X-Message-Number: 1344
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:49:02 EST
From: Brenda Peters <>
Subject: CRYONICS

From: Brenda Peters, 72727,560
To: Kevin Q. Brown, >INTERNET:
Date: Sun, Nov 22, 1992, 1:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Henson Re: Wakfer departs

Let me initially address a point you make that I can categorically deny. 

>According to what I hear, one member of the committee was embarassing the 
>others to the point that they quit. 

First, who did you hear this from?

Second, this is totally wrong. Each of us quit for different but similar 
reasons. Being embarrassed by another member was the farthest thing from our 
minds. 

Instead, I suggest that the lack of progress on the critical items that the 
Committee were suggesting was of paramount concern to the Committee. It 
appeared to the Committee that Carlos and other Board members were taking a 
cavalier attitude toward the financial footing of Alcor. Information was not 
forthcoming to the Committee and, more importantly, actions were not taken to 
increase the yield in the funds. As a result, Alcor's finances were 
significantly impaired in both the short and long run. (It is important to 
remember that small increases in income now compound to huge sums in a matter 
of a few decades.) 

Most importantly of all, Carlos and the Board did not respond to the 
Committee's concerns about the protection of the money in the Endowment and 
Patient Care funds. One lawsuit from a disgruntled relative or one RICO 
lawsuit from the government could cause ALL of Alcor's assets to be seized 
thus throwing the existence of Alcor and its patients into question. 

To date, this major chink in Alcor's armor continues to exist. 

Later in your posting you address Paul's charges of gross incompetency but 
avoid addressing his charge of "gross lack of personal integrity". Why? Do you
believe that Carlos has shown a high degree of personal integrity? Do you 
believe that Carlos has never lied to the Board, individual Directors, or 
members?

You address the issue of spending the Endowment Fund money by giving examples 
of the need for money to pay for workman's compensation insurance and the Mike
Perry rescue. You then set up a straw man by saying that the only other choice
to spending the Endowment Fund is to close up shop or not rescue Mike. This is
clearly wrong if you are willing to spend a little time in consideration of 
alternatives. I suggested a couple at the last Board meeting.

But what I have the most problem with is that you don't consider good 
financial planning to be a viable alternative. 

Why did Alcor get into the situation where a $30,000 payment could mean the 
end of Alcor? Less than 2 years ago, Alcor had an excess in its operating fund
of, I believe, over $100,000. The problems with workman's comp and Mike's 
rescue would not have been financial crises if there had been proper financial
planning and execution.

Re: the "overcharging" of the Patient Care Fund, etc. I don't know if the 
charges are reasonable so I won't comment. However, I have a problem with 
Carlos changing the amount of salaries allocated to the PCF without the Board 
approving. The change was an over 60% increase and ALL employees now have some
portion of their salary paid by the PCF! I think that this is a significant 
enough policy issue to be brought to the Board's attention. 

I agree with Paul that there is "continuing negligence in making that fund a 
fully independent trust". I believe that it is imperative that Alcor institute
some type of protective mechanism to protect the PCF from depredation from 
governmental or private sources. The seizing of the PCF would either shut 
Alcor down or come very close to shutting it down. 

I think that a trust with Alcor as the beneficiary would be a low cost and 
generally effective first step in protecting Alcor's assets. What do you 
suggest as a solution to the asset seizing problem? I know that your solution 
to this problem in the Endowment fund is to spend it but I have never heard 
your solution to protecting the PCF.

You say "...if the board were to make any substantial changes now, it would 
look like they were turning Alcor over to the lunatic fringe." I resent being 
called "lunatic fringe". Keith, you attack other people for using emotional 
terms (and I agree with you about this) but you consistently use ad hominem 
attacks like calling people "lunatic fringe" and attack their ideas as 
"absolute nutcake stuff" and so on. Please rationally discuss the ideas rather
than cause the discussion to degenerate.

I appreciate the fact that you take the time and thought to respond to most 
postings but I would take your comments more seriously if you stuck to 
discussing the facts and ideas rather than the people or changing the subject.


Re: Mike D. rides into the sunset

You admit to violating member confidentiality. 

You then compound your gaff by stating that "the board decided that patient 
confidentiality...can take a back seat in extreme situations to our 
contractual obligation...". I find it hard to believe that the Board passed 
such a motion. Can you please show me a motion or resolution where the Board 
stated this? This sounds instead like your interpretation of some Director's 
opinions not a statement of the Board. 

You then set up another straw man by rhetorically asking if there are any 
Alcor members that wouldn't want to have their name given up in order to be 
suspended. I would say of course not. But the real question is whether or not 
you NEEDED to violate member confidentiality? Could a Board meeting have been 
called to get approval of your act(s)? Could the member or their relatives 
have been contacted? 

I truly hope that you broke Alcor policy in an emergency situation and that 
there were no other ways of accomplishing the same end. Breaking such a policy
is a serious matter. You may be saving one person's life at the expense of all
other patients. Could your actions have led to a lawsuit that would jepardize 
the other patients? 

Taking actions against Board policy when other avenues are available is a 
serious matter. I would nervously support your decision if it were a real 
emergency with no other alternative available. On the other hand, if you took 
such an action and there were other alternatives, I would call for your 
resignation from the Board. Which was it?

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1344