Breaking: Committee Formed to Discuss Formation of Committee to Address Problem

CAPITOL RIDGETOP, USA — In a bold move to create the appearance of motion without risking the dangers of progress, leaders today announced the formation of a Select Exploratory Pre-Committee on Committee Creation, charged with determining the feasibility of establishing a Joint Task Group on Potential Solutions to a problem that remains confidential, undefined, and—per sources—“tense in a nonspecific way.” The announcement arrived via a tri-fold brochure and a press conference that began 26 minutes late to maintain tradition and mystery.

Aides describe the objective as “structure-forward governance.” Citizens describe it as “a sandwich with more napkins than bread.”

What Counts as a Committee (and Why We Needed Another One)

A committee, in classic civics, is a small, dignified assembly that turns nouns into verbs slowly. In modern practice, it’s a pop-up think tank with snack bowls. The new pre-committee will draft the mission statement for the meta-committee that will eventually draft the mission statement for the actual committee. It’s governance’s matryoshka doll: open it up and find a smaller meeting, plus a mint.

The First Meeting About a Meeting

The pre-committee convened in Conference Room B (Conference Room A is being studied). Members debated whether to sit in a circle (“egalitarian optics”) or a rectangle (“good for charts”). A three-hour dialogue produced consensus on a rounded rectangle, a compromise hailed as “historic, furniture-wise.”

A motion to approve an agenda sparked competing motions to approve a framework for an agenda about approving an agenda. A member proposed a “listening session” to listen to the idea of listening. The stenographer’s keyboard briefly smoked.

Evidence: Digital, Personal, Physical, Relationship, Scientific, Testimonial, and Trace

Digital evidence: The meeting’s livestream featured a progress bar that never moved yet somehow buffered. Viewers could download a 38-page PDF titled “Skeletal Overview of a Draft Scoping Memo,” mostly white space and hope.

Personal evidence: A junior staffer confided she feels “seen” by the pre-committee because it validates her passion for typing “circulate for visibility” under documents with no words.

Physical evidence: On the table: twelve identical water bottles, sixteen highlighters, and an untouched cheese plate sweating out its truth. Also, six stacks of sticky notes arranged by hue (“warm tones for urgency, cool tones for reflection”).

Relationship evidence: Two members who haven’t spoken since the 2019 Subcommittee on Pronouncing “Subcommittee” nodded at each other. This was recorded in the minutes as a “thaw event.”

Scientific evidence: Dr. Berit Ma, a political scientist at Red River State, presented a peer-reviewed model showing that each additional committee layer reduces decision velocity by 14% but increases performative reassurance by 31%. “It’s the bureaucracy equivalent of hugging yourself with a blanket made of calendars,” she said.

Testimonial evidence: A constituent outside the building said, “I don’t know what they’re deciding not to decide, but I’m glad they’re not rushing it.” He wore a T-shirt reading “Process > Product,” which may have been ironic or merch.

Trace evidence: Custodians found a trail of agenda drafts leading to a printer jam where a page read only: “WHEREAS…”

Expert Opinion: The Paradox of Procedural Courage

Dr. Ma calls the new body an example of Procedural Courage—the willingness to do something visible when all the invisible parts are terrifying. “It creates consensus around the idea that consensus shall someday be created,” she explained. “Like a save-the-date for problem-solving.”

Eyewitness Accounts, As Heard Through Thin Carpeting

An observer in the press row reported that one member spoke passionately for 11 minutes about “the need for clarity” without delivering a noun. Another requested a “values alignment check” to ensure the committee’s values aligned with forming the committee. A third read a land acknowledgment for the chairs, thanking “those who sat here before us, probably for similar reasons.”

A page carried in two binders labeled “Public Input.” Officials promised to open them once a sub-working group defines “open.”

Anonymous Staffer: “We’re Delivering Milestones, Not Miles”

A senior aide, insisting on anonymity to protect their lanyard access, explained the strategy. “People want outcomes,” they said, “but our analytics show they’ll accept outcomes-looking shapes. This pre-committee creates a milestone: the feeling of path.” Asked about timelines, the aide brightened: “We’re releasing a timeline about the timeline next quarter.”

The Poll That Took Itself Seriously

A Bohiney Magazine flash poll of 1,022 adults found:

• 58% “strongly support” committees in general, the way one supports soup.

• 24% prefer task forces because they sound like they’ll wear jackets.

