Inertial stupidity—and SOCCCD agendas

     I don't know about you, but I often find myself looking at a sheet of so-called information or, say, a form that I've gotta fill out and then experiencing puzzlement or annoyance at its evident stupidity.
     Usually I am dealing with something that many other people must deal with all of the time: a registration form, a set of instructions, etc. But then I think: if many people encounter this thing, and if this thing is stupid, then why hasn't it been changed?
     And yet, there it is before me, quietly being stupid. There are no indications of any movement to correct the situation. One might say that the situation's stupidity and intolerability possesses great inertia. And that is frustrating. Even perplexing.
     Earlier today, I was compelled to register on a website for my car insurance. At one point, I was asked to provide a number. A graphic clearly indicated where that number could be found. And so I gave them that number.
     But no. They didn't want that number. They wanted that number plus the numbers before it and after it. 
     This time I was lucky. I figured out what they wanted right away. I muttered, "morons," and then continued.
     At another point, I was told to choose between options supposedly listed before me. But as far as I could tell, there was only once choice available to me. There were no options.
     You know what I'm talking about. (No?) This sort of thing can mess you up.

* * *

     Now let's consider the agenda for SOCCCD board of trustees meetings. Until recently, the agenda was prepared by that under-educated yet self-important evil homunculus known as Raghu P. Mathur. And so I was not surprised that the board agenda often exhibited stupidity. I was, however, continually amazed that Mathur's regular idiocies, sprinkled over everything he touched, did not more often and more intensely inspire obloquy or vituperation!
     I just don't get it.
     For instance, consider this small matter. Individual trustees may request attendance of (at) conferences. Upon someone's making such a request, the board as a whole will approve, or fail to approve, the request by majority vote.
     The situation isn't complex. Some of these conferences are far away and thus entail expensive travel; further, lodging for these conferences can be expensive. Hence, at times, significant amounts of taxpayer money are at stake. And so, naturally, a trustee "requests" attendance at a conference—that is, he doesn't just up and go, expecting the district to pay. The board must decide whether to grant the request.
     Now, in fact, during some months, no "trustee conference" item appears on the agenda. That makes sense. Perhaps no trustee made a request!
     But, during other months, there is a "trustee conference requests" item.
     Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's pretty plain how this should work. If no trustee requests attending a conference, then there will be no item on the agenda. But when a trustee seeks to attend a particular conference, then, of course, there must be an agenda item.
     The item, naturally, would provide the following information:

(1) The identity and nature of the conference
(2) The expense to the district (i.e., the taxpayer) per trustee attending
(3) The identity of the trustee or trustees who seek to attend that conference (and thus the number of probable board attendees)

     It ain't rocket science.
     Now, in Roy World, it would go like this. A trustee seeks to attend conference C. It wouldn't matter whether he has already registered for the conference. After all, his attending the conference hinges on board approval, and that has not yet been granted. If trustee T were to have already registered for a particular conference, and if his proposal or request to attend it failed to be approved, then he'd just have to unregister.
     But none of the logic of Roy World seems to hold for the people, whoever they might be, who produce SOCCCD board agendas--and, I guess, for our mostly uncomplaining trustees.
     It's alienatin'!

     Until March of 2010, the information ("exhibit") that was attached to "trustee conference request" agenda items always looked like this:

     Already, my brain hurts.

     First: the heading reads, "trustee attendance at conferences and meetings." That's all wrong. This item is not reporting trustee attendance at conferences. Rather, it is supposed to provide information useful in determining whether a particular request should be honored. What sort of bonehead wrote this? The heading should be, "Trustee requests to attend conferences and meetings."

     Isn't that obvious? Am I crazy, or what?

     Second: the heading is followed by an introductory phrase—namely, "trustees wishing to attend." That makes sense. After all, it would be good to know who is making the request (if, for instance, that person has abused this privilege in the past). At any rate, the number of trustees requesting attendance of that conference is important to know. Obviously.

     Plainly, what should come next is a list of trustees, namely, those wishing to attend some conference or other.

