Wiki source for SpecificsofLegislation
======Summary Writing - Specifics of Legislation======----
A highlight must contain something specific about a piece of legislation. A highlight should never be so vague that it raises questions rather than answering them. If you include a provision as a highlight, include the details of that provision. Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth including in the summary. Here is an example: HR 3962 from the U.S. Congress during 2009. This is a provision of the bill:
~& //(d) Individuals-//
~& //(1) INDIVIDUAL DESCRIBED- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this subsection, an individual described in this paragraph is an individual who—//
~& //(A) is not enrolled in coverage described in subparagraph (C) or (D) of paragraph (2); and//
~& //(B) is not enrolled in coverage as a full-time employee (or as a dependent of such an employee) under a group health plan if the coverage and an employer contribution under the plan meet the requirements of section 412.//
~& //For purposes of subparagraph (B), in the case of an individual who is self-employed, who has at least 1 employee, and who meets the requirements of section 412, such individual shall be deemed a full-time employee described in such subparagraph.//
~& //(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- For purposes of this division, the term `acceptable coverage' means any of the following://
~& //(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan.//
~& //(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER CURRENT GROUP HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 202) or under a current group health plan (described in subsection (b) of such section).//
~& //(C) MEDICARE- Coverage under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.//
~& //(D) MEDICAID- Coverage for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act, excluding such coverage that is only available because of the application of subsection (u), (z), (aa), or (hh) of section 1902 of such Act.//
~& //(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE)- Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including similar coverage furnished under section 1781 of title 38 of such Code.//
~& //(F) VA- Coverage under the veteran's health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code.//
~& //(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage, such as a State health benefits risk pool, as the Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, recognizes for purposes of this paragraph.//
Notice that the provision includes a definition of "acceptable coverage." Therefore, if you were to highlight this definition, you must include the definition itself. These two highlights, or some variation thereof, would **not** be acceptable:
~& //- Defines "acceptable coverage" (Sec. 302).//
~& //- Specifies health benefit plans that are considered "acceptable coverage" (Sec. 302).//
Both of these highlights would immediately raise questions about the details of the definition. Without the details, the highlight isn't useful. If you feel that a definition is worth highlighting, then include the full definition. This is the final version of the highlight:
~& //- Defines "acceptable coverage" as any of the following (Sec. 302):
- Coverage under a qualified health benefit plan;
- Coverage that is offered and effective before the effective date of the Health Insurance Exchange;
- Coverage under an existing group health plan;
- Medicare or Medicaid coverage;
- Coverage for members of the armed forces and dependents, including Tricare;
- Coverage under the Veteran's Health Care Program; and
- Other health benefits coverage, including, but not limited to, a State health benefits risk pool that is recognized by the Health Choices Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, as being "acceptable coverage."//
This rule isn't limited to definition highlights. For example, if a bill establishes a new department or agency it is essential that you detail the specific functions of that entity. You may want to include even more specific information, such as who will oversee the new entity. When you want to include a high amount of detail it often helps to write more than one highlight. You don't have to include the minutiae, but you should to give the reader a complete understanding of the new entity. Here is an example: SB 71 from California during a special session in 2009. The bill abolishes an existing department and replaces it with the Delta Stewardship Council. The Council is then charged with establishing a "Delta Plan," which will govern the state's water policy in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. The following would **not** be acceptable highlights:
~& //- Establishes the Delta Stewardship Council (Sec. 39).//
~& //- Establishes the Delta Stewardship Council to regulate water policy in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta (Sec. 39).//
~& //- Establishes the Delta Stewardship Council, which is charged with adopting the Delta Plan (Sec. 39).//
None of the above highlights really state the details of the provision and a reader would be left with unanswered questions. If you think a provision that establishes an entity is worth a highlight, provide enough details about that entity for people to get a general idea of how it will operate. These were the final highlights for this bill, with respect to the Delta Stewardship Council:
