X-Message-Number: 30254
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 16:28:55 -0800 (PST)
From: david pizer <>
Subject: Re: Alcor: "Greatest idea yet known to mankind"
I would like to point out differences in the two
different systems for managing Alcor that are being
debated.
Some of us are arguing for a system where the
directors are elected by the members, and therefore
held accountable for their actions. We say this
system is the best way to prevent mistakes in a
company because it causes an evolution of directors,
the fittest (best qualified to make decisions for
Alcor) survive and get re-elected. The ones that
supported policy that caused mistakes get replaced.
We say that by allowing the best possible leaders to
evolve into the management of Alcor will be the best
way to avoid mistakes and if Alcor doesn't make
mistakes they don't get sued, etc. (Steve talks about
getting sued in his original message).
The existing directors seem to favor just re-electing
themselves over and over regardless of their record of
mistakes and they have a different plan for keeping
from getting sued. And that plan is NOT necessarily to
quit making mistakes. Here is what director and Alcor
President Steve VanSickle thinks we can do to avoid
getting sued for any mistakes he may be responsible
for.
Steve VanSickle said:
" And on those occasions when it *does* get dramatic,
usually the legally prudent thing to do is not make
matters worse by flapping your mouth, unless you
really *like* getting sued."
Translated that means that VanSickle is more concerned
with hiding mistakes then avoiding them. Rather then
advocate for a system that causes better managers to
evolve, he says we can just clam up, not tell anyone
about the mistakes we make. And that is what the
Alcor board has been doing the last 7 or 8 years. If
you read Steve's whole post below, he remembers the
old days when Alcor was open and honest with it's
members, and when growth was much better and member
participation and support was much better then it is
now under his control of Alcor. And he is willing to
trade all that off for a policy of secrecy.
Now if you are an Alcor member, how are you going to
know if Alcor is really in big trouble when the board
has this policy of not telling the members about the
really big problems?
The answer is we won't know. The board says we can't
vote, and we should just trust them, and now they say
we can't know the problems and we should just trust
them. And what are Alcor members saying to the board
now-a-days?
A lot of them seem to be saying "Goodby!" In the last
two years, for every net gain of 1 member, 1 member
has left Alcor. That tells us that people like the
ideas that Alcor stands for, prospect of immortality,
or radical extension of life attempt.
The board has been using the threat of getting sued as
a reason for holding secret meetings and keeping
information about the mistakes they have made for the
past 7 or 8 years. They use things like the current
trouble Alcor is in, the risks to Alcor at any one
time, as a reason to not tell us. But I think another
reason they want to keep things secret is they don't
want us members to know just how bad they are really
doing. They don't want us to know all the mistakes
their leadership has caused.
I say a better way to protect Alcor is to do things
right in the first place. To quit making mistakes.
The way to make that happen is to make the leaders who
are responsible for what happens be held accountable
for the results, and if those results are bad don't
hide them from us, allow us to replace the guys who
make them. That's what honest, successful well-run
businesses try to do.
We are the most honest, moral and ethical organization
(in our goals) in the world. We don't have to hide
what we do. We should be making our goals and ideas
known to all mankind, not hiding our dailey actions.
In the old days we did make our everyday actions
public and we grew faster.
For example, some thought the Dora Kent affair was
going to destroy us. They wanted us to hide
everthing. We told the world what we did and why. By
going public with our side of it, instead of being a
disaster we turned it into one of the best
fund-raising and membership raising events in our
history.
Only when we return to a policy of accountability of
our leaders and more honesty with our members will
Alcor have a chance of starting meaningful growth
again.
lack of growth in membership is the single biggest
threat to our patients. It is what contributed to the
demise of all those failed cryonics organizations so
far.
--- wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > I remember those days well. They were days
> a large percentage
> > of Alcor members were activists, and drove growth
> with regular
> > meetings and outreach to like-minded associates.
> They were days when
> > Cryonics magazine chronicled organizational ups
> *and* downs in such
> > detail that waiting for the next monthly issue was
> like waiting for
> > the next installment in a story. They were days
> of 30% year over year
> > growth, sustained for several years.
>
> I remember the glory days, too. The freewheeling
> drama of an ongoing soap
> opera, waiting in my mailbox. I was addicted to the
> story, too, month
> after month. Not just the dry technical details,
> but the acrimony, the
> employee problems splashed out for everyone to see
> regardless of legal
> risk, the arrests and legal fights for our very
> existence, the macabre
> stories and personal rants in our magazine and
> online...yes, all that was
> very exciting.
>
> How many hospitals have monthly newsletters,
> spelling out in detail the
> fights among the hospital board, and how they just
> got this great deal on
> surgical equipment for scrap prices...just buff it a
> little an no one will
> know!? How many relate the said demise of Cuddles,
> the Unbearably Cute
> Puppy who gave his life for the good of the hospital
> (next time, we'll get
> it right!)? How many continually have to tell all
> about the efforts of
> the state to shut it down because they scare the
> hell out of people? Not
> many, because a well run hospital (or any company)
> is boring. I, and you
> too, should aspire to boring. We aren't quite there
> yet, but we are a lot
> closer than we have been in a while, and I hope we
> get even more boring.
> Drama is all well and good for romantic hobbyists
> out pushing the limits
> of the possible, all wrapped up in a cult of
> personality, but it is not
> the way professionals do things. Adrenaline junkies
> need to look
> elsewhere for their fixes.
>
> This is not to say that openness is a bad thing, or
> that we shouldn't talk
> about problems, but most of the time that isn't very
> dramatic either. And
> on those occasions when it *does* get dramatic,
> usually the legally
> prudent thing to do is not make matters worse by
> flapping your mouth,
> unless you really *like* getting sued.
>
> So, if anyone can think of a way to get that old
> excitement without the
> problems that went with it, I'm all ears. But do
> please remember that
> the good old days are never as good as we
> remember.
>
> steve vs
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30254