Starring Agenda Items: A Practical Governance Tool, Not a Substitute for Deliberation
[THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ORIGINAL LINKEDIN POST*]
Most boards and committees have a familiar problem: too much business, not enough meeting time, and a limited number of hours in which directors, councillors or committee members can give proper attention to the matters that genuinely require judgement.
One practical response is the use of starred and unstarred agenda items. In simple terms, items marked with a star are discussed at the meeting. Items left unstarred are dealt with together, usually by being noted, received or approved en bloc, without separate discussion, unless a member asks for an item to be brought forward for discussion.
The practice is most commonly seen in university council, academic board and similar committee settings, although the underlying discipline is familiar to many company boards through the related concept of a consent agenda or block agenda. Used well, it can improve meeting focus. Used poorly, it can create confusion, weaken discipline around decision-making and make life unnecessarily difficult for the chair and company secretary.
Starring, consent agendas and the language problem
The first point is terminology. In many organisations that use this process, a starred item is an item for discussion, and an unstarred item is one that may be dealt with without discussion. That is not the only possible convention, but it is a common one and should be expressly defined in the organisation’s meeting procedure.
This makes starring closely related to the consent agenda. A consent agenda groups routine, non-controversial matters so that they can be dealt with by one motion and one vote, while preserving the right of any member to remove an item for separate consideration. Starring is, in effect, a marking system that identifies which items remain outside that en bloc process.
Julie Garland McLellan’s* observation that starring can look like a reverse version of the consent agenda is therefore well made. The underlying governance question is not whether the organisation uses the words ‘starred’, ‘unstarred’, ‘consent agenda’ or ‘block agenda’. The question is whether the procedure makes it clear which matters will be discussed, which matters will be dealt with together, who can require discussion, and how the resulting decisions will be recorded.
Why organisations use starring
The attractions are obvious. Starring can help a board or committee concentrate on the items that require explanation, scrutiny, challenge, debate or decision. It can also reduce the time spent on routine reports, administrative approvals, previous minutes, standard compliance confirmations and other matters that have been properly prepared but do not require oral presentation.
This matters because agendas are not merely lists. They allocate attention. A well-constructed agenda helps the chair lead the meeting, helps members prepare, helps management understand what is being asked of the board, and helps the secretary record decisions accurately. The ACNC’s guidance for charity meetings describes the agenda as the running order of the meeting and encourages agendas to identify what is to be discussed, who will lead the discussion, the likely time for each item and whether the item is for decision, noting, advice or discussion. The same discipline applies beyond charities.
The Governance Institute’s guidance on board papers makes the same point in another way. Board papers should clearly specify what the board or committee is being asked to do, and policies and guidelines for board papers should be fit for purpose for the organisation. Starring works best when it is part of that broader discipline: a clear paper, a clear purpose, a clear recommendation, and a clear meeting process.
The governance risk: efficiency must not displace judgement
The danger is that a time-saving device becomes a substitute for judgement. That should never happen.
A board does not discharge its responsibilities merely because a matter was placed on an unstarred list and approved with a group of other items. Directors and committee members still need to read the papers, understand what is being asked, consider whether they have enough information, identify conflicts, and decide whether the matter requires discussion.
This is particularly important for company boards. Australian company law requires proper records of directors’ meetings and resolutions. AICD material on directors’ meetings also emphasises that board decision-making is not simply a process of confirming consensus. Directors must be able to communicate their views and have those views taken into account, and accurate minutes are needed where directors support, oppose or abstain from a resolution. The ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations also recognise the company secretary’s role in supporting board effectiveness, coordinating timely board and committee papers, monitoring that board and committee procedures are followed, and ensuring that business at meetings is accurately captured in minutes.
For APRA-regulated institutions, the broader governance overlay is even more explicit. APRA’s CPS 510 requires a sound governance framework and recognises that the ultimate responsibility for oversight of sound and prudent management rests with the board. That does not prescribe agenda mechanics, but it reinforces the point: process convenience cannot replace careful oversight.
What should never be treated as merely routine?
A starring process should be conservative about what is left unstarred. Routine does not mean easy. A matter can be familiar and still material. A paper can be short and still significant. A compliance confirmation can be routine until it is not.
As a working rule, the following matters should ordinarily be starred for discussion unless the chair, the board and the secretary are satisfied there is a sound reason to do otherwise: material strategic decisions; significant capital expenditure or financing decisions; major contracts; acquisitions, disposals or restructures; matters involving material financial, legal, operational, cyber, safety, prudential, conduct, reputation or compliance risk; related-party matters; actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest; significant policy changes; regulator correspondence requiring board attention; whistleblowing, complaints or misconduct matters requiring board oversight; CEO, senior executive or remuneration matters; and matters on which members are likely to have different views.
Minor updates to policies may be suitable for en bloc approval where they are genuinely administrative, tracked clearly and explained properly. But a policy update that changes risk appetite, delegation, accountability, employee obligations, customer outcomes, member rights or regulatory compliance settings should not be treated as a routine housekeeping item simply because the paper is labelled ‘policy update’.
The run sheet problem
The strongest practical objection to starring is the one raised in response to the original LinkedIn post: if the final decision about what will be discussed is left until the start of the meeting, the chair’s run sheet can become unstable at the very moment it is most needed.
A good run sheet does more than repeat the agenda. It helps the chair manage time, introduce items, confirm conflicts, invite presenters, frame decisions, test whether the meeting is ready to decide, identify resolutions and move cleanly between open, confidential and in-camera sessions. If multiple items move from discussion to en bloc approval, or from en bloc approval to discussion, the sequencing, timing, presenter attendance and minute-taking plan may need to change on the fly.
