Our organization sent out a letter to external bodies, and I saw it only after it was sent. I will change the names to protect the innocent, but I want you to see what you think of this sentence. I won't taint your thoughts by posting my reaction until you have chimed in.

The organization's letter referenced SB (senate bill) XXXX, which the XXXX House of Representatives is now considering companion legislation, which would eliminate the need for an internationally educated nurse, who had already passed the XXXX, from having to take the XXXX predictor examiniation to obtain a State of XXXX license to practice by endorsement.

I hope all the XXXXs don't ruin the ability to analyze the sentence. If not, what do you think?

The organization's letter referenced SB (senate bill) XXXX, which the XXXX House of Representatives is now considering companion legislation.

This would eliminate the need for an internationally educated nurse who has already passed the XXXX to take the XXXX predictor examination required to obtain a State of XXXX license to practice by endorsement.

That is my attempt at rewriting that letter. No doubt others here will be able to pare it down and improve it much better than I have.

I'm a little puzzled as to whether the House is now considering the bill to be companion legislation whereas previously it didn't(in which case I'd ask companion to what), or there is a "for" missing and the House is now considering some other, unnamed,legislation which will be companion to this bill.

Although I'm not sure my sentence above is any clearer than the one it comments on.

Bob, I will be honest. I have never gotten that "companion" part of the sentence. I think it should read "to be companion legislation." I do think there should be a "for" to explain what the companion legislation was for. This was sent out by our attorney, and is in an area that I am not completely familiar with. Still, it went out to legislators who aren't even nurses. If I don't get it, they surely won't.

But you see, it is so unclear with the 2 "whiches" and then the "who!" It is embarrassing to me that it was sent to the legislators to explain our position. That wasn't the only problem. In another section, with yet another "which," apparently Word placed an automatic comma before the "which" that quite obviously didn't belong.

My point is, as we have discussed here many times, that editing is so very important. This lack of clarity, along with technical errors, leads the reader to question our stance in a very important letter.

It is very common for subject experts to write very poor letters - which is hardly surprising since they are experts in their subject, not writers. Similarly, many experts are very poor public speakers.

Sadly this doesn't stop subject experts from writing badly or speaking badly since they do not appericiate their lack of skill.

I am a writer but always have my material proofed at least three times; would that others did the same.

Bob's reply is spot-on in my opinion. While it is awfully verbose, a "for," if appropriate, would clear it up for me.