~& //- Establishes the Delta Stewardship Council as an independent agency of the state, with a governing board consisting of the following members (Sec. 39):
- 4 members appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate;
- 1 member appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules;
- 1 member appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly; and
- The Chair of the Delta Protection Commission.//
~& //- Establishes the powers and duties of the Delta Stewardship Council, including, but not limited to, the following (Sec. 39):
- Develop, adopt, and commence implementation of the Delta Plan by January 1, 2012, for the purpose of restoring the Delta ecosystem and a reliable water supply;
- Employ the services of public, nonprofit, and private entities;
- Employ its own legal staff or contract with other state or federal agencies for legal services, or both;
- Receive funds from private and public sources;
- Disburse funds through grants, public assistance, loans, and contracts; and
- Comment on state agency environmental impact reports for projects outside of the Delta that the council determines will have a significant impact on the Delta.//
~& //- Requires the Delta Plan, adopted by the Delta Stewardship Council, to establish measures that promote the following (Sec. 39):
- Reasonable and beneficial uses of water;
- Sustaining the economic vitality of the state;
- Improving water quality to protect human health and the environment;
- Improving water quality to meet drinking water, agriculture, and ecosystem long-term goals;
- Effective emergency preparedness, appropriate land uses, and strategic levee investments;
- Statewide water conservation, water use efficiency, and sustainable use of water;
- Options for new and improved infrastructure relating to the water conveyance in the Delta and storage systems;
- Viable populations of native resident and migratory species;
- Functional corridors for migratory species;
- Diverse and biologically appropriate habitats and ecosystem processes;
- Reduced threats and stresses on the Delta ecosystem;
- Conditions conducive to meeting or exceeding the goals in existing species recovery plans and state and federal goals with respect to doubling salmon populations;
- Restoring large areas of interconnected habitats within the Delta and its watershed by 2100;
- Establishing migratory corridors for fish, birds, and other animals along selected Delta river channels;
- Restoring Delta flows and channels to support a healthy estuary and other ecosystems; and
- Restoring habitat necessary to avoid a net loss of migratory bird habitat and, where feasible, increase migratory bird habitat.//
Notice that it is divided into three highlights: one to detail who will be overseeing the Council, another to specify the powers and duties of the department, and one to describe the Delta Plan in detail. Not all highlights will contain this much detail. If summarizing the same bill, you may not have included all the details shown above. The thoroughness of your highlights is a judgment call on your part, provided that they are not extremely vague.
==Use of the "...including, but not limited to, the following..." Phrase==
Sometimes an attempt to include all of the specifics will result in a highlight that is too long. When you encounter this, especially in a subhighlight, you can use the phrase "including, but not limited to, the following." This allows you to include a great degree of detail while informing the reader that this is not an exhaustive description. Here is an example: S 2247 from Massachusetts during the 2010 session. This is one of the highlights from the summary (bolded for emphasis):
~& //- Authorizes superintendents and the Commissioner to institute various changes when establishing the "turnaround plan" for schools and school districts classified as "underperforming" or "chronically underperforming," after considering the recommendations of the group of stakeholders, **including, but not limited to, the following** (Sec. 3):
- Require the principal, administrator, and teachers to reapply for their positions, provided the superintendent has consulted applicable unions and does not dismiss or fail to rehire a teacher without "good cause";
- Limit, suspend, or change 1 or more provisions of any contract or collective bargaining agreement, provided the compensation of an administrator, teacher, or staff member is not reduced without proportionately reducing their hours;
- Expand, alter, or replace the curriculum of the school or district;
- Reallocate the funds of the existing budget of the school or district;
- Provide additional funds to the school from the district's budget if the school does not receive funding from the district at levels equal to the average per pupil funding received for students of the same classification and grade level in the district (this does not apply to school districts being classified as "chronically underperforming");
- Provide funds, subject to appropriation, to increase the salary of administrators or teachers;
- Expand the school day or school year;
- For elementary schools, add pre-kindergarten and full-day kindergarten classes; and
- Limit, suspend, or change 1 or more school district policies.//
Notice that it introduces the changes that may be instituted with the phrase ".including, but not limited to, the following" to indicate that additional changes could also be required beyond those listed.
