (3) days of JHC ruling, which would be appealed to the Open Division Executive Council. J.Any person or team who becomes ineligible for play within a division as a result of a JHC decision will remain so until they successfully appeal the JHC decision to the Open Division Executive Council.

*Atlanta Actor and HSL Member Jim Marks. It is estimated that under Marks's direction of the NAGAAA in the 1990s, more than 2 million conversations have since been spawned (and several thousands fights) because of ratings disagreements. However painful it was to endure the original implementation of this system, and until this day---very few people think it's a bad idea!