X-Message-Number: 29529
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 23:19:04 -0500
From: Jonano <>
Subject: Message for David Pizer. Bylaws of Alcor

I read this text below and I don't agree with David Pizer.

What would happen if a sect want to join alcor with all their member
and they become a majority in the membership pool.

They would all agree to vote together on an accurate new law.

They would vote for a law to unfreeze patients. It's just an example.

Do you understand what I try to explain?

--Jon



From: "david pizer" <> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 13:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [universalimmortalism] making Alcor democratic


There was some discussion on this forum about if a
merger with Venturism were to happen most of us would
like to see Venturism become a democratic
organization. I agree.
============ ========= ========= ========= ======

But an even larger problem for us Alcor members is the
fact that Alcor is not a democratic organization. I
recently had a discussion with the present Alcor board
about making Alcor democratic and they are all against
it. I believe it is because they feel that since they
have done such a poor job managing Alcor in the past
10 years that they feel they would not get re-elected.
They don't want to be accountable to the membership.

I have been toying with the idea of challenging the
Alcor Board to a debate on Cryonet but I would not be
able to do it alone. I am asking to see if there are
any others on this forum who would like to see Alcor a
democracy and would be willing to join in a public
debate on Cryonet with the Alcor directors.

One of the reasons I believe the present Alcor board
is so narrow minded as a group is because they only
fill vacancies with other people who have demonstrated
that they agree with all the positions of the present
board. For instance most of the people who are
Universal Immortalists could NEVER get elected to the
Alcor Board because the UI's do not hold the exact
beliefs the existing board members do.

In is my opinion that this is leading to having 8 or 9
grumpy old men who are pessimistic about almost
everything and who are out of touch with the large
pool of potential new Alcor members. I believe this
is the reason Alcor is doing so poorly in membership
growth percentages and fund raising and many things we
don't even know about because they have taken to
having so many secret meetings lately.

If we were to begin such a debate we would first have
to gather a list of things that are wrong with Alcor,
verify it, and then see if the way Alcor board members
keep re-electing only themselves is the cause of this.
If this is true then we might want to start such a
debate on Cryonet. If the overwelming cryonics public
wanted Alcor to become democratic they would have to
make the change.

Alcor Directors in the past have claimed that they
can't rewrite the bylaws to allow democracy because
that would bring about an inspection by the feds about
Alcor's 501c3, since the bylaws have been altered once
already. But I believe this is a cop-out and that
there are ways the bylaws of Alcor could be written to
allow Alcor to allow its suspension members to elect
the directors.

Let me know if anyone has any interest in pursuing
this. Let me know if you are interested in trying to
make Alcor a democacy and willing to fight for that.

David


//////////////////

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29529

Warning: This message was filtered from the daily CryoNet digest
because the poster's reputation was too low.
It thus may need to be rated.