I think the issue seems to be that the secretary appears to have been paid, through his company, for work done as secretary, which can only be done retrospectively via a motion at the AGM.
The conflict of interest in hiring someone who might be the best person for the job but who also happens to be secretary should have been addressed at a strata committee meeting and minuted in the interests of transparency.
I have a feeling this looks a lot dodgier than it may actually be.