X-Message-Number: 2352
Date: 19 Jul 93 03:46:09 EDT
From: STEPHEN BRIDGE <>
Subject: CRYONET POLITICS Moving
>From Steve Bridge
To: Cryonet Politics
July 18, 1993
In reply to questions from Charles Platt and Steve Harris.
Gee, I seem to be writing long postings this week. It's a good thing
these are in the POLITICS section.
First, a brief correction to my posting #0014.146.
Brian Wowk and I discussed briefly someone who was threatened with
expulsion from Alcor for speaking against the building that Alcor was
trying to buy a year ago and (and supposedly convincing a major donor to
change his mind). Information from that individual has persuaded me that
I may have overstated his actions (as much as Brian may have understated
them). I have heard so many stories about this situation over the past
year (none from the actual donor) that I am probably guilty of passing
along stories that I don't have actual knowledge of. My point was that no
one is suggesting that Brian or other dissenters be expelled. I think
that question was settled last year. I should have left it at that.
Now, to Steve Harris's question:
I had said (in #0014.146):
>The current leaseholders do not seem at all disturbed at having a
>cryonics facility in their building.
Steve asked:
>Steve, the above is a sentence which needs CONSIDERABLE amplification.
>Would you mind?
This simply means that, as far as I am aware, the three current
leaseholders have spoken with Dave Pizer or Sterling Johnson (and I think
that one also spoke with Carlos Mondragon and Keith Henson while they were
visiting there recently), and they know that we are a cryonics company.
All seemed interested and curious (from the reports I have; I have not
spoken with them myself, but I plan to before any deal is done), and I
have had no hostility reported to me. If this turns out to be incorrect,
or if these renters give me a different reaction, that could make a
difference.
In addition, I would point out that, as far as I know (and Mike
Darwin and Carlos Mondragon commented on this several times in
conversations and in print), Alcor has never had negative reactions from
any of our neighbors in our current location in Riverside. We are not in
the same building, but our buildings butt up against each other. We have
been responsible residents, more responsible than many of our neighbors,
in fact.
Now, on to two letters by Charles Platt. (and I apologize in advance for
the writing inconsistency in sometimes referring to Charles in the 2nd
person and sometimes in the 3rd person.)
First, #0014.147 "New Alcor employee"
Charles and others have asked some questions about Scott Herman, who
has been hired on a temporary basis. Partly due to some confused
communications on my part at the meeting on Sunday the 11th, (Charles
attended the meeting by phone), some incorrect assumptions have been made.
I'll try to clear this up.
>I understand that Scott Herman (who placed some incoherently
>vituperative postings here last year, cancelling his
>suspension membership and predicting the imminent
>disintegration of Alcor after the departure of Carlos
>Mondragon as president) has now been HIRED by Alcor for
>$1,000 a month, to label inventory.
When the vote was taken to replace Carlos Mondragon with me as
President, Scott did indeed make some wild, hysterical postings. At the
time, Scott barely knew me and took a lot of the politics to heart. After
I came to Riverside, Scott eventually came back to volunteering, much
chastened by his explosion. As we have gotten to know each other, it
became clear to Scott that I was not an evil being out to dismantle Alcor,
and it became clear to me that Scott was hard-working and knowledgeable in
many useful areas. On a work-per-hour basis, considering the hours he has
been here as a volunteer during the past three months, Scott has gotten as
much work done as any staff member, and I appreciate it.
Something that is not clear here is that Scott is not being hired to
"label inventory." Scott's primary purpose will be to help us with the
move to Scottsdale, AZ, if that move should occur. Scott has an extensive
background in construction as well as in computers, and he is a handyman
in the class of Hugh. Disassembling this facility and moving it to
another location will require a lot of these skills. We will need
someone to be in Scottsdale keeping an eye on remodeling and other
construction activities, at the same time that similar services are
required HERE. The usual staff activities must continue, and an extra
temporary person is needed. Scott can stay in Scottsdale part of the time
and save us hundreds or even thousands of dollars in travel costs. Plus
there are certain non-permit parts of the construction that he can do
(touch-up, painting, computer-wiring) to save us money.
The auditors previously told us that we needed a full inventory of
our equipment. We have known for years that we needed some kind of
inventory control system for our suspension supplies, to help in
re-ordering and to provide a basis for figuring the costs for each
suspension. Scott will not just "label inventory." He will help us
choose and design the system we use, show us how to work it, and help it
get completed. Most people would agree that the optimal time to do an
inventory is BEFORE we move.
In addition, Scott is helping Hugh Hixon with the programming and
construction work on several research projects (including the automated
cool-down system) which should help improve our suspension capabilities.
