Tanya wrote
The Advisors as candidates for Board membership is a system that has worked pretty well for us in the past, and the directors seems unlikely to change the self-perpetuating nature of the Board itself. I'm not sure Dave's arguments are convincing me that a member-elected Board will do any better than the one we have at managing Alcor's strategic vision, so I'm reluctant to advocate one way or the other on that debate. Having the members more involved is, however, something I wish to see.
So why can't we revise the system into something that involves having the members alone elect the Alcor Advisors, and from that pool alone, the Board selects new members. It will allow the members to have a voice in the Board, and it will give the Board an opportunity to evaluate the guidance given.
SOURCE: [+]
MY COMMENT-- (philossifur's comment)-- WOW. This is an excellent suggestion-- ELECT the advisors!!! That would be a great first step!...
Thursday, January 24, 2008
SURVEY-- Shannon Vyff's Poll-- 3 to 1 favor democracy
[+] This link will take you to Alcor United forum by James Conaway. James lives in Phoenix-- and attends EVERY Alcor board meeting. He calls his forum Alcor United to give the impression that Alcor members are united-- however this is a bit misleading-- because although members ARE united in common cause in terms of the mission of cryonics, they are NOT united in many important areas too. This forum tends to edit out the views that are not compatible with Conaways, and Brian Wowk's. Wowk is a frequent commentator on AU-- ALL of that aside-- Shannon Vyff has created a POLL to survey the response to Dave Pizer's call for democracy... 21 people responded with 75% in favor of democracy.
MAXIM-- 01-- Self Electing Boards--
[+] This link will take you to where Maxim has posted to Cold Filter on the topic of self electing boards. Here is a copy of her post...
<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Go back
Self-electing Boards
January 20 2008 at 9:57 PM Melody Maxim (Login melmax)
Veteran Member
This post isn't directed at anyone, or meant to be confrontational. I was just looking up information on self-electing boards for non-profits, and thought I would share the information I found:
Most commonly, for instance, governing boards are elected by members of the organization or are comprised of self-electing directors. http://www.hurwitassociates.com/l_qa_nonprofitgovernance.html
So, we see both are common methods.
"A nonprofit firm with a self-electing board of directors," Hansmann observes (1996, 238), "represents the ultimate in separation of management and control; the management is under no effective supervision by anyone with an interest in residual earnings”, that is, with an interest in the efficiency of service provision by any transparent measure. To be sure, boards of directors are expected to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility to monitor the financial and programmatic performance of the agency. Indeed, the board could be held personally liable, under some circumstances, for financial mismanagement and organizational insolvency. But these situations are rare. More typically, board members receive and review financial reports casually because they have no material stake in them. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:vbbI1Hi_PzsJ:www.pmranet.org/conferences/USC2005/USC2005papers/pmra.lynn.smith.2005.doc+benefits+of+a+self-electing+board+non-profit&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us
Non-profit corporations often have self-nominating and self-electing boards. That is because they have no shareholders. Their beneficiaries are the members of the public, too transient and impossible to identify. Further, members of the public may not have a sufficient stake in the objectives of the corporation to choose its appropriate leadership. http://www.markle.org/downloadable_assets/icann_fin1_9.pdf
I suppose the Alcor members are not altogether "impossible to identify," though I've read on this forum that they are somewhat transient. They most certainly have a "sufficient stake in the objectives of the corporation." However, I do have some concerns with member-elected boards, as I'm not sure how many Alcor members are knowledgeable enough about the medical aspects of cryonics, to judge whether Alcor is making progress, or not, in improving patient care. I'm concerned that members with little understanding of the procedures, especially newcomers, may be easily influenced by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons. I'm not saying I'm for, or against, a member-elected board, just that I'm concerned.
Respond to this message
Author Reply
George
(Login George1st)
Registered User
Alcor and Members’ Rights
January 20 2008, 10:57 PM
Melody: “Non-profit corporations often have self-nominating and self-electing boards. That is because they have no shareholders. Their beneficiaries are the members of the public, too transient and impossible to identify. Further, members of the public may not have a sufficient stake in the objectives of the corporation to choose its appropriate leadership.”
Comment: That might be the case with such organizations as for example The Red Cross, but I do not think to be the case with Alcor. Alcor has only one group of beneficiaries, which is their dues paying members. As for them being right, or wrong, I would not underestimate them. But I would submit that it is their organization, so if they happen to make a wrong decision, it is their right to do so. But that did not happen. So far it was only the self-appointed Board of Directors, who has been making the wrong decisions.
Respond to this message
Current Topic - Self-electing Boards
<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Go back
<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Go back
Self-electing Boards
January 20 2008 at 9:57 PM Melody Maxim (Login melmax)
Veteran Member
This post isn't directed at anyone, or meant to be confrontational. I was just looking up information on self-electing boards for non-profits, and thought I would share the information I found:
Most commonly, for instance, governing boards are elected by members of the organization or are comprised of self-electing directors. http://www.hurwitassociates.com/l_qa_nonprofitgovernance.html
So, we see both are common methods.
"A nonprofit firm with a self-electing board of directors," Hansmann observes (1996, 238), "represents the ultimate in separation of management and control; the management is under no effective supervision by anyone with an interest in residual earnings”, that is, with an interest in the efficiency of service provision by any transparent measure. To be sure, boards of directors are expected to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility to monitor the financial and programmatic performance of the agency. Indeed, the board could be held personally liable, under some circumstances, for financial mismanagement and organizational insolvency. But these situations are rare. More typically, board members receive and review financial reports casually because they have no material stake in them. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:vbbI1Hi_PzsJ:www.pmranet.org/conferences/USC2005/USC2005papers/pmra.lynn.smith.2005.doc+benefits+of+a+self-electing+board+non-profit&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us
Non-profit corporations often have self-nominating and self-electing boards. That is because they have no shareholders. Their beneficiaries are the members of the public, too transient and impossible to identify. Further, members of the public may not have a sufficient stake in the objectives of the corporation to choose its appropriate leadership. http://www.markle.org/downloadable_assets/icann_fin1_9.pdf
I suppose the Alcor members are not altogether "impossible to identify," though I've read on this forum that they are somewhat transient. They most certainly have a "sufficient stake in the objectives of the corporation." However, I do have some concerns with member-elected boards, as I'm not sure how many Alcor members are knowledgeable enough about the medical aspects of cryonics, to judge whether Alcor is making progress, or not, in improving patient care. I'm concerned that members with little understanding of the procedures, especially newcomers, may be easily influenced by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons. I'm not saying I'm for, or against, a member-elected board, just that I'm concerned.
