Building an Agenda – Back to Basics
Building an Agenda – Back to Basics
David Cantrick-Brooks | 27/03/2025

Agendas are a critical part of the decision-making process. One of the risks associated with building agendas is the unnecessary inclusion of items which do not actually require board attention and potentially consume time better spent on other things. Boards should review delegations of authority and charters to ensure that only items which actually require board attention are included. Boards should be focussed on the following core matters:

The front part of the agenda should include the following items:

  1. Welcome and any apologies
  2. Declarations of any changes to the register of material person interests (aka standing notice), plus any conflicts of interest that may pertain to the matters to be discussed
  3. Any late changes to the agenda (for example, as a consequence of a presenter being unavoidably delayed)

Agenda items are typically drawn from a wide range of sources, including the annual workplan, matters arising from previous minutes (aka actions register) and any specific requests received from directors and/or management.Reference to a previous agenda (at the same time of year) can be helpful, although not strictly necessary (if everything else is working as it should).

Themes in an annual board calendar could include:

* short-term and long-term

Note that the industry in which the company operates has a major bearing on agenda items – e.g. agendas for companies in the financial services industry tend to be very busy.

A board / committee meeting agenda is a roadmap for directors which outlines the items to be considered and in what order they will be discussed.It also includes the meeting's date, time, location (whether in-person, virtual or both), and the names and positions of those attending.

Committee agendas should reflect their individual charters, current workplans and prevailing issues / requests. Committees are established to assist the board by considering and making recommendations about particular matters and overseeing performance and compliance at a more granular level.All directors should not attend all committee meetings.

Allocate time for each agenda item (and stick to it!).The chair should ensure that the meeting runs smoothly and deals with all agenda items, encouraging contributions from every director (especially those who tend to be passive or reserved).

“Agenda creep”, where the agenda grows as new items are added but nothing comes off, is an issue for many boards.Boards should also be conscious of the amount of time spent looking back versus looking forward (strategy), with an emphasis on the latter.

Agendas are typically discussed and agreed between the secretary, relevant chair (board and committee), CEO and/or another responsible executive (in the case of committees).This can be a very time-consuming process and require many iterations, so start early!

The agenda-setting process can vary greatly depending on the organisation and the ways that things have been done in the past (for better or worse).Change can be difficult!

Papers should be clear and concise to ensure that the key issues are appropriately identified and addressed.More about this in a future blog.

Finally, it should be noted that agenda-building (and related) software is available to improve, streamline and automate manual processes.

NEED HELP?If you require assistance with creating an industry or sector-specific agenda for your organisation, or would like assistance to improve your current agenda(s), please contact us.We can also assist you in choosing and implementing an appropriate software solution – something appropriate for your organisation.

Additional Reading

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/balancedscorecard.asp

PreviousNext

Related Articles

Wearing Too Many Hats: When Combined Roles Become a Governance Risk

Combining the company secretary role with legal, finance, risk, compliance, internal audit or other executive responsibilities can be efficient and commercially sensible. The governance risk arises when one role compromises the purpose, objectivity, authority, capacity or effectiveness of another. This article examines the benefits of combined roles, the legal significance of actual responsibilities, board and chair reporting lines, self-review and assurance risk, segregation of duties, conflicts, client legal privilege, workload and psychosocial hazards, investigation protocols, and key-person dependence. It also provides a practical framework for boards to test whether a multiple-role structure remains fit for purpose and to design safeguards including direct board access, documented boundaries, critical control separations, independent assurance, conflict and recusal arrangements, privilege protocols, adequate resourcing and succession planning.

07/15/2026

Boardroom Attention: Making Better Use of Limited Meeting Time

Boards face more issues, information and regulatory expectations than ever, but meeting time remains finite. The answer is not a universal strategy-versus-compliance ratio or simply scheduling longer meetings. Boards should treat attention as a governance resource and design their workplans, agendas, papers, committees and meeting cadence around the decisions, assumptions, risks and opportunities that matter most. This article examines the limits of commonly cited board-time benchmarks and offers practical ways to improve meeting effectiveness. These include classifying agenda items by purpose, moving information transfer out of the meeting, improving board papers, using committees and consent agendas carefully, strengthening between-meeting escalation, applying secure technology and AI controls, and measuring outcomes rather than meeting length. The objective is not shorter meetings at any cost. It is to convert boardroom time from passive receipt of information into disciplined judgment, challenge, assurance and foresight.

07/13/2026

Independent Board Evaluations and Governance Reviews: From Assurance to Improvement

Independent board performance evaluations and independent governance reviews can provide boards with objective insight, specialist expertise and a disciplined basis for improvement. They are related but different: a performance evaluation examines how the board, committees, chair and directors work; a governance review examines the wider structures, decision rights, information flows and accountability systems around them. This article explains the Australian legal and regulatory position, including ASX Recommendation 1.6 and APRA’s June 2026 draft CPS 510, and sets out a practical approach to scope, reviewer independence, timing, methods, secure use of technology and follow-through. Its central message is simple: the report is not the result. Value is created when findings are prioritised, responsibilities and deadlines are assigned, implementation is evidenced and later reviews test whether the intended improvement occurred.

07/11/2026