Scott is not a scientist, but his abilities replace some of Hugh's so Hugh
can concentrate on doing the work that only he can do. We recognize that
Alcor has not been producing research improvements recently, and this
aspect of Scott's contract is as important as any.
Scott appears happiest when he is working and I expect to get at
least 60 hours a week for that $1,000 per month.
>In addition, I understand that Scott Herman will be living at Alcor's
>current facility.
Scott will be staying here temporarily and he may be staying at the
Scottsdale facility temporarily (while construction is going on) if we get
that. I agree that this is not a long-term solution, and if we can find
a way to pay a bit extra for rooming costs elsewhere for Scott, especially
as we get to Scottsdale, we may do so. Three years ago, I worked for
Alcor for three months for $4,000 total and only could manage by staying
at Mike Darwin's home for free. (Not totally "free;" I disturbed Mike's
private life enough in that time that if I was going to stay longer he
might have paid me to leave. :-))
>In the past, it was Scott Herman who convinced Alcor to spend
>a large sum of money on new computers, against the advice of
>other computer professionals who felt that existing hardware
>was adequate for the job. I'm sure that Scott Herman is a
>hard worker, and I know he has helped Alcor in the past, but
>fiscal restraint does not seem to be one of his strong points.
I don't know that Alcor actually spent a lot of money on new
computers. Our system seems pretty inadequate to me. As far as I have
ever heard, "other computer professionals" means Charles Platt on some
things and Paul Wakfer on others. Disagreements happen. If the sole job
of everyone on the staff were using Wordstar to answer e-mail, the old
computers were probably adequate. Since we are trying to do more than
that, they are not. It has been several months since this issue came
up, but at the time someone was complaining about Ralph Whelan and Mike
Perry getting 486 computers. I will remind everyone that Ralph and Mike
paid for those *themselves* out of their paychecks, even though they
frequently use them for Alcor business.
Even more importantly, everyone on this staff tries to convince me to
spend more money on various things, computers included. Fiscal restraint
is not the staff's job; it is MY job. Staff are SUPPOSED to push
management to find the money to make their jobs better. If I don't do a
good job or if I approve the wrong expenditures, complain about ME.
>Scott Herman's wages will be paid by Alcor itself, rather
>than by some outside benefactor. This means that as an Alcor
>member, I find myself in the odd position of supporting Scott
>Herman, in much the same way that as a taxpayer, I support
>people on welfare. This does not thrill me. I would like to
>know:
Scott is not a salaried employee. This is a misunderstanding caused
by me at the meeting. We had planned to hire Scott for three months (with
another three months as option) as a contract employee. Dave Pizer
pointed out this might cause Workman's Comp problems, so we switched him
to employee status. Later I found out that Scott DID have his own
business set-up, so he is back to being a contractor.
Scott's employment is dependent on two things. One, that during the
next few weeks Alcor make progress toward a move to the Scottsdale
building. Two, that we get enough donations (not investments) toward that
move so that his pay can be met from the *Building Fund* (we would not be
hiring him at all if we weren't making moving plans). If I can't raise
the money or if we see we aren't going to move, Scott's employment will be
terminated or his contract will not be renewed (details of the contract
are still being worked out).
In either case, we will get an immense amount of work from Scott at a
comparatively low cost over whatever period of time he is here, with the
side benefit of more scientific work from Hugh. If these things don't
happen, we won't keep Scott. He has no similarity to a person "on
welfare.'
>1. Was any attempt made to solicit volunteer help for this
>work, before deciding that payment was necessary?
Scott has been our prime in-facility volunteer for several months.
For this move, we need some full-time help and I assumed we could not get
full-time help as a volunteer. Your question may be based on the
incorrect assumption that Scott would just do inventory.
2. Was any attempt made to find someone who was willing to do
it more cheaply? (It seems to me, Scott Herman is being paid
more than minimum wage, even before we factor in his free
residential accommodation.)
We are going to find a computer programmer/systems manager/handyman
who wants to work 60 hours a week for less than $12,000 a year? Again,
this is not just a part-time bar-code labeler.
>As I understand it, Alcor is not exactly rolling in money
>right now.
You're right, and we would never consider a deal like this without
the potential of the building move to pay for it.
I will ignore most of the rest of Charles' comments in this letter,
since they again assume that Scott's pay would come from normal operating
funds. But there is one important philosophical point.