==Citing Existing Law==
Sometimes legislation will require an explanation of how it affects existing law, and sometimes the provisions of existing law will be too extensive to explain in a bill summary. Here is an example: AB314 from California during a special session in 2009. This is one of the highlights (bolded for emphasis):
~& //- Prohibits the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from returning an individual back to prison for any parole violation if the individual was evaluated by the Department using a validated risk assessment tool and was determined not to pose a high risk to reoffend, unless one of the following applies (Sec. 316):
- The individual is required to register as a sex offender;
- The individual was imprisoned for or has a prior conviction for a serious violent felony (**§ 1192.7 & § 1192.8, Penal Code**);
- The individual was imprisoned for or has a prior conviction for a violent felony (**§ 667.5, Penal Code**);
- The individual was imprisoned for or has a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense (**§ 6600, Welfare and Institutions Code**);
- The individual was found guilty of a serious disciplinary offense during his or her time of imprisonment;
- The individual is a validated prison gang member or associate; or
- The individual refused to sign any written notification of parole requirements or conditions.//
Note that the highlight includes three citations of existing law. The highlight doesn't omit the categories of the offense, but it doesn't list the specific offenses that fall under that category. Instead, the citation allows a reader to look it up in existing law.
- NOTE: This policy should not be abused. Don't cite existing law simply because you don't want to look up the code and explain how it affects the legislation. If a good summary of the legislation requires coverage of existing law, do not hesitate to do so. If you think a citation of existing law would hinder one's ability to get a good understanding of the legislation, it's probably best to elaborate on the code that is being cited.
----
[[CategoryKeyVotes Key Votes Homepage]] | [[UTInternTraining Training Guide]] | [[SummaryWritingGuide Summary Writing Guide]] | [[VoteEnteringGuide Vote Entering Guide]] | [[CongressGuide Congress Guide]] | [[StatusUpdateGuide Status Update Guide]] | [[WebCheckGuide Web Check Guide]]
A highlight must contain something specific about a piece of legislation. A highlight should never be so vague that it raises questions rather than answering them. If you include a provision as a highlight, include the details of that provision. Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth including in the summary. Here is an example: HR 3962 from the U.S. Congress during 2009. This is a provision of the bill:
~& //(d) Individuals-//
~& //(1) INDIVIDUAL DESCRIBED- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this subsection, an individual described in this paragraph is an individual who—//
~& //(A) is not enrolled in coverage described in subparagraph (C) or (D) of paragraph (2); and//
~& //(B) is not enrolled in coverage as a full-time employee (or as a dependent of such an employee) under a group health plan if the coverage and an employer contribution under the plan meet the requirements of section 412.//
~& //For purposes of subparagraph (B), in the case of an individual who is self-employed, who has at least 1 employee, and who meets the requirements of section 412, such individual shall be deemed a full-time employee described in such subparagraph.//
~& //(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- For purposes of this division, the term `acceptable coverage' means any of the following://
~& //(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan.//
~& //(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER CURRENT GROUP HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 202) or under a current group health plan (described in subsection (b) of such section).//
~& //(C) MEDICARE- Coverage under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.//
~& //(D) MEDICAID- Coverage for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act, excluding such coverage that is only available because of the application of subsection (u), (z), (aa), or (hh) of section 1902 of such Act.//
~& //(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE)- Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including similar coverage furnished under section 1781 of title 38 of such Code.//
~& //(F) VA- Coverage under the veteran's health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code.//
~& //(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage, such as a State health benefits risk pool, as the Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, recognizes for purposes of this paragraph.//
Notice that the provision includes a definition of "acceptable coverage." Therefore, if you were to highlight this definition, you must include the definition itself. These two highlights, or some variation thereof, would **not** be acceptable:
~& //- Defines "acceptable coverage" (Sec. 302).//
~& //- Specifies health benefit plans that are considered "acceptable coverage" (Sec. 302).//
Both of these highlights would immediately raise questions about the details of the definition. Without the details, the highlight isn't useful. If you feel that a definition is worth highlighting, then include the full definition. This is the final version of the highlight:
