X-Message-Number: 30267
From: 
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:37:15 EST
Subject: Re: Director's response to " Let's clear the air."

From Steve Bridge
January 6, 2008

Sometimes I think that communication was easier in the early 1980's before 
everyone had e-mail and we had to argue these things out by mail.  You really 
had to think about your communications and knew that you had maybe one or two 

chances a week to make a point.  You couldn't make sudden replies to every line
you saw.  And you didn't write a 10-page letter on Sunday afternoon and expect 
replies from a dozen different people by Sunday night.

Dave, everyone else has lives, too.  Even when I was working full time at 
Alcor, I didn't have time to argue every point you had time to make, over and 

over, repeated day after day in long, detailed posts.   Usually, these posts got
longer by the day, since if anyone DID take the time to offer thoughts, you 

added 2-3 more pages beating on their points.  I certainly don't have time to do
long detailed replies today, even though I see many inaccuracies, 
misassumptions, and predictions that I disagree with.

Frankly, Dave, when your posts get over 3-4 pages, I doubt if any one of us 
does more than skim them looking for something new.  That's probably true if 
ANY of us writes more than 3 pages, except very rare exceptions.

I am going to take a very few minutes and point out a few things that I have 
noticed, without wearing everyone else out.  But don't expect me to engage in 
line-by-line debate with you.  Everyone, I apologize for the length of this 
reply.

First, it is very hard to discuss issues with you, Dave, because you never 

acknowledge that anyone else's concerns or points are possibly true or relevant.
 This does not create a discussion; it creates a debate -- where scoring 

points becomes the object.  Your argument style is -- no matter what anyone else
writes -- that your point of view is the only possibly right one.  You don't 

even say that your plan is "more likely to produce results" than another plan.
You just continue to state that what is done now is bad, and that a different 
method of electing the Directors would be sure to produce better results.  
Then you ask US to prove that we are right.  This is not a "discussion."

Dave, you accuse Carlos and the other Directors of not being willing to 

concede that you have any good points and that they don't listen to the Members.

But Dave, in all your arguments, YOU do not concede that anyone arguing against
you has any good points. Not once in all of this do I remember you saying, 
"Yes, that's a good point, and we need to discuss how that works."   You are 

basically doing the same thing to the Directors and Advisors here that you claim
the Directors have been doing to you. 

Dave, no one can predict the future; and we cannot replay the past to see if 
it would have worked differently.  No one can *sure* that changing the current 
way of selecting Directors would have worked better in the past or would work 
better in the future; just as no one can be sure that keeping the current 
system would work better in the future.  We can "discuss" the pros and cons of 

each system (there are both) and we may come to some kind of consensus for what
is more likely to work better.  But hard debate on two entrenched positions is 
not "discussion" and just wastes time.  David, your style buries your message 
and prevents even many of the potentially sympathetic people in the 
discussion from taking it seriously.

Since Aschwin seems to more or less agree with your basic position (although 
he also appears to have some disagreement with your methods), perhaps it would 
be better for him to carry more of the discussion.  Maybe that would actually 
PRODUCE a "discussion."

A couple of more items after the quote from Dave below, which goes with my 
discussion above.

>In a message dated 01/06/2008 8:21:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, >
 writes: 
>
>I took a couple of hours out of my Sunday to carefully
>write what I thought were some very serious problems
>in Alcor.  I gave reasons why I felt that way.  I was
>careful not to specifically make any person insults. 
>I had hoped that the directors would read this and
>respectfully consider them.  They might think: Maybe
>Pizer is right?  Maybe there are some serious problems
>at Alcor.  Pizer offers some suggestions on how we can
>fix things. He did save Alcor bacon when he moved us
>to Arizona and got us the building we are in now.  He
>was right on a lot of other matters when we were
>wrong. Should we consider these suggestions at the
>next board meeting.  Should we ask our other members
>what they think. No.  Director Mondragon did not do
>any of these things, here is what he writes:


***********

From Dave's earlier note on Sunday (Dave's replies are marked with >)

>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 repeat that we do not necessarily see this good effect with our 

elected national representatives, who are usually re-elected or not based on 
issues 
completely un-related to their competence or thoughtfulness.  Instead they are 
judged on hot emotional issues like a particular tax, or whether they 

supported gay rights or whether they had sex with the wrong person at the wrong 
time. 
 We must concede that this could be a problem with elections of Directors.  I 
will state that this would possibly be LESS of a problem if the electorate 
were made of Alcor members of long standing; but once that electoral pool 

reaches several hundred (as it already IS), a great majority of that electorate 
will 
only be able to judge their votes based on promises and popularity or 

hot-button issues, since most of them will never be able to attend meetings and 
get 
to know candidates well.

