X-Message-Number: 1611
Date: 14 Jan 93 08:38:41 EST
From: "Steven B. Harris" <>
Subject: CRYONICS Jerking Around Potential Donors
Dear Folks:
I have a comment to make on Keith's discussion of Saul's role
in the proposed Arizona Alcor building deal that disastrously
fell through. Without attempting to take sides I want to
reproduce an interesting section of Keith's letter. Keith says:
>>Saul, I am going to call you on this. (I should have jumped
you on the claim you made a while back that your attack on Carlos
was not "self serving.") I suppose you can make a narrow case
that your letter of May 19, 1992 was not in direct opposition to
Alcor purchasing a building, but it sure had that effect.<<
[after paraphrasing a section where Saul states his opinion that
raising money to purchasing one building over another was illegal
because it "changed the terms of" a board resolution, Keith
quotes a letter from Saul]:
Quote from Saul: "My second concern is that I think it is a
mistake for Alcor to own the new building. One of the reasons
Symbex [the group which owns the current building] was set up was
to protect Alcor from the possibility of government action
and/or civil judgement, which could lead to seizure of the
building. It was felt, and I think rightly so, that private
ownership of Alcor's facility--which is Alcor's principal hard
asset--reduces Alcor's liability and helps to protect the
organization and the patients Alcor is responsible for from
hostile government agencies and individuals. To unilaterally
"decide" that Alcor should own the new building outright, without
the consent of The Alcor Board and input from the membership is,
in my opinion, both illegal and irresponsible. As an Alcor
member, I request an emergency meeting of The Board to discuss
the issues raise in this memo. Please let me know as soon as
possible what action The Board will be taking with regard to
this matter. I can be reached at . . . . ."
Keith then goes on: "From what I understand (though I know I do
not have the full story and might have some critical details
wrong) this letter quickly went beyond the board to a former
Alcor member well known for irresponsible activities. According
to accounts I cannot verify, the former member used the contents
of Saul's letter to hassle at least one major potential contri-
butor--to the point of threatening lawsuits if he donated to
Alcor. The potential donor's lawyer was, in fact, the
person who pointed out to Carlos that the tax conditions which
obtained at the time Symbex was put together were no longer
current, and that it would be better for his client to simply
donate a large amount of money rather than put it into a Symbex
type vehicle. As Carlos pointed out later, he does not need a
board resolution to accept donations, and the logical conclusion
of Saul's argument is that Alcor should own nothing at all!"
Now, my own (Steve Harris) comments:
That may have been Saul's conclusion, and it may have been a
valid one. (Something of this sort is, you know, why many are
arguing that the patient care fund be operated by a separate
organization which is less vulnerable to suits against a sus-
pension organization). In any case, if the issue over the
building was this simple, I cannot imagine why it was not
resolved in one-two fashion. 1) You simply let our rich bene-
factor donate to Alcor for the purpose of buying the building,
along with whoever else felt obligated financially to do the same
for purposes of tax-write-off. Thus, Alcor could have bought the
building (big deal) on credit, using the benefactor's money as
down-payment. 2) After that, Alcor could leisurely have turned
around to sell said building (either at an amount only equal to
our remaining debt on it, or perhaps by retaining an appropriate
share in it) to a Symbex-like consortium of (other) cryonics in-
vestors, who would then rent back to us at a reduced rate,
reflecting a low sales cost (much as is being done with our
present headquarters) and everyone would then have been happy.
Doing it this way, Alcor would not have alienated our would-be
charitable benefactor(s), and our total financial exposure never
would have been more than the amount of donated money that we
failed to get anyway because of the political bickering (which
was everyone's fault, not just Saul's). And (again) we would
then have GOTTEN the damn building, which we're going to need
shortly anyway, and which is NOW going to cost us twice what it
would have last year.
Heck, if we'd have bought the building on credit then and
NEVER succeeded in forming a second symbex, we'd STILL be in
possession now of a building which is worth considerably more
than what it was last year. We'd have made a LOT of money, if
nothing else.
Am I missing something obvious in all this? If not, how come
you all didn't ask my opinion about this at the time? (I was
aware of none if this controversy until today). Let me give you
some underpaid researcher's advice: when people want to give you
money with no strings attached, you don't hassle them about it.
You say "thank you" as fast as you can (before they change their
minds) and then you figure out what to do from there. Saul was
obviously afraid that Alcor intended to buy the new building with
the money of everyone possible (not just our one sticky contri-
butor), and then keep the building in our name, indefinitely.
Why didn't somebody (Carlos?) be a little creative and tell him
it wasn't necessarily so?
Finally, by the way, how DID Saul's letter to the board,
impacting as it did on delicate negotiations with a wealthy
contributor, ever reach an unstable Alcor member in the East in
the first place? If Saul sent it to him or made it public, then
that's a black eye for Saul (some things are not meant to be
public until the appropriate time). If not, then somebody else
ought to `fess up.
Steve Harris
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1611