X-Message-Number: 30245
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 14:38:22 -0800 (PST)
From: david pizer <>
Subject: Re: Alcor: "Greatest idea yet known to mankind"
We have been talking about the way Alcor directors are
elected. At present the directors re-elect
themselves. Many Alcor members object to this. Some
of the reasons expressed as to why the existing system
is not the best are:
1. Having directors elected and re-elected by only
the 9 existing board members makes it much easier for
a hostile group to take over Alcor and then get
control of the money. To take over the board, the
maximum number of hostile people needed is 5. To take
over the whole membership you would need a huge
number. Let's say at the time there were 1,000
members. Then the hostiles would need to have 1000 and
1 new people join Alcor to have a majority.
2. The way the present board is elected makes the
board members not accountable to anyone but
themselves. All other things equal, having people be
accountable usually makes them do a better job then if
they are not accountable.
3. The present way the board is elected is an insult
to the membership and causes lack of membership
involvement. The present system says something like:
"We the directors think you are not smart enough to
vote for directors. We are much smarter then you!" I
know this sounds rude, but if we are being honest that
is what they must think. They just plain think they
are so much smarter then the regular members that the
regular members cannot be trusted with the vote as
long as they exist. This causes non-director members
to loose interest.
4. Because of the "smarter then you" attitude of the
board, members have quit being proud of being Alcor
members, they are less motivated to want to be
involved with management of Alcor. If you are
considered to stupid to have a vote why would you want
to come to the board meetings or get involved in any
other way. Alcor members are quitting. For every 2
or 3 that join, 1 quits. This means that people are
joining Alcor because they like the cryonics idea, and
then when they find out how Alcor is managed, and then
a lot of them quit.
Old time members are quitting and new young members
are quitting. Many of Alcor's past living presidents
are no longer Alcor members.
We can change all this by making the Alcor members
feel they are a part of Alcor management. We can once
again rebuild the enthusiasm that Alcor used to own.
We can do it by allowing the members to elect the
directors. This will make the directors accountable
to the members. If we don't do this, I predict Alcor
will fall by the wayside as so many other cryonics
organizations have in the past.
HOW WILL WE DO IT AND MAKE IT BETTER?
RUSSEL CHENEY has brought us some good considerations
to think about if Alcor directors allow the members to
have the vote. I believe there is a way to make Alcor
safer from hostile take-over, and at the same time
rekindle the old spirit of involvement and enthusiasm
that helped make Alcor the great organization it used
to be.
I believe the changes that I will talk about below
will cause most of the 900 existing Alcor members to
get much more involved in Alcor. That this new and
intensified interest will bring Alcor many new members
(friends of existing members) and much more resources
and donations. I will explain why below as I reply to
Russ's questions.
RUSS
> Discussion focus on the question of the election of
> Alcor Board-of-Directors members: Some points of
> consideration:
> Who could vote? All Alcor members equally?
> Limited by length of membership / other criteria?
DAVID We would have a time limit for membership before
an Alcor member can vote. It might be between 2 and 5
years. I would like to hear from others on how long
they think it should be.
RUSS
> How is the long-term stability of Alcor, its current
> and future patients, and current and future members
> addressed and guaranteed? How is an external cabal
> / financial attack / takeover addressed / prevented?
As I pointed out above, at present all a hostile group
needs in 5 conspirators. At present the way you get
on the board is to agree with whatever the present
board members feel about each issue. The board, in
order to avoid controversy and conflict, has taken to
only electing new people who agree with them. Five
conspirators could join Alcor and work their way into
board positions over time and then take over. However
if the membership controls the votes, the conspirators
would have to take over 50% of the membership to get
elected, at present that would take almost 1,000
conspirators.
RUSS
> How are the rights and privileges of the individual
> members guaranteed / safeguarded?
DAVID - The very fact that members cannot vote now
means that members now have no rights at all. If you
don't like what the directors are doing with Alcor you
can quit. That is presently your only option. And,
that's what many Alcor members are doing. On the
other hand, if members are allowed to vote for the
directors, then they have the right to help control
Alcor and the directors have to come up for
re-election from time to time. So now there is more
accountability to the members on the part of the
directors. Even if a bad directors get on board
somehow, he will be tossed out in the next election.
RUSS
> Who would be eligible for election? Current Alcor
> membership only? Age? Length of Alcor membership?
> Education? Degrees? Field(s) of qualification?
> Work / achievements in cryonics / Alcor? Current
> positions causing ineligibility?
> Is there more than one status of Board membership?
> How many of each? On what criteria? Of what
> responsibilities / privileges? With overlapping
> terms? Voting versus non-voting membership?
> Part-time versus full-time? Compensation? Staff?
> Length of terms? Limitations on re-election?
> Variable? > What checks and balances are proposed?
DAVID
I favor a system where a person who wants to be on the
board runs for an adviser position first. He/she
serves as an adviser for 2 years. The adviser has to
vote on every issue before the directors vote for it.
The adviser's vote is recorded and so a record of how
he/she stands on issues is created. The advisers vote
doesn't count but it does create a record of how she
stands on the issues. The pool of advisors can be,
say, up to 10% of the membership.
Directors are then elected from the pool of people who
have been advisers for at least two years on a
staggered basis. Directors would serve a 3 year term.
So every year 1/3 of the directors would stand for
election. Directors could be impeached under some
circumstances. We would have to hammer out how that
might happen.
RUSS
> How can the Board be both stable and reactive? What
> is the correct balance? How can the quickest path
> to recovery / reanimation for the cryopreserved be
> achieved / supported?
DAVID There will always be more total relatives of
the patients in the total membership then the 9 board
of directors. So the patients have many more
advocates in the membership pool then the directors
tiny pool of 9 people. So giving the larger group of
their relatives more power gives them much more
safety.
RUSS
> How are policies and actions to be enforced?
> Adjudicated?
> What Board Member firing / resignation / retirement
> / withdrawals / impeachment / disqualification /
> recall will apply? Originating from illegal acts,
> membership vote, Board action, cryopreservation,
> disappearance and what else, and determined and
> enforced by whom? Voting by majority rule,
> consensus, super-majority, two-thirds? Variable by
> decision?
DAVID - We will need to work on these.
RUSS
> What are the current and future county, state and
> federal legal implications?
DAVID The way Alcor elects directors can be changed.
There are several ways it can be done in a legal
fashion. We will need legal advice if we can first
convince the directors to support this.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30245