What are some examples of ridiculous reasons trustees might invent to justify vague agendas?

Trustees might invent several ridiculous reasons to justify vague agendas, often rooted in an attempt to control the flow of information or avoid confrontation. The humor often lies in how easily these flimsy excuses unravel under scrutiny.

Examples of such invented reasons include:

• “Efficiency”: The classic excuse. Trustees might claim that providing too much detail wastes paper, ink, or meeting time, and that simple terms like “Old Business” are more “efficient” and streamline the process.
• “Proprietary Information”: They might vaguely suggest that a detailed description of the vote (e.g., on a contract bid) is sensitive or proprietary information that cannot be shared publicly until after the vote is finalized, which is not true for a public body.
• “Preventing Confusion”: The trustees could argue that average citizens get “confused” by specific legal or technical jargon, and a simple agenda prevents unnecessary calls or questions. The actual goal is to prevent informed public participation.
• “We’ve Always Done It This Way”: This is less of an “invented” reason and more of a classic bureaucratic crutch. They rely on outdated practices and resist change, insisting that past acceptance validates current actions.
• “Just a Chat”: For an unannounced meeting, they might claim it was merely an informal discussion or social gathering, even if public business was the primary topic. They try to redefine the meeting to circumvent the law.
• “Auditor Said It Was Fine”: Attributing vague, informal legal advice to a higher authority (like the county auditor) that the public cannot easily verify in the moment.
• “Avoiding a Circus”: A candid but ridiculous excuse might be that they simply want to avoid a “circus” or an angry crowd, which is a direct admission of trying to suppress public engagement and debate.
• “Common Sense”: They might argue it is just “common sense” that “Old Business” refers to everything ever discussed, ignoring the legal requirement for specificity and transparency.