>there is another aspect of this which is just as
>important. People such as myself, who have donated their
>labor to Alcor in the past, are going to start saying to
>themselves, "If Scott Herman is getting paid, why should I go
>on working for free?" And an organization which hires new
>help at a time when it can barely pay its current employees
>will be hard pressed to convince anyone that it is
>financially prudent, when it tries to raise money for some
>new project--such as purchasing a building.
The need for volunteers versus the need for employees has been argued
for years. Over the years there have been a handful of volunteers willing
to work a few hours per week for Alcor. I have done volunteer work for
Alcor since I joined in 1982, often as much as 40 hours per week. Except
for the leave of absence I took for three months in 1990, my current
position is the only pay I have received. Occasionally we find another
extraordinary volunteer like yourself, Charles, who is willing to put in
many hours per week. But it is rare for this to go on long without
burnout. Most of the volunteers can come in for a week at most or can
work one day a week for several weeks. I've never seen a situation where
we could get a volunteer for specific tasks that must be done HERE at the
lab, that will require traveling, and that will require full-time work
over some period of time.
As for, "If Scott Herman is going to get paid, why should I go on
working for free?" -- well, for some jobs we just have to pay to get the
work done. I think it would be great if we could pay everyone who does
work for us. Of course, we can't. I volunteered for several years
because I had things I could contribute that no one else could, because I
wasn't willing to move to California and risk impoverishment, because I
thought I was helping keep myself alive, and because my friends thought
that I was doing important work. If the pay was just an occasional pat on
the back, well, that was okay. In short, the same reasons anyone
volunteers for a job they feel is important. We probably haven't given
enough pats on the back in this organization, although I thought we were
trying to do much more since I've been here.
Yes, volunteering for Alcor these days can be very frustrating.
There are so many people bickering or having major disagreements and those
people always want you and I to agree with them. I get this frequently:
"Steve, you have to be a leader... and follow ME." (This is not a comment
on YOUR request for me to take more of a leader role. We have talked
about this and I know you don't have an agenda you wish me to follow.)
Incidentally, your "I won't volunteer anymore" letter earlier sounded
awfully fatalistic, and even ..... English. Is that really you? I hope
you will reconsider your pull-back from volunteer work. You've done a lot
of good for us, even though it has been occasionally frustrating. Sure,
it was more fun when you didn't know so much. I had a LOT more fun before
CryoNet got started. I could ignore all of the shit and work on making
the things better that I could influence. Now I spend hours a day
promoting positions and trying to inform people about the very things that
I tried to ignore years ago. Ignorance is bliss, they say, and cryonics
may actually be one of the few fields where a large amount of ignorance
actually is beneficial for the amount of work that gets done.
Some further commentary on Charles Platt's message #0014.151
Some of what I said above is really aimed toward comments made in
this message. I won't quote everything, but I want to clarify a couple of
things.
In reference to my building discussion, Charles writes:
>Your summary of the situation re the new building is of
>course exemplary in its fairness. However, in attempting to
>be fair, you portray all viewpoints as being more or less
>equal. For instance, you imply that buying a building which
>has tenants is no more wise or foolish than buying a building
>that does not have tenants. I realize you have had these
>conflicting options presented to you with equal force, but
>Steve, that does not make them equal.
I think Charles misinterprets me here. I assume he is referring to
my listings of the various kinds of advice being given to the Board from
all directions. I listed many opposites, including the lines about the
tenants. I did not mean that these had equal weight with me! I merely
listed them to show the kinds of conflicts we have to wade through to
decide which answers we agree with.
Personally, I think that sometimes a building would be better
with tenants and sometimes better without, depending on many other
factors, including financial ones. If we had unlimited resources, then
the answer is WITHOUT, because there is some risk in having tenants. (I
also believe there is an equal or greater risk to BEING a tenant.) If
tenants give you the opportunity to get a better building than you
otherwise could in a good location with an assumable mortgage (and other
benefits), then the risk is worth it. These are not tenants in the Bronx
or in East L.A. This is an up-scale, very desirable industrial park in a
city just named "America's Most Livable City" by the American Council of
Mayors (well, okay, the Mayors probably didn't visit Scottsdale in July).
Part of my point in that list was that to say that one should NEVER
have tenants or ALWAYS have tenants, etc. is inflexible. You have to look
at the specific situation and not be stuck with a set of rules. I thought
that I did express what I had to come to see as the best position to take
on this building. I think that investment in the building is a good idea,
provided we can get enough members to agree with us and provide the money.
Ironically, some people are saying "This is a bad investment because you
can't raise the money." This is really a circular argument. If we can't
raise the money, we don't invest. If enough people think it is a good
idea, we will be able to raise the money. Of course, if enough people SAY
it is a bad investment based on inflexible principles instead of looking
at the building itself and the deal itself, then it becomes a self-
fulfilling prophecy. Why do we spend so much time tearing each other
down?