Respond to this message
Author Reply
George
(Login George1st)
Registered User
Alcor and Members’ Rights
January 20 2008, 10:57 PM
Melody: “Non-profit corporations often have self-nominating and self-electing boards. That is because they have no shareholders. Their beneficiaries are the members of the public, too transient and impossible to identify. Further, members of the public may not have a sufficient stake in the objectives of the corporation to choose its appropriate leadership.”
Comment: That might be the case with such organizations as for example The Red Cross, but I do not think to be the case with Alcor. Alcor has only one group of beneficiaries, which is their dues paying members. As for them being right, or wrong, I would not underestimate them. But I would submit that it is their organization, so if they happen to make a wrong decision, it is their right to do so. But that did not happen. So far it was only the self-appointed Board of Directors, who has been making the wrong decisions.
Respond to this message
Current Topic - Self-electing Boards
<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Go back
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
MERKLE-- vs. Pizer
[+]
Go back
Member debates Director
January 19 2008 at 6:27 PM davidpizer (no login)
MY OPINION OF WHAT IS WRONG AT ALCOR.
Or, PIZER VS MERKLE a debate?
Director Ralph Merkle recently posted a position paper on Alcor site. Someone sent me a copy of it. I have some comments about it. I believe you can read Dr. Merkle’s whole paper on Alcor’s website.
MERKLE SAID: Alcor is governed by a "self perpetuating Board." In such a Board, new Board members are elected to that position by existing Board members. This is the most common way of electing Board members in non profit organizations. (delete)
PIZER’S COMMENTS: In a recent post by Charles Platt, Charles looked this up and came to the conclusion this was not the case. You can see Charles’ post in this forum somewhere.
MERKLE SAID: A fundamental rationale for selecting the self perpetuating Board structure was its ability to provide continuity of purpose over a long period of time.
PIZER’S COMMENTS: The numbers and indicators, (as discussed in the past week or so in this forum) show otherwise. The evidence seems to show that Alcor is going downhill fast. Merkle doesn’t deny this.
MERKLE SAID: Existing Board members select those new Board members who they believe are best able to preserve Alcor's core values and carry out its mission. (delete)
PIZER’S COMMENTS: The board members may “believe” the people they elect, and when they re-elect themselves over and over, are best able to preserve Alcor’s core values but we want to see arguments that support that back by evidence of good performance. The numbers on performance, growth rate and indicators of future growth are very bad. The record of business mistakes as reported recently in this forum shows that for the last several years Alcor has been doing badly. The board now seems to meet a lot in secret, by email to only themselves. Then need a full time attorney involved because of all the problems. It seems to me that the board now spends more time covering up mistakes then preventing them. I would like to see Merkle talk about this.
MERKLE CONTINUES: One of the responsibilities of the Board is to insure that our current practices continue to be effective in achieving our fundamental goals as given in the Mission Statement.
PIZER’S COMMENTS: Isn’t Alcor supposed to be a public company? Where does it say anything about secret meetings in the Mission Statement?
MERKLE SAID: One such practice is our use of a self perpetuating Board. The primary alternative to the self perpetuating Board is the member elected Board. In a member elected Board, individual members vote for the Board members that they believe are best able to effectively lead Alcor. Is the original rationale for choosing the self perpetuating Board still as persuasive today as it was when Alcor was founded?
PIZER’S RESPONSE: This is just plain not true. The person who is responsible for the self perpetuating Board, (aka dictatorship) retired president Mike Darwin, recently has said it was one of his biggest mistakes.
MERKLE CONTINUES: Are there other reasons for preferring the self perpetuating Board that were perhaps not clearly recognized earlier? (delete)
PIZER’S COMMENTS: I believe the question that we members want answered is “Are there reasons for NOT preferring the self perpetuating Board that are NOW recognized?” See my earlier posts with a long list of the many many costly mistakes the dictatorship style of board has caused.
Basically we need to just ask these 2 basic fundamental questions:
1. Are Directors who are not held accountable to anyone more likely to do a better job then Directors who have to stand for re-election every year by the membership?
2. Are Members who belong to a nonprofit organization, (who perhaps like the native Africans of South Africa), are told they are not qualified to vote, more likely to feel a part of that organization, and therefore contribute more money, time, energy and ideas to that organization, then if they were allowed to vote for their leaders. Or put in another way, do citizens feel more a part of a country that is run by a dictatorship or in a democracy.
MERKLE CONTINUES: One of the original rationales for Alcor's self perpetuating Board was to prevent a takeover of Alcor. Because the Patient Care Trust Fund has significant assets, and is growing, the incentive for such a takeover continues to be present today. This argument seems most effective against a member elected Board if all members — even recent members or members whose motives might be viewed as suspect by the majority of established cryonicists — are allowed to vote. Various limitations might be imposed which would significantly reduce this risk. It is clear, though, that this issue would need to be thoroughly explored before making any significant change in Alcor's structure. It is essential that the risk of a takeover — a catastrophic failure mode — be held to a minimum.
PIZER’S COMMENTS: This argument defies the law of numbers. It is much easier to take over a smaller group then a larger group all other things being equal - we can make things equal in either system. To take over the present Alcor Board of Directors it only takes 5 people, or less if the board is smaller at time of takeover. The maximum amount of Directors allowed is 9. Every time one Directors is elected, if the Board is at capacity, another Director has to leave. So 5 people could begin to seek seats on the Board, and take it over. This does not seem to hard to do. The Board has already appointed two people to Board positions that they fired or forced out of office as Alcor Presidents claiming they were not qualified to run a business like Alcor. But that is what the Directors do, the run Alcor. A Directors has more power then a president of Alcor.
If there are at present 800 Alcor members, it would take an additional 801 new people to take over Alcor if the membership had the vote instead of the way it is now. The saying, “There is safety in numbers.” is true.
Whatever precautions that can be built into contributing to safety in the present system can be built into the new system of letting the members do the electing.
For instance, in a member-electing system, we can require that people be members for 3 years before they can vote. We can have two systems of leaders: Elected Directors and elected advisors. We can require that a candidate for a board position be an advisor for at least 2 years. We can require advisors take straw votes on issues that come up before the board and their votes are recorded and presented to the membership in our magazine. Even though the advisors votes don’t count there will be a two year record made public to the members on how the did vote before they can run for office.
What I am saying is that every argument Merkle can give for some system of safety in the dictatorship system can be put in the democratic system. We can make the two systems identical in safety and then we have the benefit of greater number of members and the benefit of new and increased morale of the membership the day this passes.
