X-Message-Number: 29947
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: david pizer <>
Subject: Why Alcor may not last over the long haul.

Yesterday, Charles Platt posted a report about the
Alcor Conference and discussed the policy Alcor has
about how the board or directors elects themselves.  I
have some comments on this but first here is a little
of what Charles said, I suggest if you missed his
report yesterday you go get it and read it.

CHARLES SAID:
"However, Steve Van Sickle suggested that nonprofits
commonly do not allow voting privileges to their
members. He justified Alcor's policy because it
encourages "long-term stability."

I found this suggestion intriguing, since anyone
familiar with Alcor's history might conclude that the
organization has been anything *but* stable. I'll list
just a few random examples that come to mind. I'm not
saying whose fault these problems were, only that they
all occurred under the current system of a
self-elected board."

END OF CHARLES QUOTE:


PIZER SPEAKING NOW:

I believe that Alcor's present way of electing and
re-electing directors leads to a lack of
accountability to the suspension members.  I believe
the longer a director serves, the worse this gets.

I believe this will eventually lead to other things
that may eventually lead to Alcor going out of
business sometime in the future, unless Alcor changes
this policy and allows it's suspension members to
elect the directors.

I remain an Alcor member because I live pretty far
from CI and I still believe Alcor can do a better
suspension in some instances.  But I do not believe
Alcor is doing nearly as well as it could or should be
doing.

I believe when cryonics becomes more popular and
therefore there is more incentive for new companies to
open and compete with Alcor that those patients in
suspension at Alcor will be at risk.

I believe Alcor could change this situation by
allowing the suspension members to elect the board of
directors, which will make the directors more
accountable, which will make them do a better job of
running Alcor.

I am not saying the present people who are directors
are bad people.  I think being held accountable can
bring out the best in already good people. 
Accountability gives one the motivation to rise to the
top when the going gets hard in business.  I know it
has been the saving grace for me in many business
situations in my life.

It may be possible that many Alcor ex-members agree
with me.  I think the majority of ex-Alcor Presidents
are no longer Alcor members.  It may also be possible
that there are now more ex-members then Alcor members.
At least there are a significant number of people who
used to be Alcor members who are no longer members.  

My position is:  
1. Directors who are more accountable are more likely
to do a better job of running a company then those
directors who are not held accountable.

2.  Not allowing suspension members to elect directors
leads to directors re-electing themselves over long
periods of time.  This leads to directors who only
re-elect directors who get along with each other and
support each other.  This leads to stagnation of ideas
and energy as we now have in Alcor.

David Pizer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29947