Co. Judge is considering "streamlining" court by including on the agenda only those items that must be approved by the court. We often have "spread upon the minutes." Of course, we could continue to run everything through even when no action is required, but assuming the court agrees, what types of items would y'all suggest leaving out?

We have historically placed in the minutes only actions, votes by the Court. If a bunch of discussion takes place but no vote then no minutes on that. However, we have several items on the agenda that we will discuss but not take action. That is okay because we can discuss those items. If you streamline too much you run the risk of a discussion without an agenda item supporting it.

I think the safest course, in considering streamlining within the context of the Open Meetings Act, is to focus heavily upon the statute's definition of "deliberation" (a verbal exchange during a meeting between a quorum of a governmental body, or between a quorum of a governmental body and another person, concerning an issue within the jurisdiction of the governmental body or any public business). If it appears that a particular item will involve "deliberation," it should be included on the agenda (as Ray alludes to above). Obviously, formal action items also should be included. This leaves open the question of "recognition" items. We tend to include those items on the agenda, since we never know which ones will be the subject of the pontification or rant of the week. However, you may have a handle on how your court approaches those items, such that it may be safe to omit them. My approach very well may lead to the unnecessary deaths of trees, but I'm given to something of a belt-and-suspenders approach to open government statutes.

We were sued a few years ago under theon open meetings act and there was a case out of San Antonio, I believe, which held that even informational items could be the source of an open meetings violation if not properly posted. I will get the cite and post it forthwith.
It was a suit based on a violation that was not an "action item". Best I remember the court held that when a member of the governing body speaks at a open meeting on a subject that is considered "public business" and knows beforehand the topic will arise, the item should be posted with specificity; or something to that effect. I am looking for the cite now.

The case I was thinking of was "Hays County" 41 sw3d 174. I haven't Shepardized it lately.

My thought for what little it is worth: Leave out nothing unless you are NOT going to talk about it. That way when something comes up, you can really "streamline" the meeting by saying "Opps not on agenda" when someone starts talking, and then you can go home at a decent hour or back to work. Have nothing on the agenda and the meeting will be over even sooner.......................