~& //- Defines "acceptable coverage" as any of the following (Sec. 302):
- Coverage under a qualified health benefit plan;
- Coverage that is offered and effective before the effective date of the Health Insurance Exchange;
- Coverage under an existing group health plan;
- Medicare or Medicaid coverage;
- Coverage for members of the armed forces and dependents, including Tricare;
- Coverage under the Veteran's Health Care Program; and
- Other health benefits coverage, including, but not limited to, a State health benefits risk pool that is recognized by the Health Choices Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, as being "acceptable coverage."//
This rule isn't limited to definition highlights. For example, if a bill establishes a new department or agency it is essential that you detail the specific functions of that entity. You may want to include even more specific information, such as who will oversee the new entity. When you want to include a high amount of detail it often helps to write more than one highlight. You don't have to include the minutiae, but you should to give the reader a complete understanding of the new entity. Here is an example: SB 71 from California during a special session in 2009. The bill abolishes an existing department and replaces it with the Delta Stewardship Council. The Council is then charged with establishing a "Delta Plan," which will govern the state's water policy in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. The following would **not** be acceptable highlights:
~& //- Establishes the Delta Stewardship Council (Sec. 39).//
~& //- Establishes the Delta Stewardship Council to regulate water policy in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta (Sec. 39).//
~& //- Establishes the Delta Stewardship Council, which is charged with adopting the Delta Plan (Sec. 39).//
None of the above highlights really state the details of the provision and a reader would be left with unanswered questions. If you think a provision that establishes an entity is worth a highlight, provide enough details about that entity for people to get a general idea of how it will operate. These were the final highlights for this bill, with respect to the Delta Stewardship Council:
~& //- Establishes the Delta Stewardship Council as an independent agency of the state, with a governing board consisting of the following members (Sec. 39):
- 4 members appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate;
- 1 member appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules;
- 1 member appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly; and
- The Chair of the Delta Protection Commission.//
~& //- Establishes the powers and duties of the Delta Stewardship Council, including, but not limited to, the following (Sec. 39):
- Develop, adopt, and commence implementation of the Delta Plan by January 1, 2012, for the purpose of restoring the Delta ecosystem and a reliable water supply;
- Employ the services of public, nonprofit, and private entities;
- Employ its own legal staff or contract with other state or federal agencies for legal services, or both;
- Receive funds from private and public sources;
- Disburse funds through grants, public assistance, loans, and contracts; and
- Comment on state agency environmental impact reports for projects outside of the Delta that the council determines will have a significant impact on the Delta.//
~& //- Requires the Delta Plan, adopted by the Delta Stewardship Council, to establish measures that promote the following (Sec. 39):
- Reasonable and beneficial uses of water;
- Sustaining the economic vitality of the state;
- Improving water quality to protect human health and the environment;
- Improving water quality to meet drinking water, agriculture, and ecosystem long-term goals;
- Effective emergency preparedness, appropriate land uses, and strategic levee investments;
- Statewide water conservation, water use efficiency, and sustainable use of water;
- Options for new and improved infrastructure relating to the water conveyance in the Delta and storage systems;
- Viable populations of native resident and migratory species;
- Functional corridors for migratory species;
- Diverse and biologically appropriate habitats and ecosystem processes;
- Reduced threats and stresses on the Delta ecosystem;
- Conditions conducive to meeting or exceeding the goals in existing species recovery plans and state and federal goals with respect to doubling salmon populations;
- Restoring large areas of interconnected habitats within the Delta and its watershed by 2100;
- Establishing migratory corridors for fish, birds, and other animals along selected Delta river channels;
- Restoring Delta flows and channels to support a healthy estuary and other ecosystems; and
- Restoring habitat necessary to avoid a net loss of migratory bird habitat and, where feasible, increase migratory bird habitat.//
Notice that it is divided into three highlights: one to detail who will be overseeing the Council, another to specify the powers and duties of the department, and one to describe the Delta Plan in detail. Not all highlights will contain this much detail. If summarizing the same bill, you may not have included all the details shown above. The thoroughness of your highlights is a judgment call on your part, provided that they are not extremely vague.