MERKLE SAID: A number of other issues are of concern, even though they do not have a direct bearing on the relative effectiveness of a self perpetuating Board versus an elected Board. For example, Alcor's patients now in cryopreservation cannot participate in an election — meaning they are disenfranchised. While the PCTB (Patient Care Trust Board) is responsible for insuring that the funds in the PCT (Patient Care Trust) are used for the benefit of the patients the members of the PCTB are normally chosen by the Alcor Board. While the five PCTB members have staggered five year terms, the Alcor Board would eventually be able to select all five. Other decisions besides direct payment of patient care costs that might affect the patients are also in the hands of the Alcor Board. How do we best represent the interests of the patients? A member elected Board does not offer any obvious advantage in this regard, as patients can't vote. When you are cryopreserved, which would you prefer?
PIZER’S RESPONSE: If the members could know all the secrets some Board members have kept hidden from the membership, most of us would prefer the member elected system for the following reason as regards to the safety of patients. The present dictatorship is causing the growth of Alcor to stagnate. Mistakes are up, because of lack of accountability, donations and volunteerism, and other benefits are down because the feeling of alienation by the membership. This leads to a decline in the growth rate of the membership. Some board members may not feel like membership growth is important but I think it is the number one protection to the patients.
Let me repeat that. The number one protection for the patients is a large and strong membership base. Living people realize they will be going into those tanks someday - so this larger stronger group will want to protect the rights of the patients, since they will become one someday.
There is another reason as important. Relatives of the patients are the strongest supporters of the patients. There are a lot more relatives in the pool of 800 members then in the pool of 9 board members.
MERKLE SAID: Significant modifications to the Alcor Bylaws might have an impact on Alcor's 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, as well as have other legal and operational ramifications. As a consequence, prior to making any significant change(s) in the Bylaws, it is necessary to discuss the nature and extent of changes with someone qualified specifically in non profit tax law so that we might anticipate any potentially adverse ruling by the IRS. Historically, changes to the Bylaws have been infrequent because of the care and expense required. This is not to say that they are either impossible or undesirable — but they need to be carefully and calmly evaluated. (delete)
PIZER: This is a good thing. We need to have our 501c3 status reviewed by the government often. We need an audit trail. Someday in the far future we are going to need the money in the Patient Care Trust to reanimate the patients. We don’t want to wait until that day to find out that the government has determined that we don’t qualify, and so to assign income taxes, and penalties to all that money. Or worse, try to take it away. We need to know now if there are problems so we can fix them now. We need to document that we have been reviewed every so many years so that if they do find something later on we are grandfathered in having followed prevailing laws at the time.
MERKLE SAID: And finally, it is worth noting that when the attendees at the 2007 Alcor conference were asked whether they preferred the present self perpetuating Board structure to a member elected Board, the great majority, by show of hands, preferred the self perpetuating Board.
PIZER’S RESPONSE: Picture this. Here are these Alcor members many of them on the paid staff that is controlled by the Directors, or advisors of group leaders or committee people all appointed by the Directors. The Board standing there says all you people who want it to continue the way we Directors like it raise your hand. Then, those who don’t like our way raise your hand.
Could you picture your favorite dictator at a government function saying all you guys who don’t like how we are doing it raise you hands.
MERKLE’S CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the present review supports the idea that the self perpetuating Board is better suited to Alcor's mission than a member elected Board. This is not to say that everyone is fully satisfied with all aspects of existing Board operations or member relations, but that an undue emphasis on the issue of an elected versus a self perpetuating Board does not seem to offer significant opportunities for enhancing Alcor's ability to carry out its mission. This opinion is shared by a majority of Board members at this time.
PIZER’S COMMENTS: Of course the majority of the Board members share this opinion. Some of them may not want to stand for re-election on their previous records. I take my hat off to those courageous minority of Board members who do not share the majority opinion. When we get the vote, I am going to vote for them.
Respond to this message
Go back
Member debates Director
January 19 2008 at 6:27 PM davidpizer (no login)
MY OPINION OF WHAT IS WRONG AT ALCOR.
Or, PIZER VS MERKLE a debate?
Director Ralph Merkle recently posted a position paper on Alcor site. Someone sent me a copy of it. I have some comments about it. I believe you can read Dr. Merkle’s whole paper on Alcor’s website.
MERKLE SAID: Alcor is governed by a "self perpetuating Board." In such a Board, new Board members are elected to that position by existing Board members. This is the most common way of electing Board members in non profit organizations. (delete)
PIZER’S COMMENTS: In a recent post by Charles Platt, Charles looked this up and came to the conclusion this was not the case. You can see Charles’ post in this forum somewhere.
MERKLE SAID: A fundamental rationale for selecting the self perpetuating Board structure was its ability to provide continuity of purpose over a long period of time.
PIZER’S COMMENTS: The numbers and indicators, (as discussed in the past week or so in this forum) show otherwise. The evidence seems to show that Alcor is going downhill fast. Merkle doesn’t deny this.
MERKLE SAID: Existing Board members select those new Board members who they believe are best able to preserve Alcor's core values and carry out its mission. (delete)
PIZER’S COMMENTS: The board members may “believe” the people they elect, and when they re-elect themselves over and over, are best able to preserve Alcor’s core values but we want to see arguments that support that back by evidence of good performance. The numbers on performance, growth rate and indicators of future growth are very bad. The record of business mistakes as reported recently in this forum shows that for the last several years Alcor has been doing badly. The board now seems to meet a lot in secret, by email to only themselves. Then need a full time attorney involved because of all the problems. It seems to me that the board now spends more time covering up mistakes then preventing them. I would like to see Merkle talk about this.
MERKLE CONTINUES: One of the responsibilities of the Board is to insure that our current practices continue to be effective in achieving our fundamental goals as given in the Mission Statement.
PIZER’S COMMENTS: Isn’t Alcor supposed to be a public company? Where does it say anything about secret meetings in the Mission Statement?
MERKLE SAID: One such practice is our use of a self perpetuating Board. The primary alternative to the self perpetuating Board is the member elected Board. In a member elected Board, individual members vote for the Board members that they believe are best able to effectively lead Alcor. Is the original rationale for choosing the self perpetuating Board still as persuasive today as it was when Alcor was founded?
PIZER’S RESPONSE: This is just plain not true. The person who is responsible for the self perpetuating Board, (aka dictatorship) retired president Mike Darwin, recently has said it was one of his biggest mistakes.
MERKLE CONTINUES: Are there other reasons for preferring the self perpetuating Board that were perhaps not clearly recognized earlier? (delete)
PIZER’S COMMENTS: I believe the question that we members want answered is “Are there reasons for NOT preferring the self perpetuating Board that are NOW recognized?” See my earlier posts with a long list of the many many costly mistakes the dictatorship style of board has caused.
Basically we need to just ask these 2 basic fundamental questions:
1. Are Directors who are not held accountable to anyone more likely to do a better job then Directors who have to stand for re-election every year by the membership?
