I used to do this quite a bit in the past, for the exact reason Journeyman Geek on Strike mentioned:
We use meta in a few off-label ways - including announcements, and I'd argue in many of these situations, these posts should be seen as seeking input and discussion from the community, and these closures in general reflect both a feeling of that input and discussion being ignored and a certain taking the opportunity to 'get a quick kick in' at distant-seeming powers that be.
I would use the "This question does not appear to seek input and discussion from the community...." close reason when it appeared that not only was my position and the position of the announcement so different that we were almost in two different worlds, but that the announcement was written in a way as to indicate that a decision had already been made and that the post was simply an announcement. If the post was written as "This is what we are planning, but we're open to having our minds changed by high-quality prose arguments posted as answers.", then the question would not be closable.
Some have mentioned that using close votes in the way mentioned above is abuse. I might venture to claim the opposite, that using a Q&A system to make announcements that are not open to debate is an abuse and that those announcements can be made somewhere else, like the company blog.
SPArcheon correctly summarized my views. By posting here, on a site with a Q&A model, a staff member (or actually anyone) implicitly states that they are open to feedback through the answer system. When that poster actually is not open to feedback, that triggers the "does not appear to seek input and discussion from the community" close reason. The post is not genuine and does not meet the community's standards.
Think about it this way. We use the "does not appear to seek input and discussion" close reason extensively to close rant and rant-ish questions where the poster just wants to share with us how much they think the network, users, moderators, etc. suck and how dare we downvote and close their posts, etc. These users are not really open to feedback. They are using the site to share their preconceived feelings and views and these feelings and views are unlikely to change based on a few well-written answers. I don't think there are many people here who would disagree with this use of the close reason. Why should the posts of staff be held to a different standard, one where they are not required to be open to feedback in order to post? Rather, staff should lead by example, behaving as role models for the community and the behaviors they want the community to adopt.
How do we know whether or not a poster is open to feedback? This, like most things in moderation, is rarely explicit but must be understood from the totality of the interaction - the content of the post, the tone of the post, the social, political, etc. context the post is made in, and the user's past interactions with the network (if any). The posts of staff members, like those of others, are similarly evaluated by the community to determine if they are genuine requests for feedback or just staff members using (or abusing) the site to dump whatever content they feel onto the community.
Just to be clear, I don't want to make this a discussion about legal rights. Certainly, the company has the legal right to grant its own staff permission to post content that would otherwise be inappropriate and/or closable and to forcibly reopen or undelete questions closed or deleted by the community. My thoughts here are that the practice of moderation is not the practice of law and legal rights are irrelevant or at least tangential to how we vote on questions.
If the company wants a site where they can post anything they want and the community can't touch it, then it has its blog, or it can stand up a Stack-like site that looks like Meta Stack Exchange but that doesn't allow downvoting, closevoting, or any other behavior that staff find offensive. That's what a blog is for, for posting a person's opinions, insights, or views. Meta is not a blog.
If the company doesn't like the current community-driven Q&A model anymore and wants to abolish it in favor of one where the company decides what is high and what is low quality, what should get closed, etc., then it can make that change. The company should also expect that such a move would trigger another exodus.