• 12% believe a czar would be faster, 9% think a wizard would be fairest, and 5% wrote in “raccoon with a gavel.”
  Margin of error ±4.2%, roughly two sticky notes.

Cause and Effect (and the Side Effects They’ll Study Later)

Cause: Complex problem, high stakes, zero agreement.
Effect: Create a neutral zone where verbs feel safe.
Side effects:

• Short-term relief of urgency symptoms;

• Elevated levels of memo production;

• A mild rash of acronyms;

• A surge in “stakeholder mapping,” which is drawing circles until a grant arrives.

Deduction, Analogy, and Statistics You Can Quote in a Cab

By deduction, if accountability is scary and optics are free, committees are our national stress toy. By analogy, this is the airport moving walkway of policy—you’re technically advancing while standing still, waving at a Cinnabon you’ll never reach. Statistics from a retrospective on 112 federal and state committees show 31% produced recommendations, 14% produced laws, and 100% produced a commemorative group photo where someone blinked.

The Draft of the Draft (We Obtained It, It Sighed)

A leaked “Draft Objectives Draft” proposes the meta-committee will:

• Define the problem without using any nouns that might offend verbs;

• Solicit public comment via a platform that will crash in a democratic fashion;

• Produce a report with a cover as decisive as its contents are careful—white, with tasteful serif.

It also suggests a listening tour at hotel ballrooms with ice water that tastes like microphones.

Archival Footage & Grainy Cellphone Video

Archival tape from 1978 shows a regional board forming a subcommittee to study line dancing in civic ceremonies. They concluded, “It depends,” and were reappointed unanimously. In modern grainy phone video, today’s pre-committee adjourns after voting to adopt a Statement of Posture: concerned, agile, optimistic, and open to snacks.

Practical, Helpful Things (Because We Believe in Actionable Satire)

Set a Decision Floor. Every committee must ship one decision per meeting, even if the decision is “we will not use the word ‘framework’ this week.”

Institute the “Two Slides, One Verb” Rule. If your deck has more than two slides, the final slide must contain a sentence with a clear verb and a noun you could draw.

Public “Step Count.” Publish the number of steps between citizen input and actual policy. If the number exceeds 12, replace three steps with a plain-English paragraph and a phone number answered by a human with coffee.

Sunset the Meta. Any pre-committee sunsets automatically in 90 days unless it births something that can write a check, pour asphalt, or turn on a light.

Rotate a Raccoon. Not metaphorically. A literal raccoon in the room increases urgency and reduces euphemism by 19%. Nobody says “holistic paradigm alignment” when a small bandit is eyeing the biscotti.

What the Funny People Are Saying

“Committees are like ribs at a bad BBQ joint—lots of bones, no meat, and a line out the door.” — Ron White
“They formed a committee to discuss forming a committee. That’s not government; that’s a mirror maze with a dress code.” — Jerry Seinfeld
“I’ll join if there’s a subcommittee on leaving early.” — Larry David
“Our city has so many committees, I need a committee to remember which one I’m ignoring.” — Bill Burr
“Nothing says urgency like scheduling a meeting three Thursdays from now.” — Sarah Silverman
“We should appoint a feelings czar. Pay him in vibes and expired badges.” — Trevor Noah

The Human Moment (It Did Happen)

As cameras packed up, a clerk gathered abandoned name placards and lined them neatly in a shoebox. “I like order,” she said. “It’s not a decision, but it’s something.” In the hallway, two members who argued for an hour discovered they have the same birthday and the same dentist. They laughed, promised coffee, and briefly forgot which side they were on.

Conclusion: Milestones Without Miles, Yet

The Select Exploratory Pre-Committee on Committee Creation has not solved the problem—indeed, it refuses to define the problem until the proper committee exists to define it. And yet, something undeniably occurred: a record amount of caution was arranged into shapes. Perhaps progress begins as choreography: people moving chairs until the bones of a choice appear. Perhaps tomorrow someone writes one brave verb on a big sheet of paper, and everyone stares at it like the moon. Until then, we have a milestone: we noticed we were walking in circles, and we did so in an orderly fashion.

Disclaimer

This satirical report is a human collaboration between two sentient beings—the world’s oldest tenured professor and a philosophy major turned dairy farmer—who attended one pre-committee, two post-mortems, and a listening session about listening sessions. No laws were harmed; a few agendas were gently composted. Auf Wiedersehen, amigos.