2. Are Members who belong to a nonprofit organization, (who perhaps like the native Africans of South Africa), are told they are not qualified to vote, more likely to feel a part of that organization, and therefore contribute more money, time, energy and ideas to that organization, then if they were allowed to vote for their leaders. Or put in another way, do citizens feel more a part of a country that is run by a dictatorship or in a democracy.
MERKLE CONTINUES: One of the original rationales for Alcor's self perpetuating Board was to prevent a takeover of Alcor. Because the Patient Care Trust Fund has significant assets, and is growing, the incentive for such a takeover continues to be present today. This argument seems most effective against a member elected Board if all members — even recent members or members whose motives might be viewed as suspect by the majority of established cryonicists — are allowed to vote. Various limitations might be imposed which would significantly reduce this risk. It is clear, though, that this issue would need to be thoroughly explored before making any significant change in Alcor's structure. It is essential that the risk of a takeover — a catastrophic failure mode — be held to a minimum.
PIZER’S COMMENTS: This argument defies the law of numbers. It is much easier to take over a smaller group then a larger group all other things being equal - we can make things equal in either system. To take over the present Alcor Board of Directors it only takes 5 people, or less if the board is smaller at time of takeover. The maximum amount of Directors allowed is 9. Every time one Directors is elected, if the Board is at capacity, another Director has to leave. So 5 people could begin to seek seats on the Board, and take it over. This does not seem to hard to do. The Board has already appointed two people to Board positions that they fired or forced out of office as Alcor Presidents claiming they were not qualified to run a business like Alcor. But that is what the Directors do, the run Alcor. A Directors has more power then a president of Alcor.
If there are at present 800 Alcor members, it would take an additional 801 new people to take over Alcor if the membership had the vote instead of the way it is now. The saying, “There is safety in numbers.” is true.
Whatever precautions that can be built into contributing to safety in the present system can be built into the new system of letting the members do the electing.
For instance, in a member-electing system, we can require that people be members for 3 years before they can vote. We can have two systems of leaders: Elected Directors and elected advisors. We can require that a candidate for a board position be an advisor for at least 2 years. We can require advisors take straw votes on issues that come up before the board and their votes are recorded and presented to the membership in our magazine. Even though the advisors votes don’t count there will be a two year record made public to the members on how the did vote before they can run for office.
What I am saying is that every argument Merkle can give for some system of safety in the dictatorship system can be put in the democratic system. We can make the two systems identical in safety and then we have the benefit of greater number of members and the benefit of new and increased morale of the membership the day this passes.
MERKLE SAID: A number of other issues are of concern, even though they do not have a direct bearing on the relative effectiveness of a self perpetuating Board versus an elected Board. For example, Alcor's patients now in cryopreservation cannot participate in an election — meaning they are disenfranchised. While the PCTB (Patient Care Trust Board) is responsible for insuring that the funds in the PCT (Patient Care Trust) are used for the benefit of the patients the members of the PCTB are normally chosen by the Alcor Board. While the five PCTB members have staggered five year terms, the Alcor Board would eventually be able to select all five. Other decisions besides direct payment of patient care costs that might affect the patients are also in the hands of the Alcor Board. How do we best represent the interests of the patients? A member elected Board does not offer any obvious advantage in this regard, as patients can't vote. When you are cryopreserved, which would you prefer?
PIZER’S RESPONSE: If the members could know all the secrets some Board members have kept hidden from the membership, most of us would prefer the member elected system for the following reason as regards to the safety of patients. The present dictatorship is causing the growth of Alcor to stagnate. Mistakes are up, because of lack of accountability, donations and volunteerism, and other benefits are down because the feeling of alienation by the membership. This leads to a decline in the growth rate of the membership. Some board members may not feel like membership growth is important but I think it is the number one protection to the patients.
Let me repeat that. The number one protection for the patients is a large and strong membership base. Living people realize they will be going into those tanks someday - so this larger stronger group will want to protect the rights of the patients, since they will become one someday.
There is another reason as important. Relatives of the patients are the strongest supporters of the patients. There are a lot more relatives in the pool of 800 members then in the pool of 9 board members.
MERKLE SAID: Significant modifications to the Alcor Bylaws might have an impact on Alcor's 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, as well as have other legal and operational ramifications. As a consequence, prior to making any significant change(s) in the Bylaws, it is necessary to discuss the nature and extent of changes with someone qualified specifically in non profit tax law so that we might anticipate any potentially adverse ruling by the IRS. Historically, changes to the Bylaws have been infrequent because of the care and expense required. This is not to say that they are either impossible or undesirable — but they need to be carefully and calmly evaluated. (delete)
PIZER: This is a good thing. We need to have our 501c3 status reviewed by the government often. We need an audit trail. Someday in the far future we are going to need the money in the Patient Care Trust to reanimate the patients. We don’t want to wait until that day to find out that the government has determined that we don’t qualify, and so to assign income taxes, and penalties to all that money. Or worse, try to take it away. We need to know now if there are problems so we can fix them now. We need to document that we have been reviewed every so many years so that if they do find something later on we are grandfathered in having followed prevailing laws at the time.
MERKLE SAID: And finally, it is worth noting that when the attendees at the 2007 Alcor conference were asked whether they preferred the present self perpetuating Board structure to a member elected Board, the great majority, by show of hands, preferred the self perpetuating Board.
PIZER’S RESPONSE: Picture this. Here are these Alcor members many of them on the paid staff that is controlled by the Directors, or advisors of group leaders or committee people all appointed by the Directors. The Board standing there says all you people who want it to continue the way we Directors like it raise your hand. Then, those who don’t like our way raise your hand.
Could you picture your favorite dictator at a government function saying all you guys who don’t like how we are doing it raise you hands.
MERKLE’S CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the present review supports the idea that the self perpetuating Board is better suited to Alcor's mission than a member elected Board. This is not to say that everyone is fully satisfied with all aspects of existing Board operations or member relations, but that an undue emphasis on the issue of an elected versus a self perpetuating Board does not seem to offer significant opportunities for enhancing Alcor's ability to carry out its mission. This opinion is shared by a majority of Board members at this time.
PIZER’S COMMENTS: Of course the majority of the Board members share this opinion. Some of them may not want to stand for re-election on their previous records. I take my hat off to those courageous minority of Board members who do not share the majority opinion. When we get the vote, I am going to vote for them.
Respond to this message
QUESTIONS by DAVE-- answers by Philossifur
Questions: what is a blog?
A BLOG is short for WEB LOG-- we blog BLOG-- and was originally used my internet people to accumulate interesting web page visits. it's evolved into a diary of not just webpages but accounts or storylines of all types. It's more powerful than a discussion forum or newsgroup because the blogger has total control over headlines. All the bigtime journalists now have blogs. Blogs were recognized by Newsweek when Dan Rather got into trouble a few years ago. Suddenly, the mainstream media "decided" that "bloggers" were a formidable "force". As ANYONE these days if they have or read a blog and you're surely going to get a answer rather than a confused look.
