Not literally; the idea may have come indirectly from CTTT's “quality work”.
My last Executive Committee (EC) meeting had 5 agenda items, all very vague, yet the meeting had 20 motions all of which were matters that did not flow from any of the vague agenda items. My EC introduce anything they like when they like and twice CTTT has considered the matter not worthy of a comment or an order.
The Act requires a detailed agenda and all sorts of other things but “It is not for a Strata Schemes Adjudicator to micro manage the affairs of an Owners Corporation” G Durie in SCS 11/28540.
What the Owners Corporation (OC) has an absolute duty to follow (comply with) in the Act is extremely limited* and as much as your agenda sounds inadequate and introducing matters to the meeting is out of order the chances of anyone (except those inside the SP) correcting the management defect is very remote.
It will only be when the non compliance has a serious affect that the compliance failure will be used as a reason to remedy whatever went wrong; then CTTT accept the failure as a defect worthy of note – it is also accepted as a significant defect if it is a way to get a case to go where a Member wants it to go.
“I accept in effect the applicant’s submission that before a decision can be made by the owners corporation whether at its general meeting or by its executive committee meeting there must be due notice.”
M Balding in Bales v The Owners Corporation SP 12303 (Strata and Community Schemes) [2009] NSWCTTT 296 (2 June 2009)
The above is not a universal rule – it should be but it isn't.
Having said that your Secretary is probably just running his/her meeting as if no statutory rules exist. It is being run as if it is a meeting under common law rules in which case matters can be introduced. Interesting is that at common law there is no need for an agenda.
If you are not getting the required 72 hours then CTTT normally look at what occurred at the meeting in determining if it will void anything – they do not care if the notice was late, non existent or lacking detail unless something of consequence came from the failure.
If you are asking yourself what is the point of the Act then the question may also be considered as what is the point of those overseeing the Act.
“but so what” is unfortunately the way many non compliance's are viewed.
“So what” is arguably one of the biggest problems in strata because the rules say one thing but the actions do not match them and it does not seem to matter – “so what” are the rules?
* you will never find a list of what is required and what is not required to be strictly adhered to but the “line in the sand” is always drawn by the likes of CTTT on a case to case basis – i.e. the line moves a lot so owners are kept guessing.