There’s a (vaguely) interesting debate about CICs going on at the moment, in the pages of Regeneration & Renewal + Social Enterprise Magazine (forthcoming)….basically, some picking over some of the clauses in the memorandum and articles of the CIC structure, namely:

1) The requirement that the chair have a second vote in the case of
hung decisions

2) The requirement that ‘a director who is an alternative director
shall be entitled in the absence of his appointer to a separate vote
on behalf of his appointer in additional to his own vote

The point being that these clauses could, in order, 1) raise questions over the co-operative, solidarity nature of social enterprise and 2) a risk to good governance/self-responsibility [NB – I’m summarising heavily: see Adrian Ashton’s full piece on Social Catalyst’s blog]. The CIC regulator’s response (pdf) can be boiled down pretty much to "that’s not really that big an issue, but you’re not the only person to raise it and, seeing as they’re not really used or consequential (particularly the alternative director one), we’re going to recommend that the DTI consider removing those requirements". Again, this is heavily summarised, but you can get the whole story from the pdf.

Personally, I’m with Todd on this one (don’t obsess, move forward); as I said in a recent post, "the less time spent debating these (minor) internal issues and the more spent delivering on the promises the better."