What is an alphabetical blog?
I clicked on the site above and it opened up something
that looks like a webpage. I tried to sign in using a
pseudonym as you said to do and made up a password.
The screen said it was the wrong password. That's as
far as I got.
If you want lots of people to see this, why does it
say "invited guests only?"
I've now opened the blog to anyone... so now you can see it. An ALPHABETICAL blog uses an alphabetical INDEX of important words, just like in a book... any non-fiction book. Its far better than a SEARCH ENGINE because the reader can SCAN the index to find topics of interest to them at the moment-- INSTEAD of having to dream up keywords on his own-- OR-- having to chase you around the internet looking for your latest posts. In a sense it's like WRITING A BOOK-- an indexed book. Don't worry, Melody Maxim didn't "get it" either at first-- but start with looking through an INDEX of any book... then lok at the INDEX at the bottom of this blog. Here's an excerpt
CRYONET-- David Pizer messages (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- dictatorship model (1)
DEBATE-- invitation-- Alcor board (1)
DICTATORSHIP MODEL-- cream of crop argument (1)
DIRECTORS-- Let's clear the air (1)
QUESTIONS by DAVE-- answers by Philossifur (1)
TANYA-- vs. Dave's responses (1)
> I'm so convinced that this will help you in your
> mission-- DESPITE the fact that you have support
> now--
> anyway without it-- that I'm willing to start a
> separate ledger account today where I'll credit
> myself
> $10 a day to help maintain and build your Alcor
> Democracy page.
what does credit myself $10 a day mean?
It's a joke. In my estimation, I'm GIVING you a powerful tool for free. We can PRETEND you're being charged $10 a day for it's building and maintenance. I don't care if you pay me or not-- what I'm doing is DEMONSTRATING what I think YOU ought to do-- HOW you ought to present your case. You can't learn this overnight-- but over time-- I'm confident you will understand what a BLOG (web log) is and how powerful it can be. Eventually when you understand it better, you might be so thankful that you'll cover that $10 a day in arrears-- just because it will have been LIKE a service you would NORMALLY pay for up front... but since I'm such a nice guy-- I'm doing it pro bono. (I think that's the right term).
TO CIRCULATE THIS BLOG you can post a link to it on Cryonet, or Cold Filter or Alcor United. The people who moderate those forums really like us bloggers to do that sort of thing (ha ha). And when you use the word "cryonics" here-- espeically on the subject line, Google blogsearch will pick it up and many other readers will SEE your blog. The Cryonics Anti-defamation Committee that constantly attacks me will espeically enjoy that part of it. Little wave to them.... Basically Dave, wecome to Cyberspace-- Nice tv ads-- I just viewed them yesterday
A BLOG is short for WEB LOG-- we blog BLOG-- and was originally used my internet people to accumulate interesting web page visits. it's evolved into a diary of not just webpages but accounts or storylines of all types. It's more powerful than a discussion forum or newsgroup because the blogger has total control over headlines. All the bigtime journalists now have blogs. Blogs were recognized by Newsweek when Dan Rather got into trouble a few years ago. Suddenly, the mainstream media "decided" that "bloggers" were a formidable "force". As ANYONE these days if they have or read a blog and you're surely going to get a answer rather than a confused look.
What is an alphabetical blog?
I clicked on the site above and it opened up something
that looks like a webpage. I tried to sign in using a
pseudonym as you said to do and made up a password.
The screen said it was the wrong password. That's as
far as I got.
If you want lots of people to see this, why does it
say "invited guests only?"
I've now opened the blog to anyone... so now you can see it. An ALPHABETICAL blog uses an alphabetical INDEX of important words, just like in a book... any non-fiction book. Its far better than a SEARCH ENGINE because the reader can SCAN the index to find topics of interest to them at the moment-- INSTEAD of having to dream up keywords on his own-- OR-- having to chase you around the internet looking for your latest posts. In a sense it's like WRITING A BOOK-- an indexed book. Don't worry, Melody Maxim didn't "get it" either at first-- but start with looking through an INDEX of any book... then lok at the INDEX at the bottom of this blog. Here's an excerpt
CRYONET-- David Pizer messages (1)
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- dictatorship model (1)
DEBATE-- invitation-- Alcor board (1)
DICTATORSHIP MODEL-- cream of crop argument (1)
DIRECTORS-- Let's clear the air (1)
QUESTIONS by DAVE-- answers by Philossifur (1)
TANYA-- vs. Dave's responses (1)
> I'm so convinced that this will help you in your
> mission-- DESPITE the fact that you have support
> now--
> anyway without it-- that I'm willing to start a
> separate ledger account today where I'll credit
> myself
> $10 a day to help maintain and build your Alcor
> Democracy page.
what does credit myself $10 a day mean?
It's a joke. In my estimation, I'm GIVING you a powerful tool for free. We can PRETEND you're being charged $10 a day for it's building and maintenance. I don't care if you pay me or not-- what I'm doing is DEMONSTRATING what I think YOU ought to do-- HOW you ought to present your case. You can't learn this overnight-- but over time-- I'm confident you will understand what a BLOG (web log) is and how powerful it can be. Eventually when you understand it better, you might be so thankful that you'll cover that $10 a day in arrears-- just because it will have been LIKE a service you would NORMALLY pay for up front... but since I'm such a nice guy-- I'm doing it pro bono. (I think that's the right term).
TO CIRCULATE THIS BLOG you can post a link to it on Cryonet, or Cold Filter or Alcor United. The people who moderate those forums really like us bloggers to do that sort of thing (ha ha). And when you use the word "cryonics" here-- espeically on the subject line, Google blogsearch will pick it up and many other readers will SEE your blog. The Cryonics Anti-defamation Committee that constantly attacks me will espeically enjoy that part of it. Little wave to them.... Basically Dave, wecome to Cyberspace-- Nice tv ads-- I just viewed them yesterday
DIRECTORS-- Let's clear the air
X-Message-Number: 30266
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:20:58 -0800 (PST)
From: david pizer
Subject: Director's response to " Let's clear the air."
I took a couple of hours out of my Sunday to carefully
write what I thought were some very serious problems
in Alcor. I gave reasons why I felt that way. I was
careful not to specifically make any person insults.
I had hoped that the directors would read this and
respectfully consider them. They might think: Maybe
Pizer is right? Maybe there are some serious problems
at Alcor. Pizer offers some suggestions on how we can
fix things. He did save Alcor bacon when he moved us
to Arizona and got us the building we are in now. He
was right on a lot of other matters when we were
wrong. Should we consider these suggestions at the
next board meeting. Should we ask our other members
what they think. No. Director Mondragon did not do
any of these things, here is what he writes:
MONDRAGON'S REPLY to "Let's clear the air."
