X-Message-Number: 2308 From: Subject: Audit Letter, Fee Motion, New Building? Date: Mon, 21 Jun 93 02:41:02 PDT June 20, 1993 To Cryonet >From Steve Bridge, President Alcor Life Extension Foundation 1. The Audit Management Letter. Unless you are deeply into such things, it is not terribly interesting. It is also seven pages long, not on disk. I refuse to spend hours typing it in and posting it for a few people. And I still don't believe that it is appropriate to be posted publicly. However, I will be happy to mail a copy to any Alcor member who requests one. I have already mailed one to Charles Platt. I would also like to point out (in mildly annoyed fashion) that I have ALREADY summarized the management letter in the magazine in a full eight paragraphs at the end of my article "Accounting for the Numbers" in the May, 1993 issue of CRYONICS magazine. I don't think there are any surprises. 2. Fee Motion. After winning our case against the California Department of Health Services in late 1992, Alcor initiated a suit against the state of California to recover approximately $92,000 in legal fees (the actual amount of fees was much greater, but only certain classes of fees are potentially recoverable). Since the motion was being heard by Judge Aurelio Munoz, who made the initial ruling against the State and who has expressed much anger at employees of the Department of Health Services for continuing to throw roadblocks up against Alcor, we thought our chances were very high of winning our fees back. The Fee Motion was heard on Thursday, June 17 and ..... we lost. Not one cent. Judge Munoz said he was "not unsympathetic" to our case; but that our case did not fit the criteria set down by law for payment of fees. I quote: "The Motion is denied. First of all, the court does not feel that this action was defended in bad faith or was frivolous. Although the decision of the Court of Appeal now makes the issue clear and clearly supports the position advocated by the moving party, at the time this case was before the court the law was not that clear and the issues not that settled. Some of the fears of the State may yet come to fruition if scientific technology ever comes up to Alcor's hopes. "The request is also denied on the private attorney general theory. Moving party was really advancing and litigating its own rights and not that of the general public. Even though the court realizes that moving parties feel this was a great issue of overriding public importance, the court disagrees. This was not a right to die case. Instead, the court was being asked to determine if dead is really dead when one party with evangelistic fervor was contending dead is dead, but maybe not completely. What moving parties were asserting and vindicating were personal to members of organizations such as Alcor. The benefit to the public at large is speculative and thus does not warrant the awarding of attorney's fees." This decision was sent to David Epstein late Wednesday (that is, a preliminary decision before oral arguments). He argued further in court and made good points; but Judge Munoz had already decided the case. This is like an umpire's judgment call in baseball. It can't be appealed except by calling the judge's honesty into question -- and after all of the rulings in our favor from Judge Munoz, we could hardly do that. My impression of the Judge (my first time to see him) was that he was a fair and thoughtful man who didn't quite see our point on this one. 3. One good thing happened here though. Two of our whole body patients (Cynthia Pilgerim and Dick Jones) still did not have certified Death Certificates, because the state had refused to issue Death Certificates to cryonics patients at the times these patients were placed into suspension (1990 and 1988, respectively). When I tried to re-apply for those Certificates earlier this month, I ran into another series of barriers from the State Registrar's office in the Department of Health Services. ("That court ruling only applies to new patients. For older ones you have to have separate court orders. And the form has changed since then, so you need to track down the original doctors for new signatures." etc.) After our attorneys talked to Deputy Attorney General Tammy Chung, the cooperation got better immediately. Ms. Chung has already been called on the carpet by Judge Munoz and she was was highly anxious to dispose of this problem. When our attorneys brought up these problems at the Fee Motion in court, Judge Munoz was obviously irritated. Ms. Chung told Judge Munoz that the State employee who had spoken to me had been "scolded" for this and had been instructed to make NO decisions for the State in this regard but to refer any questions to the Department's Attorney. Munoz said that if Alcor DID have any more problems getting Death Certificates, he would take it very personally and he would invite Alcor's attorney to prepare contempt charges. And he would make sure that Alcor's attorney fees for THOSE actions were paid by the State. We have now received the Death Certificate (and Disposition Permit) on Mrs. Pilgerim and I hope to have those forms for Dick Jones shortly. 4. Possible move into new building. Over the past few weeks, we have been discovering that our Conditional Use Permit to do business here in Riverside was not at all complete, and that numerous physical problems with the building existed which might be very expensive to fix. This is a brief summary; a longer version will be in the magazine. First, at the moment we don't really HAVE a Conditional Use Permit. Our C.U.P. was conditioned on Alcor taking a number of specific actions within 90 days. That time period expired about a week after I arrived in California. I thought that only a couple of problems remained to be solved, but it turned out that many items were incomplete. We have applied for an extension and the City is very likely to grant it; but one problem may be unfixable at any reasonable price. When Alcor and Symbex Property group originally had this facility built in 1987, a lot of interior construction (including the operating room and the entire second floor) was done without a permit for reasons of money and time (we had to leave the place we were in and permits were taking almost a year to get approved in the building boom of the time.) So we have to get the permits retroactively. Unfortunately, some parts were either not built to Code or at least do not match the current building code (you're judged on when you apply, not on when you build). It is possible that total cost to file proper plans and do additional construction could be $30,000 or even higher. So the urge to leave town has grown stronger among the Board. Why put $30,000 into this building when you really want to get a new one anyway? This past Monday evening, in a special meeting, the Alcor Board of Directors voted to place a $20,000 deposit on a possible building in Scottsdale, Arizona (a suburb of Phoenix). This is NOT the same building that was nearly purchased one year ago. It is the same one that was considered about three months ago. NOTE: Putting a deposit down does not mean we have purchased the building. This allows us 90 days to examine the financing, construction, liens, tenant leases, and other aspects of the deal which we can only find out by making an offer. If we do not like what we find, we can cancel the deal and get our money back. As a matter of fact, people are still looking at buildings in Northern California and possibly other parts of Arizona. The offer we made (and they accepted) was $770,000 for a building with approximately 19,800 sq. ft. The building is about ten years old and has adequate ceiling height for transferring patients from dewars. (we will post more details in a few days and will be mailing details to members). The deposit money is from the Patient Care Trust Fund, on the theory that the PCTF will be an investor in the building anyway (as it is in the current Alcor facility) and it will be refunded if we decide not to buy this building. A Building Fund fund-raising project was just about ready to get started this month and that will now be kicked into higher gear. The precise method of ownership (limited partnership, Alcor ownership, or combination of the two) hasn't been established yet; but I hope to have news on this in a few days. I will be in Arizona myself for three days at the end of next week, speaking with city and state officials and Arizona attorneys to determine the degree of cooperation or hostility which is present. If Arizona is better for cryonics than California, we want to be there. If we are heading someplace WORSE, we want to find that out as soon as possible so we can re-focus on staying in California. Steve Bridge Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2308