X-Message-Number: 30539
From: Tripper McCarthy <>
Subject: Back to the Real Issue A Compromise Suggestion
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:33:29 +0000


It seems that the debate currently seems to be revolving
around two issues:  1) do we want a
member elected board, and 2) the whole discussion about the changes to the
Bylaws. While these are important topics to discuss, I think we are drifting

away from the real fundamental issue: How can we bring more accountability to 

Yes, I know that a member elected board would bring
accountability, but that isn't the only way and shouldn't be the only approach
discussed. I have an alternate idea I would like to present. While not as tough
as a member elected system, it might be one we can all find some common ground
on. After all, I doubt that there is anybody on either side of the aisle who
doesn't agree that some increase in accountability wouldn't necessarily be such
a bad thing.

Annual Review

Every year I have an annual review with my boss. He has to
fill out a standard form (provided by HR) which grades my performance on
several categories, and also gives feedback on why I received the ratings I
did. My boss is a fair man, and he knows the trials and tribulations I face on
a day to day basis pretty well. Each year I embrace this chance to get an
overall  view on how I am doing, where I
am excelling, and where I need to pick up the pace a bit.

I think the same thing should happen for Alcor. Each year
(probably at the end of the year) the Board of Directors, Advisers, and Alcor
employees would rate the organization on several categories (finances,
readiness, marketing, etc.) and give feedback on why they rated categories the
way they did. These evaluations would then be sent to a third party who would
post the statistics on the grades received and also the feedback (anonymously
presented) on a website. In parallel the same review would be open to members
of Alcor to leave their grades and feedback as well. This third party would be
seen as a watch-dog organization whose sole purpose is to present the findings
of these reviews to the public at large for their education. They would make no
comment one way or another about the contents of the reports but simply be an
outlet to publish the information.

I think it is important for the Board, Advisers, and staff
members to do a review of Alcor because they are the ones closest to the issues
and often have the best understanding on what is going on. And after having
talked to some of them privately, it is obvious that they agree as well that
there are areas that need improvement. Having the general Alcor members also
take part in a parallel review would give the internal Alcor representatives an
outside perspective. It would show any disconnect between what one group sees
as true in comparison to the other.

What this Would Accomplish

There is an age old adage that if you are forced to display
your dirty laundry, you are more likely to do a load. I believe that if the
performance review outlined above was carried out and made public it would
force changes in areas that had perceived deficiencies. I fully admit that
there would be no teeth to such a review, but a low grade in one of the
categories, be it from the internal or external review, would be hard to get

away from. At the very least it would promote dialogue on the perceived problem.


This idea is probably not perfect, and will certainly not
make everyone happy. But then again compromises never do. I truly hope everyone
will carefully consider this as a way to bring a little more accountability to
Alcor without completely rocking the boat.


Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star 

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30539