> While scanning this thread, the following statement
> caught my attention: "Alcor now has a serious
> competitor in CI...".
> Wow. Whoever wrote that should consider the
> magnificent career opportunities made temporarily
> available by the SWG strike as well as the national
> campaigns.
> Seriously though, I just don't understand why, if
> the lack of suffrage is truly at the heart of so
> much unhappiness, those Alcor members that feel that
> way don't just go sign up with CI and cast ballots
> to their heart's content.
> CM
In other words, Director Mondragon is telling every
Alcor suspension not to bring your complaints or
suggestions to the board. If you don't like the way
the directors are running Alcor, go join CI.
He couldn't talk to us like that if we had the power
to boot replace him at the next election. It is only
because they feel unaccountable to the membership,
that the directors can treat us like this.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30266
MY COMMENT (Philossifur-- who else eh?)
Note that Dave doesn't like Mondragon's response here-- and yet Dave was Mondragon's defender back before Saul Kent's "its time for a change". This current campaign by dave is "its time for change-- part II".
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:20:58 -0800 (PST)
From: david pizer
Subject: Director's response to " Let's clear the air."
I took a couple of hours out of my Sunday to carefully
write what I thought were some very serious problems
in Alcor. I gave reasons why I felt that way. I was
careful not to specifically make any person insults.
I had hoped that the directors would read this and
respectfully consider them. They might think: Maybe
Pizer is right? Maybe there are some serious problems
at Alcor. Pizer offers some suggestions on how we can
fix things. He did save Alcor bacon when he moved us
to Arizona and got us the building we are in now. He
was right on a lot of other matters when we were
wrong. Should we consider these suggestions at the
next board meeting. Should we ask our other members
what they think. No. Director Mondragon did not do
any of these things, here is what he writes:
MONDRAGON'S REPLY to "Let's clear the air."
> While scanning this thread, the following statement
> caught my attention: "Alcor now has a serious
> competitor in CI...".
> Wow. Whoever wrote that should consider the
> magnificent career opportunities made temporarily
> available by the SWG strike as well as the national
> campaigns.
> Seriously though, I just don't understand why, if
> the lack of suffrage is truly at the heart of so
> much unhappiness, those Alcor members that feel that
> way don't just go sign up with CI and cast ballots
> to their heart's content.
> CM
In other words, Director Mondragon is telling every
Alcor suspension not to bring your complaints or
suggestions to the board. If you don't like the way
the directors are running Alcor, go join CI.
He couldn't talk to us like that if we had the power
to boot replace him at the next election. It is only
because they feel unaccountable to the membership,
that the directors can treat us like this.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30266
MY COMMENT (Philossifur-- who else eh?)
Note that Dave doesn't like Mondragon's response here-- and yet Dave was Mondragon's defender back before Saul Kent's "its time for a change". This current campaign by dave is "its time for change-- part II".
TANYA-- vs. Dave's responses
TANYA SAID:
> When the Alcor management changed in September 2005
> to the current team, we developed a new policy of
> not talking about what grand plans we have for the
> organization, instead choosing to talk about things
> that we have completed. We implemented this policy
> change because the management team (consisting of
> Steve Van Sickle, Jennifer Chapman, and myself) were
> disappointed members. We were all weary of the empty
> promises, the distinct lack of improvement in
> technical capability and the lack of responsible
> fiscal oversight. (delete)
PIZER'S RESPONSE: I find it interesting that the staff would discover the problems like "empty promises and lack of responsible fiscal oversight" and feel they have to take matters into their own hands. It is bold and brave enough that they mention these things at all under the present system. I believe that in a member-elected system, (a democratic Alcor instead of the present dictatorship), the staff would be able to expose specific examples of which Directors were responsible for these problems, and then the system of standing for re-election would cause their replacement with better ones.
TANYA CONTINUES
> Our staff is highly motivated and productive. We
> have an internal plan of action that the staff has
> been implementing for the last eighteen months. 9delete) It also contains some > underlying assumptions.
> The first assumption is that cryonics will never be
> particularly popular as long as people consider it
> an alternative method for disposing of a deceased
> human body. Cryonics is about saving lives, and
> medical professionals should perform
> cryopreservations in hospitals. (delete)
PIZER'S RESPONSE: I remember the first time Brian Wowk said something as new and interesting like "The reason cryonics can work is that the patients are not really dead." Tanya's observation could be just as beneficial if some Alcor directors could understand this and get the message out there. "Cryonics is NOT freezing people!" "Cryonics is about saving lives!"
Tanya's post goes on a long time telling all the wonderful things they want to do for Alcor and mentions something like "if we only had more funds."
I submit Tanya would have more funds, a lot more funds, if Alcor had changed the way Directors are elected long ago. If Directors would have felt more accountable then the hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe without exaggeration over a million) would still be there right now. The money that has been stolen or wasted because of bad management.
Then there is the money that never came in because more members don't really feel a part of the organization.
Thought experiment: Imagine you are a dictator. Tell a bunch of people in an organization, or a country, that you love them and respect them, and all the flowery stuff, but that you won't let them have the vote. How does that make them feel about the organization or country?
I submit that being a dictatorship is Alcor's root problem, the fundamental mother of all flaws at Alcor, that allows most of the other problems to happen.
TANYA CONTINUES.
> It is true there have been problems in the past, and
> things are not perfect now either.
PIZER COMMENTS: With all due respect to Tanya, this is an understatement. In one year the Alcor president caused an amount of wealth to get wasted or worse that I believe was more then the total amount of the year's dues. How many companies can loose a whole year's most fundamental income in one stupid mistake. And there have been many many mistakes like this. They got so bad that some Board members created a policy of secrecy to keep them secret.
TANYA CONTINUES:
> Alcor has been
> open and honest about issues we face with the
> membership.
PIZER: Much as I respect Tanya's intentions, I don't think this statement is accurate of some of the Board members actions. The board meets in secret. They discuss the mistakes and they don't tell us about them. Even Tanya above says "It is true there have been problems in the past, and things are not perfect now either." but she does not say what those things are. If you want to be open and honest you tell the members the good and bad things going on. You don't just say there have been mistakes and then don't mention a complete and specific list. This is not Alcor's Used Cars we are buing into. We are depending on Alcor to try to save our lives. This is the highest trust we can have in an organization. But some Directors don't trust us enough to share info about what the problems are. And they don't trust us with the Vote.
It seems to me that nowadays some Directors spend more time trying to hide mistakes then trying to prevent them. Tell us about them. Maybe we can supply some ideas that you guys haven't thought of yet. There are 800 of us. We are not all as stupid as you think we are.
