X-Message-Number: 30265
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:49:03 -0800 (PST)
From: david pizer <>
Subject: Let's clear the air.
Sometimes in the heat of a debate people will get
emotional about issues and they tend to not read what
the other person has said. Instead they think he means
something else altogether. I an NOT making claims
about the directors motives or intentions, they are
probably the same as mine. I am making claims about
how Alcor is set up, how we can make it better, why
things are bad now. I would like to see meaningful
debate on these specific issues. Here is what I am
claiming. If you can't find fault with the logic in
these claims then I would like your support in trying
to change how Alcor elects it's directors.
FIRST CLAIM
I am saying that if the directors had to stand for
re-election each year, that would cause them to take
more time on matters, think the little matters over
better, and make better decisions. Less mistakes
would be made. Things would get better for Alcor, its
members and patients. I will explain why I feel this
way below.
A system of holding Alcor directors (or any managers
of any company) will cause those directors to do a
better job then if they feel they can't be removed by
the members. Knowing that you have to stand for
re-election by those whose decisions you effect, will
make people with good intentions do an even better
job.
I am not saying the directors are evil. I am not
saying the directors *want* to hurt Alcor on purpose.
SECOND CLAIM
Alcor has reached a size where the will of the
members, that used to control how which members were
elected to the board and how the board voted, is no
longer transferred with the force and efficiency that
it did when Alcor was smaller.
In the old days, the board did what the member wanted
- as if the members had the vote. We all met, board
members and suspension members together, in someone's
living room. Some of the best minds and true leaders
of Alcor were not on the board. They felt they could
not be open about their involvement in cryonics. So
the general membership decided the issues and then the
board rubber stamp voted in agreement. In a indirect
way, the membership was running Alcor at that time.
Over the years that slowly changed as Alcor grew in
size also the change was altered by the fact that the
board re-elects themselves. The directors began to
feel separate from the membership. I believe
directors not being accountable gives them a
tendency to feel separate from the membership and
leads to a degree of alienation.
So I am saying that the members *were* the ones who
(in an indirect way) chose the directors in the early
days, and things were better when it was that way.
I am saying that if Alcor has the involvement of its
900 members in choosing the leaders, this fact makes
the members feel more empowered. That leads to
them donating more money, volunteering more, bringing
in more members, and all the other things that are
starting to diminish.
I am saying that in the last
two years for every two people that joined Alcor one
person left. That means that people are coming to
Alcor for the idea that cryonics represents, and
because of Alcor's old reputation, and then learning
how Alcor is run now, and then 50% of them are
leaving.
I saw the same thing happen to ACS/TransTime before
they went under.
THIRD CLAIM
If the members elect the directors,
Alcor will (over time) assemble more competent
directors who will have a record of doing a better
job. This is because under the present system if one
director thinks another director is not doing a good
job and tried to replace that director, there is the
risk that if he fails to get that director replaced
then there is the chance the original director will
then try to replace him.
Or, as a form of defense a director that is under
attack will try to get those who are after him removed
to lower the number of foes he had. It is not an
obvious process that will be easily spotted but I have
been there, I know it exists.
This present system also leads to directors not
fighting hard enough against some motion they think is
wrong when they are in the small minority.
Having the members take over the responsibility of
electing the directors allows the inferior directors
to be replace at each election. To argue against a
system that can replace potential inferior directors
says that you think the present system only allows
perfect directors to get on board each and every time
and we both know that is absurd.
To minimize danger of putting in untested people in
office as directors I have proposed a system of
elected advisers who do a straw vote on each issue and
that a record is kept on their position on the issues.
I proposed the members elect these advisers.
At at each board meeting, the advisers vote first on
the motions. Their vote is recorded but it does not
count.
Then the directors vote and that is the vote that
counts. County governments do this now. They have the
planning board members who hear issues and then vote.
Their vote is called a "recommendation." Then at a
later meeting, the County Supervisors vote. Their
vote counts. Supervisor vacancies are generally
filled from people who had served a few years on the
planning board.
I do not believe that we have now or have ever had a
board where it consisted of the 7, 8 or 9 most
qualified people in Alcor. If you want to strive for
the best possible group of people, you have to have a
system of removing the less competent and replacing
them with better. Directors are hesitent to do that
to themselves. The membership is the better group to
do that.
FOURTH CLAIM
I claim that the evidence shows that Alcor is going
downhill lately. Membership growth is going down,
finances are worse in ratio to size of membership,
morale is down.
Alcor now has a serious competitor in CI. I
see the situation similar to when TransTime/CI was the
big dog and Alcor was the little dog. The people at
TransTime/ACS did not make needed changes and Alcor
kept growing and by the time the TransTime/ACS guys
realized they needed to make changes it was too late.
I think that situation is similar now. I think that
CI is no longer viewed as a technology and research
inferior to Alcor. But the big advantage CI has over
Alcor is the morale and enthusiasm of their members.
The reason for this difference is that CI members feel
a part of the team because they can vote for the
directors and officers.
Alcor members are just as smart as the darkies of
South Africa. You can tell them whatever you want but
as long as you hold the vote from them they will know
you consider them inferior. People who are told, but
words or deeds, that they are inferior, not qualified,
etc., don't like it.
Up to now,they just sat around and said something like
"I don't like the way Alcor is run but I believe Alcor
is better then CI so I will just hang on." Now that
is changing and it will escalate even more in the
future unless you directors give the members the power
to elect the directors.
Under the plan I have suggested, after being an
adviser for 2 years one can run for a seat on the
board, and the membership does the voting. After two
years as an advisor that candidate has a 2 year record
that any opponents can challenge and the members know
what they are getting.
FIFTH CLAIM - THIS ONE REGARDS THE SAFETY OF THE
PATIENTS.
I believe the single most important safeguard for the
patients is a strong membership organization. I think
a healthy, happy, growing membership is the best
insurance against any harm coming to them. I also
think it is the best resource if some government
agency tried to attack the patients.
As an example I remind you of Dora Kent when the
government tried to get her head. It was the actions
of the members that saved Dora, not the money in the
patient care fund, not anything else. That is still
the case.
SIXTH CLAIM.
I believe the present system of director-elected
directors causes a less diversified type of board.
Board members tend to elect people who are like
themselves. So after a while the board evolves into a
group of 9 similar-thinking people.
I think a diverse board with 9 very different people,
and 9 different points of view, would be much better
at spotting potential trouble long before it happens.
I specifically am not comfortable that there are not
successful business people on the board -- With the
possible exception of Saul. But even then I think that
he leaves the day to day problems of running their
business to Bill.
-----------
Please feel free to argue with the claims I have made,
the logic and evidence I have given to support them.
____________________________________________________________________________________
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=30265