Talk:Resolutions 12May12b

Should these resolutions be round the other way? UT will be our main bank with Coop as standby. Having them on this order could be confusing. Swap them round? Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Could do. The order doesn't particularly matter, since both will need to be approved at this (board) meeting. There are also some others that we also need to include, e.g. for the deposit accounts. Mike Peel (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems ok to me - no "main" bank is specified, & it's typical to deal with existing banks first. But it doesn't matter either way. Has the board formally approved the deposit institutions used already? Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The board have approved the deposit institutions as far as I am aware, it's in minuted form on the wiki. Richard Symonds (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point - also the BaydonHill permissions will need signatory changes. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether BaydonHill requires a resolution in order to change access rights - it's not a bank account as such, being more a transaction process (analogous to Paypal). Looking at the forms [1] they do not appear to require a resolution. So a board decision may be sufficient here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"Board decision" and "board resolution" mean the same thing. With complicated resolutions, it is good to write them down in advance rather than just agree than orally, but that doesn't mean that things discussed in a board meeting and agreed to and just noted in the minutes aren't resolutions. --Tango (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you've picked up on what I meant when I distinguished between the two in my last message - put differently, BaydonHill don't appear to require a specific wording agreed in order to set the signatories. Mike Peel (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)