TANYA SAID:
>One of our biggest challenges is cash
> flow management. (delete)
PIZER: Of course it is. Don't keep trying to fix the symptoms, which what cash flow problems are, try to fix the problem, get more cash. Do that by making the leaders accountable for their actions. Do that by making them stand for re-election on their records.
Another way to get more cash flow is to make the members feel more a part of the team. Do that by telling them they can vote for the leaders.
TANYA SAID:
(delete) ..... and we have financial controls in place to > reduce the risk of funds being stolen (or to ensure > any theft is quickly discovered).
PIZER: The better way is to prevent funds, any funds, from being stolen. Are officers and staff and directors and bookkeeping firms and anyone near any money, credit card, financial papers, bonded? Why not? If they were bonded all that money would be paid back by the bonding company. Are we hiring officers and directors that can not pass a bonding check?
TANYA WENT ON WITH A LONG WISH LIST OF THINGS THE STAFF WANTS TO DO. THERE IS NO DOUBT HER INTENTIONS ARE GOOD. BUT NO ONE HAS BEEN DOUBTING HER INTENTIONS. WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOUBTING IS THE STRUCTURE THAT FAILS TO SUPPORT ANY WAY THOSE INTENTIONS CAN BECOME A REALITY IN TIME TO DO US MEMBERS ANY GOOD. SHE ENDS WITH:
>We hope that taking this step will
> grow confidence in our organization and in Alcor’s
> ability to achieve its mission.
PIZER'S COMMENT. It's like an example I gave weeks ago when we started this discussion: Imagine South Africa (or earlier days in the United States) where officials were telling the black people that they wanted their confidence and support in the country but that they can't be trusted with the vote. That is what the Directors are telling the members. I have no argument with Tanya's stated intentions. I differ in that I believe that these wishes will not come about unless we change the way Alcor elects its leaders.
Accountable leaders will give staff with good intentions like Tanya means to get things done.
TANYA'S LAST COMMENTS:
> We welcome your
> thoughts.
PIZER'S LAST COMMENT.
Well, Tanya, YOU might welcome my thoughts, but some Directors don't. When I tried to bring this up subject with the Directors one tried to get me censored in Cryonet and another said if Members don't like the way they run things the members can go join CI.
Like you, the Directors WOULD welcome the thoughts of us Members IF they had to stand before us at election
Respond to this message
> When the Alcor management changed in September 2005
> to the current team, we developed a new policy of
> not talking about what grand plans we have for the
> organization, instead choosing to talk about things
> that we have completed. We implemented this policy
> change because the management team (consisting of
> Steve Van Sickle, Jennifer Chapman, and myself) were
> disappointed members. We were all weary of the empty
> promises, the distinct lack of improvement in
> technical capability and the lack of responsible
> fiscal oversight. (delete)
PIZER'S RESPONSE: I find it interesting that the staff would discover the problems like "empty promises and lack of responsible fiscal oversight" and feel they have to take matters into their own hands. It is bold and brave enough that they mention these things at all under the present system. I believe that in a member-elected system, (a democratic Alcor instead of the present dictatorship), the staff would be able to expose specific examples of which Directors were responsible for these problems, and then the system of standing for re-election would cause their replacement with better ones.
TANYA CONTINUES
> Our staff is highly motivated and productive. We
> have an internal plan of action that the staff has
> been implementing for the last eighteen months. 9delete) It also contains some > underlying assumptions.
> The first assumption is that cryonics will never be
> particularly popular as long as people consider it
> an alternative method for disposing of a deceased
> human body. Cryonics is about saving lives, and
> medical professionals should perform
> cryopreservations in hospitals. (delete)
PIZER'S RESPONSE: I remember the first time Brian Wowk said something as new and interesting like "The reason cryonics can work is that the patients are not really dead." Tanya's observation could be just as beneficial if some Alcor directors could understand this and get the message out there. "Cryonics is NOT freezing people!" "Cryonics is about saving lives!"
Tanya's post goes on a long time telling all the wonderful things they want to do for Alcor and mentions something like "if we only had more funds."
I submit Tanya would have more funds, a lot more funds, if Alcor had changed the way Directors are elected long ago. If Directors would have felt more accountable then the hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe without exaggeration over a million) would still be there right now. The money that has been stolen or wasted because of bad management.
Then there is the money that never came in because more members don't really feel a part of the organization.
Thought experiment: Imagine you are a dictator. Tell a bunch of people in an organization, or a country, that you love them and respect them, and all the flowery stuff, but that you won't let them have the vote. How does that make them feel about the organization or country?
I submit that being a dictatorship is Alcor's root problem, the fundamental mother of all flaws at Alcor, that allows most of the other problems to happen.
TANYA CONTINUES.
> It is true there have been problems in the past, and
> things are not perfect now either.
PIZER COMMENTS: With all due respect to Tanya, this is an understatement. In one year the Alcor president caused an amount of wealth to get wasted or worse that I believe was more then the total amount of the year's dues. How many companies can loose a whole year's most fundamental income in one stupid mistake. And there have been many many mistakes like this. They got so bad that some Board members created a policy of secrecy to keep them secret.
TANYA CONTINUES:
> Alcor has been
> open and honest about issues we face with the
> membership.
PIZER: Much as I respect Tanya's intentions, I don't think this statement is accurate of some of the Board members actions. The board meets in secret. They discuss the mistakes and they don't tell us about them. Even Tanya above says "It is true there have been problems in the past, and things are not perfect now either." but she does not say what those things are. If you want to be open and honest you tell the members the good and bad things going on. You don't just say there have been mistakes and then don't mention a complete and specific list. This is not Alcor's Used Cars we are buing into. We are depending on Alcor to try to save our lives. This is the highest trust we can have in an organization. But some Directors don't trust us enough to share info about what the problems are. And they don't trust us with the Vote.
It seems to me that nowadays some Directors spend more time trying to hide mistakes then trying to prevent them. Tell us about them. Maybe we can supply some ideas that you guys haven't thought of yet. There are 800 of us. We are not all as stupid as you think we are.
TANYA SAID:
>One of our biggest challenges is cash
> flow management. (delete)
PIZER: Of course it is. Don't keep trying to fix the symptoms, which what cash flow problems are, try to fix the problem, get more cash. Do that by making the leaders accountable for their actions. Do that by making them stand for re-election on their records.
Another way to get more cash flow is to make the members feel more a part of the team. Do that by telling them they can vote for the leaders.
TANYA SAID:
(delete) ..... and we have financial controls in place to > reduce the risk of funds being stolen (or to ensure > any theft is quickly discovered).
PIZER: The better way is to prevent funds, any funds, from being stolen. Are officers and staff and directors and bookkeeping firms and anyone near any money, credit card, financial papers, bonded? Why not? If they were bonded all that money would be paid back by the bonding company. Are we hiring officers and directors that can not pass a bonding check?
