Not every open action is a problem.
Boards and committees deal with complex matters and it’s evitable that some actions require external input, further analysis, legal advice, management review or more time than originally expected. There will always be actions that need to remain open across more than one meeting.
The issue is the action that keeps returning to the tracker with minor changes or explanation, and a new deadline that quietly replaces the old one.
That is the boomerang action. It leaves one meeting and returns to the next, carried forward so often that people stop questioning it. It becomes part of the meeting furniture rather than something that prompts discussion.
That is where governance can start to drift.
The action tracker is part of the governance record
Action trackers are sometimes treated as an administrative tool. A practical list of what was agreed at the last meeting.
They are that, but they are also much more than that.
A good action tracker shows whether decisions are being followed through. It shows whether accountability is clear and that the board or committee is receiving the assurance it asked for.
Used well, it makes clear what was agreed, who owns it, when it is due, and what has changed since the last meeting – including when an action is delayed, dependent on someone else, no longer relevant, or in need of escalation.
Without that discipline, actions can sit open for months without anyone asking whether they still make sense.
Where repeated actions go wrong
A repeated action can reveal several things.
Sometimes the original wording was too vague. “Review the policy” or “consider options” may sound acceptable in the room, but they rarely produce a clear outcome.
What does the board expect to receive back? Is it a recommendation, a revised document, a decision paper, confirmation of completion, or an update for assurance? If that is not clear when the action is agreed, it is unlikely to become clearer by the next meeting.
Sometimes the problem is ownership. An action allocated to “management” or a department may be well intentioned, but it dilutes accountability. One named person should be responsible for ensuring the action is progressed and that the board receives a meaningful update, even if they are not doing all the work themselves.
Sometimes it is timing. A deadline agreed too quickly, without enough thought to dependencies – external advice, another committee, a supplier, a future report, will keep slipping. A missed deadline is not always a failure. Without explanation, it becomes concerning.
When “ongoing” is not enough
Many actions are ongoing for good reason, but the word alone gives the board little to work with.
Weak: “Ongoing. LB to review in due course.”
Stronger: “Awaiting legal advice from [firm]. The policy has been updated internally and is now with legal for sign-off, expected to return to the September Board meeting for approval.”
That level of clarity helps the board understand whether the action is progressing, delayed for good reason, or blocked by a bottleneck that may need to be unpicked.
That is the difference between an action being open and an action drifting.
When an action needs to change
Sometimes the right response to a repeated action is not to carry it forward again.
Where the scope has changed following initial research, the original wording may need to be rewritten so the expected outcome is clear. If the work is broader than first thought, the action may need to be split into smaller parts. If responsibility now sits more naturally elsewhere, ownership should be reassigned.
In some cases, the action should move off the tracker and onto the agenda as an item.
This is often the point that gets missed. If an action keeps returning because it involves risk, finance, compliance, strategy, or unresolved assurance, it is unlikely to be suitable as a tracker item alone.
The board may need a proper paper, a recommendation, and a formal decision. It may need to understand the options, the risks, and the consequences of further delay.
That is part of managing governance risk.
Leaving the matter on the tracker can make it look as though it is being managed, when in reality it may be receiving too little attention. Over time, it risks becoming another “ongoing action” that stays visible but does not move forward.
Where the minutes and action tracker meet
The tracker records what was agreed and who owns it. The minutes record the discussion behind the update; the challenge, the escalation, the change in approach.
There will be times when the tracker still says “ongoing”, but the minutes provide the fuller picture: that legal advice is awaited, and the revised policy is expected back for approval. When an action keeps returning, the record should show what the board did about it. Whether it challenged the delay, agreed a new deadline, or asked for more assurance.
That is what shows the board was actively overseeing the issue, rather than letting it sit in the background.
The role of the Chair
The Chair has a key role in stopping actions becoming meeting furniture. That does not mean every open action needs lengthy debate, but the meeting should be clear about what is complete, delayed, escalated or ready to close.
A useful test: is the action still needed, is the wording still clear, does the owner remain the right person, has the deadline moved for a clear reason, and does the matter now need to come back as a paper rather than a tracker line.
Final thoughts
A repeated action is not automatically a sign of poor governance. Some matters are genuinely complex and need to stay visible until the board has the assurance it needs.
The issue is the boomerang action that returns without enough explanation.
When it does, the board should ask why and whether it now needs reframing, escalating, or moving onto the agenda.
That is why the boomerang action matters. It is rarely just an unfinished task returning to the next meeting. It is often one of the earliest signs that accountability needs closer attention.
Get In Touch
Get In Touch