>I have a question. If, as you suggest, the Patient Care Fund
>should pay more than $100,000 of the cost of the Arizona
>building, and if the fund is also going to continue covering
>certain other expenses (I believe it pays at least one
>person's wages, for start), can we still truthfully claim
>that this fund is designed to generate interest sufficient to
>pay all expenses connected with maintenance of patients in
>suspension? You will bear in mind, of course, Hugh's recent
>discovery that liquid nitrogen usage is twice what had been
>projected, and interest rates are currently low and likely to
>remain that way for at least the next year or two.
For the past three months, Michael Riskin, Ralph Whelan, and I (with
the assistance of several others) have been working on a complete re-
evaluation of Patient Care Costs. I hope we will finally have something
firm to report this month, along with a proposal to re-vamp the way
suspension funding is allotted. It started out to be worse than we
anticipated, but appears to be moving toward a more favorable conclusion
than I had hoped.
The one person's wages the fund pays is for Mike Perry, Patient
Caretaker ($9,000 a year). Several people have suggested that Patient
Care would be better off in a separate company, in a location separate
from other cryonics activities. Of course, this would require more than
one caretaker (unless you plan to keep Mike Perry a prisoner inside,
working 24 hours a day), an accountant, a telephone, electricity, and a
*building.* And who would pay for the building to house the Patients?
Probably the Patients.
Does anyone really think that a roof over their heads (or whole
bodies) is not an "expense connected with maintenance of patients in
suspension?" Maybe some of our members haven't thought this through. If
we aren't keeping people in suspension in giant 9' tall stainless steel
tanks, we don't NEED much of a building. We could use any little office
building. The entire PURPOSE of these specialized buildings is to keep
patients in suspension.
What is wrong with the Patient Care Fund owning part of the building
which protects its patients? Surely that is better than paying rent for
such a building. In a building the Fund owns, at the very least (barring
economic collapse) the fund could recover its money by selling the
building. In good times, which Scottsdale seems likely to have for quite
a while, the investment should grow. Sure, we'd love all of this to be
done through charity. Oh, wait a minute, libertarians are supposed to
despise "charity" and non-profits in general.
I take a stance in favor of practicality, instead of pure wishing for
charity or absolute libertarian-capitalism. What can we make work NOW to
get our patients into a safe location, that we can find a way to pay for?
>If fund-raising for a new building falls short of its target,
>I have heard it suggested that the Patient Care Fund can be
>tapped further, to make up the difference. This troubles me,
>and I wonder if it is possible for the board to make an
>absolute guarantee that it won't happen.
The Board going wild and spending all PCTF money for this building
without member support troubles me, too. More troubling would be damage
to our patients in Riverside if the "Big One" really does hit before we
move the Patients to safer ground. If the members refused to support a
move, I would wonder how much our members cared about our patients in
suspension and how much they understood that it is just good fortune that
they are not at -196 C themselves.
But I'm willing to put a cap on how much current PCTF money could go
into the building. My cap would be about $130,000. The reason I say
"current PCTF" is that we hope to get donations to Alcor to increase
Alcor's share in the building, and these would presumably be transferred
to the PCTF (although I'm still mulling over the consequences of that).
Also, some members might choose to pre-pay a suspension and have that be
part of the building purchase. One or two whole-body prepayments at
$120,000 would go a long way toward the $400,000 we need to raise.
Of course, if we don't get enough to buy the building, and we don't
spend more from the PCTF, and we have to stay here until a free building
becomes available to us, and we have a devastating earthquake, I'm
assuming Charles will help shoulder the responsibility. It's easy, just
like throwing dice. Seven, you win. Snakeyes, you lose, Jerry Leaf
loses, Arlene Fried loses, Dick Jones loses, etc. And I'm planning
several people for the Fund-Raising Committee to raise $25,000 to bring
the Riverside building up to code and the $1,500 per month it will cost
for rental space for our storage.
I don't really mean this to sound sarcastic. I'm trying to point out
that staying in Riverside has risks much greater than buying this
building. I think we can make it work. If there is member support for a
move, it will be EASY to make it work. And I think this is a good
building. In some ways, I'm sorry it is seen as a Pizer Project. Some
members have knee-jerk reactions against any proposal Dave makes. I have
argued with Dave over many things over the years and we are never going to
see eye-to-eye on many aspects of cryonics. But I think he is right on
this one building.
Steve Bridge
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2352