TANYA WENT ON WITH A LONG WISH LIST OF THINGS THE STAFF WANTS TO DO. THERE IS NO DOUBT HER INTENTIONS ARE GOOD. BUT NO ONE HAS BEEN DOUBTING HER INTENTIONS. WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOUBTING IS THE STRUCTURE THAT FAILS TO SUPPORT ANY WAY THOSE INTENTIONS CAN BECOME A REALITY IN TIME TO DO US MEMBERS ANY GOOD. SHE ENDS WITH:
>We hope that taking this step will
> grow confidence in our organization and in Alcor’s
> ability to achieve its mission.
PIZER'S COMMENT. It's like an example I gave weeks ago when we started this discussion: Imagine South Africa (or earlier days in the United States) where officials were telling the black people that they wanted their confidence and support in the country but that they can't be trusted with the vote. That is what the Directors are telling the members. I have no argument with Tanya's stated intentions. I differ in that I believe that these wishes will not come about unless we change the way Alcor elects its leaders.
Accountable leaders will give staff with good intentions like Tanya means to get things done.
TANYA'S LAST COMMENTS:
> We welcome your
> thoughts.
PIZER'S LAST COMMENT.
Well, Tanya, YOU might welcome my thoughts, but some Directors don't. When I tried to bring this up subject with the Directors one tried to get me censored in Cryonet and another said if Members don't like the way they run things the members can go join CI.
Like you, the Directors WOULD welcome the thoughts of us Members IF they had to stand before us at election
Respond to this message
DEBATE-- invitation-- Alcor board
January 22 2008 at 8:03 PM david pizer (Login davidpizer)
Veteran Member
To: The Alcor Board
Copies to: Cryonet, Alcor United, Cold Filter and other cryoncists.
INVITATION TO DEBATE REFORMS TO MAKE ALCOR BETTER.
For the past few months or so I have been trying to engage Alcor Board members in a discussion, or debate, on ways to make Alcor better. I have had some private exchanges with some Board members and exchanges from lots of regular cryoncists. There have been posts if the cryonics forums indicating much interest in this subject. In order to localize this discussion, some cryonicists have asked me to challenge the Alcor Board to a formal debate.
At this time, I would like to challenge Alcor to a formal debate on:
1. The current condition of Alcor.
2. Why Alcor is as it is now.
3. What things can be done to make Alcor as good as it can be.
I have sent this message to Alcor and copies the cryoncs forums. I hope Alcor will reply either way in these forums as soon as possible. Alcor Board, if you agree to the debate idea in principle, please affirm and then let me know what mutual rules you want in place.
Some of the Rules I suggest might be:
1. Anyone can post new messages, or a reply to any other messages, in the debate.
They have to say in the beginning who they are speaking for.
(they have to say who they are speaking for, for instance for an organization or themselves)
2. I would like this debate to take place on a neutral forum like Cryonet.
3. All posts from any parties must be respectable of standards of Cryonet and show as much common courtesy as the subject may allow.
Please let me know as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
David Pizer
Alcor Director, Vice President, CFO - all retired, speaking for myself.
Veteran Member
To: The Alcor Board
Copies to: Cryonet, Alcor United, Cold Filter and other cryoncists.
INVITATION TO DEBATE REFORMS TO MAKE ALCOR BETTER.
For the past few months or so I have been trying to engage Alcor Board members in a discussion, or debate, on ways to make Alcor better. I have had some private exchanges with some Board members and exchanges from lots of regular cryoncists. There have been posts if the cryonics forums indicating much interest in this subject. In order to localize this discussion, some cryonicists have asked me to challenge the Alcor Board to a formal debate.
At this time, I would like to challenge Alcor to a formal debate on:
1. The current condition of Alcor.
2. Why Alcor is as it is now.
3. What things can be done to make Alcor as good as it can be.
I have sent this message to Alcor and copies the cryoncs forums. I hope Alcor will reply either way in these forums as soon as possible. Alcor Board, if you agree to the debate idea in principle, please affirm and then let me know what mutual rules you want in place.
Some of the Rules I suggest might be:
1. Anyone can post new messages, or a reply to any other messages, in the debate.
They have to say in the beginning who they are speaking for.
(they have to say who they are speaking for, for instance for an organization or themselves)
2. I would like this debate to take place on a neutral forum like Cryonet.
3. All posts from any parties must be respectable of standards of Cryonet and show as much common courtesy as the subject may allow.
Please let me know as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
David Pizer
Alcor Director, Vice President, CFO - all retired, speaking for myself.
DICTATORSHIP MODEL-- cream of crop argument
The other protection they claim in the dictatorship model they advocate for is that the small group of Directors are the sort of "Cream of the Crop" of Alcor members. (I hope this doesn't sound rude I don't mean it to be. But many of us have heard them say, [in so many words], they are smarter then regular members and so they are best people to run Alcor.). They claim that when you have the best people in Alcor picking the leaders you will get the best leaders. (we can - and I will show later - that is a circular argument).
CRYONICS-- Alcor-- democracy-- dictatorship model
The other protection they claim in the dictatorship model they advocate for is that the small group of Directors are the sort of "Cream of the Crop" of Alcor members. (I hope this doesn't sound rude I don't mean it to be. But many of us have heard them say, [in so many words], they are smarter then regular members and so they are best people to run Alcor.). They claim that when you have the best people in Alcor picking the leaders you will get the best leaders. (we can - and I will show later - that is a circular argument).
Monday, January 21, 2008
01-- WELCOME-- Alcor Democracy Movement
In order to give this blog some common ground among all cryos, I'll desist from talking about the crashing economy, the 9/11 hoax and space angels. Space angels? Well nevermind.
It turns out Dave Pizer has hopped on a horse and is leading a cavalry charge to fix Alcor. I tried to follow the story in Continuum but there are too many things going on and so I broke off this line of thought in this special interest blog.
I don't think I'll have time to post here but I've set this up so that anyone else can take over or-- start their own Dave Pizer Democracy tracking blog on their own modelled after this one. Note the imporatnce of the alphabet. The Chinese have no alphabetical order-- so if you're chinese... just forget about it ( in a New jersey accent).
It turns out Dave Pizer has hopped on a horse and is leading a cavalry charge to fix Alcor. I tried to follow the story in Continuum but there are too many things going on and so I broke off this line of thought in this special interest blog.
I don't think I'll have time to post here but I've set this up so that anyone else can take over or-- start their own Dave Pizer Democracy tracking blog on their own modelled after this one. Note the imporatnce of the alphabet. The Chinese have no alphabetical order-- so if you're chinese... just forget about it ( in a New jersey accent).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)