Scoping the current practice of dynamic governance in co-operatives

Good points. When I’m workshopping legal and governance with startups, I’m generally using current model rules and ‘flexing’ them to allow for asynchronous/platform-enabled meetings, etc. In relation to sociocratic governance this means that the Directors/Committee need to be well trained on their fiduciary duties and powers, which includes delegating decision making as deeply and as broadly as they feel confident to do - which in turn means a very clear remit for circles, including the Directors’/General/Purpose circle, and mechanisms/double links enabling that circle to respond fast and positively when it needs to.

Sorry, my contribution to the ICA paper is chapter 8

Hello Mark,

I'd add:

"Make sure that the organisation's constitution (rules for a society, members' agreement for an LLP, or articles of association for a company) and the legislation under which it is registered permit the preferred governance system and means of communication."

E.g. the Companies Act 2006 requires members' meetings such as an AGM and a first one within a certain time of first registration of the company so you need to ensure that the articles facilitate electronic participation in those.

Best Wishes

Ian

Ian Snaith
Legal Writer Researcher and Educator

Editor of 2014 Edition of the Handbook of Co-operative and Community Benefit Society Law ( http://www.jordanpublishing.co.uk/practice-areas/charity/publications/-handbook-of-co-op-and-community-benefit-society-law-#.VO8Xny62qHs )

www.iansnaith.com ( http://www.iansnaith.com )

01858 419108

0752 155 8344

My understanding is that CA2006 removed the statutory duty to hold an AGM. But your main point is still valid and on point :-)

Absolutely right, Nathan, so the written resolution procedure is the norm - even if a 5% minority propose a resolution under section 292. But you still need a meeting to remove the auditor under section 510 or to remove a director before their term expires under s 168 - s 288(2).

I'm really interested within the "What are the differences between the different models/instances?" question about the impact of scale (members size or worker size if not a worker co-op) on the way that Sociocracy is utilised. This could hold some really valuable learning.

Thanks Ian, that's helpful and I agree.

Following on from the discussion about an uncertain future, I have two further questions to add, though maybe they are for a different project as they might make the current scoping exercise rather too big. My questions are:

"Is dynamic governance a more effective way of achieving co-operative purpose today than traditional co-operative governance?" and

"Would it be better for co-operatives to move away from the concept and language and measurement of "return on investment" and other output-based measures to judge success, and towards a commitment to values and principles, and post facto reflection on effectiveness and performance to judge success?"

Dynamic governance is a new term to me. Is there a pithy definition, and where is the term being used currently?

They often use this term for Sociocracy in the US I believe Sion - apparently because Sociocracy sounds a bit like socialism! That's the story I have heard anyway.

More seriously I guess dynamic governance would include 'commercial variants' such as HolacracyTM? And other non-commercial variants - Sociocracy 3.0?

https://sociocracy30.org/the-details/why-sociocracy-3-0/

And also the Quaker Business Method? I had understood that both sociocracy and holacracy acknowledged their roots here?