That does not make starring unworkable. It does mean the process should be designed to avoid unnecessary surprise. The better practice is to settle the proposed starred and unstarred items before the agenda is issued, while allowing members to request that additional items be starred before the meeting and, if necessary, at the start of the meeting. The meeting should not be the first time the chair and secretary discover that several apparently routine items require substantial debate.
A better model: pre-meeting discipline with an in-meeting safety valve
A robust process usually has three layers.
First, the chair and secretary, with input from the CEO and relevant executives, classify items before the pack is circulated. The classification should reflect materiality, complexity, likely sensitivity, required decision type, time needed, conflicts, regulatory significance, and the quality of the supporting paper. The default for borderline matters should be discussion.
Second, the agenda and papers should go out with the proposed classification clearly shown. Members should be invited to request that any unstarred item be starred by a practical deadline before the meeting. The deadline should not remove the right to raise a genuine issue at the meeting, but it encourages preparation and protects the run sheet.
Third, the chair should confirm at the start of the meeting whether any further items are to be starred. If any member requests discussion of an item that is otherwise proposed for en bloc treatment, the request should ordinarily be accepted without requiring the member to justify themselves. This is one of the safeguards that prevents the process from suppressing legitimate challenge.
How to document the procedure
If starring is used, it should not be a private custom known only to a few long-serving members. It should be captured in a board or committee charter, standing orders, meeting procedure document or board paper policy. The procedure should answer, at a minimum, the following questions:
1. What does a star mean? Is a starred item for discussion, or does the organisation use the reverse convention?
2. Who initially classifies items — the chair, the secretary, the CEO, committee chair, or some combination?
3. What kinds of matters must generally be starred?
4. What kinds of matters may be included in an unstarred or consent section?
5. When can members request that an item be starred?
6. Is a request to star an item accepted automatically, or subject to the chair’s ruling?
7. How are conflicted items, confidential items and in-camera items handled?
8. What wording will be used for the motion to adopt, approve, receive or note the unstarred items?
9. How will the minutes identify the items dealt with en bloc and the resolutions passed?
10. How often will the board review whether the process is working?
Minuting the outcome
The minutes do not need to record every piece of meeting choreography, but they do need to record the proceedings and decisions accurately. Where unstarred items are adopted, approved, received or noted en bloc, the minutes should identify the item numbers and the precise outcome for each item or group of items. It is especially important to distinguish between noting and approval. An item received for information has not been approved simply because it appeared in the pack.
Where an unstarred item contains a resolution, the resolution should be clearly stated either in the minutes or by cross-reference to the paper or agenda in a way that leaves no ambiguity about what was decided. Where a member votes against, abstains, asks that their dissent be recorded, declares a conflict, leaves the meeting, or is excluded from the item, the minutes should record that in accordance with the organisation’s usual practice and applicable law.
A simple minute might say: ‘The Chair invited members to identify any additional agenda items requiring discussion. Items 4.2 and 7.1 were starred for discussion. The Board resolved to approve the recommendations in items 2.1, 2.2, 5.3 and 6.1, and to note items 3.1 and 3.2, each as set out in the agenda papers.’ That approach is often clearer than a vague statement that ‘all unstarred items were approved’.
When the practice suits — and when it does not
Starring is most useful for larger boards, councils and committees with extensive agendas, high volumes of routine reports, mature paper discipline and a chair who is comfortable managing procedure. It may be less useful for smaller boards where most items benefit from direct discussion, where meeting papers are inconsistent, where the board is dealing with a period of heightened risk, or where the board culture is already too passive.
There is no magic number at which starring becomes appropriate. A board of nine may not need it. A council of 16 may find it essential. The relevant considerations are the volume and nature of business, the maturity of meeting disciplines, the chair’s style, the members’ expectations, the organisation’s legal framework, and whether the process improves or inhibits proper discussion.
Practical checklist
Before adopting starring, a board or committee should ask itself the following practical questions:
Are we trying to improve the quality of discussion, or merely shorten the meeting?
Do our papers clearly state whether each item is for decision, noting, discussion or information?
Are routine items genuinely routine?
Will any member be able to require discussion of an item without embarrassment or friction?
Will the chair and secretary know soon enough to prepare a reliable run sheet?
Are presenters told which items are likely to be discussed?
Do the minutes clearly distinguish approval, noting, receipt and deferral?
Have we trained new members in how the process works?
Will we review the process after a few meetings?
Conclusion
Starring agenda items can be a useful governance tool. It can help a board spend less time on the mechanical and more time on the material. It can also help large governing bodies avoid spending precious meeting time on matters that have been properly prepared, are genuinely routine and require no discussion.
But it is not a substitute for judgement. It should not be used to hide difficult issues, rush decisions, discourage challenge, or retrospectively tidy up an overloaded agenda. The best version of the practice is not last-minute starring at the start of the meeting. It is thoughtful pre-meeting classification, transparent member rights, disciplined papers, a reliable run sheet, and accurate minutes.
Like many aspects of good governance, the value lies less in the label and more in the discipline behind it.
Governance in Action can assist
Governance in Action Pty Ltd can assist clients with setting agendas, preparing run sheets, all aspects of meeting procedure and minuting (amongst a host of meeting-related activities – see gia.net.au).
David Cantrick-Brooks FGIA FCG, Principal & Director of Governance in Action Pty Ltd, would be pleased to assist with enquiries. Please feel free to reach out via LinkedIn or via gia.net.au.
AI-assisted tools and techniques were used here to support the research, drafting and editing of this publication. Responsibility for the final content rests with David Cantrick-Brooks.
Whilst accounting and legal terms and references may be contained in this publication, it does not constitute or purport to be or represent accounting or legal advice of any kind – whatsoever. Readers should seek their own professional advice.
* The original LinkedIn post was published on Tuesday, 7 July 2026, with feedback kindly received from a number of individuals.