     But no. No such list is provided.

     I don't get it. Maybe I've got some kind of syndrome or something. I do get spasms and tics sometimes. To me, if you write, "trustees wishing to attend," followed by a colon, then the next thing you write ought to be the names of trustees.

     What we get instead is a list of "events" (i.e., conferences), the dates of the conference, and the cost per trustee. No trustee names appear. Not even the number of trustees requesting attendance of the conference is provided.

     I've been at board meetings in which a trustee has requested that information: Who requested this? —You wouldn't believe it. All sorts of contortions and gyrations ensue to disguise that person's identity. At times, when the pesky requester (Nancy) simply will not back off, that produces a vague indication that, well, no trustee plans to attend. Oh.

     But then why was there an item on the agenda?

     Here, I believe, is the key question that inquiring minds (e.g., members of the community who dislike government waste and inefficiency) want answered. Is there a trustee who seeks to attend this conference? If so, who is she? How can it be that an item described as "trustee requests to attend a conference" is approved — and yet no member of the audience (in the Ronald Reagan Room or TV Land) knows whether any of the trustees will be attending that conference? 

     But hey, I've been there. It's Orwellian. 

     Or is it merely Bauerian?

     For some reason, starting in March (of 2010), the format of the information ("exhibit") changed. It then looked like this:

     Again, there's that bizarre heading, which seems to describe or report trustee attendance when it should be referring to trustees, the conferences they seek to attend, and the cost of their attending.

     The heading should be: "trustee requests." Something like that. It shouldn't be idiotic or moronic.

     (If these people had any imagination, they'd choose, say, "my left nut" or "puppy ears" as a heading. Idiotic but fun.)

     And, again, there's the phrase "trustees wishing to attend," followed by a colon. 

     And, again, the expected list of friggin' trustees does not appear. On the contrary. Look at the information provided. It is that "none" of the trustees has requested attendance of these two conferences (see).

     But then, why is there an agenda item at all? I am contemplating suicide.

     It gets worse. We are informed that "none" of the trustees will be attending. What?

     When I read something like this, I feel that I have entered Bizarro World. I'm inclined to shout, "what the hell is this?! What the F*CK is going on here?!" 

     Am I alone? Am I a nut? I do love puppy ears.

     In April and May, no "trustee requests" item appeared on the board agenda. Again, presumably, this suggested that no trustee indicated (to the Chancellor) an interest in attending any conferences. OK then.

     But then, in June, a "trustee request" item appeared. Here's the "exhibit" that accompanied that item.

     Yep, it was back to March's Bizarro World. 

     Stupid!

     That brings us up to July and Monday's meeting. There is indeed an agenda item for "trustee requests" on the July agenda. (Find the agenda here. See the box at the right.)

     Here's the "exhibit" that accompanies the item. It sports a spankin' new format:

     Good grief.
     Note the same bizarre heading and introductory phrase. F*ck.
     Arguably, the bizarrotude has diminished, for we are no longer told that none of the trustees is interested in attending or indeed will be attending these conferences.
     Oh good. The world is right again.
     But no. It remains wrong. Instead, we're informed how many trustees have "registered" per conference.
     I don't get it. What difference does it make that Trustee T has or has not registered for conference C? Suppose he has registered. So what? Now the board must decide whether he should be supported in attending that conference.
     And suppose he has not registered. Again, so what?! Maybe he's holding back on registering until he gets approval! That seems sensible. Or maybe, upon hearing about this conference, he or she will seek to attend.
     Why isn't this goddam "exhibit" simply and clearly telling us what we f*cking need to know--namely, which trustee seeks to attend this freakin' conference!?
     You watch. On Monday, Nancy or somebody will ask, "So who wants to go to this stupid Orlando Mickey Mouse Club thing?"
     And I betcha she won't be told. Not clearly, anyway. It'll be a cloud of dust. Or another, "Nobody wants to go. Maybe."
     But the item will pass.
     And I will return to my tidy cave, far far away from Bizarro World. Like Puff the goddam' magic dragon.