==Use of the "...including, but not limited to, the following..." Phrase==
Sometimes an attempt to include all of the specifics will result in a highlight that is too long. When you encounter this, especially in a subhighlight, you can use the phrase "including, but not limited to, the following." This allows you to include a great degree of detail while informing the reader that this is not an exhaustive description. Here is an example: S 2247 from Massachusetts during the 2010 session. This is one of the highlights from the summary (bolded for emphasis):
~& //- Authorizes superintendents and the Commissioner to institute various changes when establishing the "turnaround plan" for schools and school districts classified as "underperforming" or "chronically underperforming," after considering the recommendations of the group of stakeholders, **including, but not limited to, the following** (Sec. 3):
- Require the principal, administrator, and teachers to reapply for their positions, provided the superintendent has consulted applicable unions and does not dismiss or fail to rehire a teacher without "good cause";
- Limit, suspend, or change 1 or more provisions of any contract or collective bargaining agreement, provided the compensation of an administrator, teacher, or staff member is not reduced without proportionately reducing their hours;
- Expand, alter, or replace the curriculum of the school or district;
- Reallocate the funds of the existing budget of the school or district;
- Provide additional funds to the school from the district's budget if the school does not receive funding from the district at levels equal to the average per pupil funding received for students of the same classification and grade level in the district (this does not apply to school districts being classified as "chronically underperforming");
- Provide funds, subject to appropriation, to increase the salary of administrators or teachers;
- Expand the school day or school year;
- For elementary schools, add pre-kindergarten and full-day kindergarten classes; and
- Limit, suspend, or change 1 or more school district policies.//
Notice that it introduces the changes that may be instituted with the phrase ".including, but not limited to, the following" to indicate that additional changes could also be required beyond those listed.
==Citing Existing Law==
Sometimes legislation will require an explanation of how it affects existing law, and sometimes the provisions of existing law will be too extensive to explain in a bill summary. Here is an example: AB314 from California during a special session in 2009. This is one of the highlights (bolded for emphasis):
~& //- Prohibits the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from returning an individual back to prison for any parole violation if the individual was evaluated by the Department using a validated risk assessment tool and was determined not to pose a high risk to reoffend, unless one of the following applies (Sec. 316):
- The individual is required to register as a sex offender;
- The individual was imprisoned for or has a prior conviction for a serious violent felony (**§ 1192.7 & § 1192.8, Penal Code**);
- The individual was imprisoned for or has a prior conviction for a violent felony (**§ 667.5, Penal Code**);
- The individual was imprisoned for or has a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense (**§ 6600, Welfare and Institutions Code**);
- The individual was found guilty of a serious disciplinary offense during his or her time of imprisonment;
- The individual is a validated prison gang member or associate; or
- The individual refused to sign any written notification of parole requirements or conditions.//
Note that the highlight includes three citations of existing law. The highlight doesn't omit the categories of the offense, but it doesn't list the specific offenses that fall under that category. Instead, the citation allows a reader to look it up in existing law.
- NOTE: This policy should not be abused. Don't cite existing law simply because you don't want to look up the code and explain how it affects the legislation. If a good summary of the legislation requires coverage of existing law, do not hesitate to do so. If you think a citation of existing law would hinder one's ability to get a good understanding of the legislation, it's probably best to elaborate on the code that is being cited.
----
[[CategoryKeyVotes Key Votes Homepage]] | [[UTInternTraining Training Guide]] | [[SummaryWritingGuide Summary Writing Guide]] | [[VoteEnteringGuide Vote Entering Guide]] | [[CongressGuide Congress Guide]] | [[StatusUpdateGuide Status Update Guide]] | [[WebCheckGuide Web Check Guide]]