>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.

Dave, you keep saying this; but I do not believe that this scenario was 

*ever* true to any extent.  Yes, there was discussion about possible new 
Directors; 
but the Directors themselves always decided whom to add.  I think this "will 
of the members" idea is wishful remembering on your part, trying to build up 
your argument.  There were two years that this might have been true to some 

small extent.  In the 1992 election, there was a lot of pressure on the 
Directors 
to do something different -- because Alcor really had not been following its 
own rules.  Elections up until that point had only been held to add a Director 
to fill a slot.  Prior to 1992, current Directors were not held up to annual 
elections, even to re-elect themselves.  Several members had pointed this out 
and had also pointed out that some Directors weren't even attending meetings, 
much less contributing to Alcor's progress.  So in the first real elections of 
Directors, there was a lot of politicking going on, to add new Directors.  

But that was an exceptional circumstance -- it was the first open election.  And
there was NO member consensus on whom to choose or what to do, other than a 

consensus that Alcor should follow its Bylaws and have annual elections.  Three
Directors were removed and three new ones were added at that election.

In 1993, Alcor was on the verge of a split with CryoCare.  Basically some 

Directors and Members said, "elect whom we want or we will go elsewhere."  Other
Directors and Members wanted Alcor to hold together.  Some Members were 
listened to more than other members, and the split occurred.

Carlos, Michael Riskin, and Hugh Hixon may wish to comment more on this.

Frankly, I am not sure whether the truth of the matter more opposes or 

supports your argument, Dave; but you cannot argue from a situation that did not
occur.

>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. 

Personally, I suspect this is actually TRUE and is basically the only reason 
I think this change is worth considering.  However, that potential advantage 
must be weighed against other considerations.  It may be that the positives of 
such a change would be strongest for several years but that the negatives 
would weigh heaviest in the long run.  We are in for the LONG RUN.  

And be aware -- if Alcor ever makes this change and then several years later, 
it becomes apparent that it was a mistake -- there is no going back.  Only a 
majority vote by members (and getting through a few lawsuits, I'm sure) could 
then change the organization back; and I cannot imagine that such an election 
result would be possible with any group of humans.

>If the members elect the directors,
>Alcor will (over time) assemble more competent
>directors who will have a record of doing a better
>job. 

Different Directors, yes.  But I see no way to know if this would mean "more 
competent" Directors.  Each of the examples of abuse you quote (or very 

similar ones) would be equally possible with Directors chosen by Member 
elections.  
This is a very weak point and diminishes the force of your other points.

>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.

The last sentence completely defies logic.  The current system also can 
replace potentially inferior Directors.  No one thinks that the current system 

allows only perfect Directors and no one has ever made that point.  The argument

is about which system is more likely to produce a "better" direction for Alcor.
 I certainly hope that you, Dave, are not claiming "perfection" for your 
system.

>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.

Dave, this statement about "darkies" is slowly changing in the course of your 
posts from a satirical comment about Alcor's board to a racist statement on 

your part.  "Darkies" is a dehumanizing word, and you appear now to be using it
as if you thought it was an appropriate word to use for native African 

people.  It is not, and such usage detracts deeply from your post and from your
reputation.

>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 agree with the last sentence; but I see no reason to think that a broader 
electorate would in fact create a more diverse Board.  People tend to vote for 
people like themselves; and we have a lot more computer programmers in the 
membership that we do businessmen or lawyers.  I actually think that with an 
attorney, a bank loan officer, two science researchers, an accountant, and a 
physician, we have a pretty diverse group with useful backgrounds.  The Board 
consciously looked for an attorney and a physician for at least two of the 
positions.  How can we be sure that a broader electorate would do as well?

Steve Bridge

   


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30267