amendment: 2024-A4 Clubs Manager Co-signatory to prevent deadlock with Activate Policy (Primary Signatories)

[sunsetkookaburra]

Rationale

• This is to bring practice in-line with current ActivateUTS policies and procedures.
• The constitution currently mentions Secretary (now CEO), but they will only act in extraordinary circumstances...
• According to ActivateUTS policy, there must be one "Primary Signatory" (Pres or as elected; not for the time being or acting) for every transaction;
  • Basically this ensures a UTS student is accountable, as President + Treasurer must be students at time of election according to Activate.
• If either Primary signatory are absent, we would need the Clubs Manager to co-sign to approve the transaction otherwise it would be blocked (and therefore unable to resolve any debts). Despite the constitution investing transaction ability in any two trustees.
• A vote by the Executive Committee to request the Clubs Manager's signature would resolve the 'crisis'

[tomchristmas]

1. Who provides the written explanation to whom?
2. A written explanation for what purpose?
3. What circumstances would arise that would necessitate involving the Clubs Manager?

[sunsetkookaburra]

Who provides the written explanation to whom?

Not currently explicit - it will be from the Executive Committee.

A written explanation for what purpose?

So that the Clubs Manager can use their discretion as to whether it is appropriate for them to act in place of another Executive.

What circumstances would arise that would necessitate involving the Clubs Manager?

According to ActivateUTS policy, there must be one "Primary Signatory" for every transaction (basically to ensure a UTS student is accountable, as President + Treasurer must be students at election according to Activate).
So if either are absent, we would need the Clubs Manager to co-sign to approve the transaction otherwise it would be blocked and we couldn't resolve any debts.

A previous alternative to this amendment mentioned the two trustees "involving at least the President or Treasurer".
I think I'll update the amendment accordingly given my explanation here.

Thanks @tomchristmas for making sure we properly consider the deeper consequences / reasons for these amendments, and make it explicit too.