X-Message-Number: 30438
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:17:59 -0700
From: hkhenson <>
Subject: Re: Splitting Alcor
References: <>

At 03:00 AM 2/7/2008, Dave wrote:
>Message #30433
>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:39:12 -0800 (PST)
>From: david pizer <>
>Subject: ONLY ONE WAY TO FIX THE PROBLEM

"ONE WAY"?  Pardon me, but I invented the term "memeoid."

snip

>KEITH SAID:
>The leader last time a political battle led to a split
>the leader was Saul Kent.  This time it's Dave Pizer.
>Saul did manage to influence the board enough to get
>Carlos out and put Steve in.
>
>DAVID'S REPLY:
>I am not *the* leader in this new political battle.

Neither was Saul the only person involved last time.  There was Mike 
Darwin, Brenda Peters, Paul Waker and other names I can't pull out of 
the dusty corners of my brain.  There is no doubt you are the most 
"vocal" in the current war just like he was then.

>You can go to the website at www.reformalcor.org and
>see the growing list of people who want reforms and
>improvements at Alcor who have come out so far.  Read
>the blogs and forums and the area where people post
>under "support."  These are some of the people who
>have been brave enough to take the first step for
>themselves and for all of us.

Bitching doesn't take being brave and it doesn't take as much effort 
as working on problems.

>But they are just the tip of the iceberg:
>In an informal count, I have counted over 50 people
>who have posted something positive about wanting to
>discuss reforms on Cryonet, cold filter, and Alcor
>United or sent me private messages, in the last 30
>days or so.  I believe based on this small sample that
>*over* 80% of the Alcor members and prospects will
>want to discuss reforms.  That is a big group.

Let's face it Dave.  The board isn't going to give up political 
power.  You were a board member last time and this was essentially the issue.

   The Board must also
 >    commit to changing the method by which it is elected to allow for
 >    regional and member participation.  Both the present method and a
 >    fully democratic method of choosing board members are
 >    unacceptable.

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=1341
The board bent and put in Steve but since the board wouldn't bend on 
the rest of the agenda, and neither could Steve, they left.  It 
didn't hurt Alcor that much, but count up the lives lost please.  One 
of them was a long term friend of mine.

You should also consider this.  People who are in political fights 
enjoy the heck out of those fights, it's a primary level motivation 
right out of the stone age.  Once they win the fight or split the 
tribe and the hard work starts most of them will find something else 
to do that's more fun.

" . . . the very lack (to my best knowledge) of *any* specific proposals
from those who forced the management change as to how Alcor should
operate *differently* from the current way it operates is my reason
for considering this entire affair a pure political power struggle.

snip

"As a non-pigheaded, but thoroughly unenlightened board member, I would
very much like to know *what* changes you have demonstrated that "vast
majority of the active clients of Alcor" want.  If you can enunciate
them, perhaps you would find me agreeing with you."

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=1464

>KEITH SAID:
>"........ Then, not being satisfied by the
>results of his change, Saul and others formed CryoCare
>by mid 1993.  A number of Alcor members moved their
>suspension arrangements.  We know how that turned out;
>among other things Tim
>Leary was not suspended.
>
>DAVID'S REPLY:  I believe that Alcor is destined for
>another CryoCare or CryoWar every 10 or 15 years

I think you are right, and here it is right on schedule.

>as
>the number of members who are dissatisfied or
>disgusted with the present system of dictatorship at
>Alcor grows until the system is changed to give
>members the right to vote for their leaders at Alcor
>like CI does.

For better or for worse, Alcor is stuck with a perpetuating board.

"    What Saul, I and others attempted to do was to demonstrate to the
Board that the vast majority of the active clients of Alcor want
changes.  I believe it is unquestionably clear that we have done just
that and yet certain members of the Board are so pigheaded that they
have not recognized and acceded to this fact.  Unfortunately, because
of the way that Mike Darwin set up Alcor (and he certainly regrets it
now), the Board can thumb their collective noses at their clients for
as long as they don't go broke (which by the way things are set up
will be a very long time)."

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=1460  (Paul Wakfer)

It's not likely to be changed.  The current board members can argue 
that they are responsible for the patients and that's the kind of 
organization the patients signed up for.  QED.  That doesn't mean the 
board members don't change, it just means the politics is not so 
public.  Actually anyone with interest and ability can get on the 
board, all it takes is hard work and bad luck.  You might recall who 
it was that I replaced on the board and why.  :-(

I lacked the interest to find out why you were replaced.  I don't 
even know when it was.  Perhaps you could let me know in private email.

>In the CryoCare incident about 80 members left Alcor?

Sounds high.  I don't remember exactly how many left.  Can someone 
who knows post the actual number?

>Now about that many leave every 2 or 3 years.

Alcor is much bigger now.  And it is good idea to read the surveys of 
*why* people leave.  I don't think "democratic reforms" are going to 
address the reasons people leave, at least the ones who leave between the wars.

>I believe people join Alcor for the wonderful idea
>that cryonics stands for, they learn how Alcor is run,
>and they learn that they have absolutely no say
>whatsoever in the company that they have trusted their
>lives to, and so they leave.

That's not what the survey results show.  They either lose interest 
in cryonics or more often they can't afford it.  If I have to leave 
Alcor (and I may) that will be why.

>KEITH SAID:
>On a more general note, what's going on here is an
>attempt to change the political structure of Alcor
>rather than trying to fix the problems.
>
>DAVID'S REPLY:  There is no way to fix the problems
>until we change the political structure.

Long ago when Alcor was still in Riverside I listed a bunch of 
problems.  The biggest one was getting out of the earthquake 
zone.  That was done, mostly you did it, without changing the 
political structure.  I fixed problems without changing the political 
structure.  And so did other people on and off the board.

Don't forget that the power of a board is very limited.  It can set 
policy but it's main power is to hire and fire the CEO.

Your argument would have more force if you had been pushing it while 
you were on the board.  I am not looking for political power in 
Alcor  but if I was, I would probably be out there rebel rousing just 
like you.  Dr. Westen's really neat fMRI work showed that the parts 
of the brain engaged in political activity shuts down the rational parts.

Just like tribes split up a million years ago, the dissident group 
has to work up a good rage against the rest then walk off a huff to a 
new campsite.  You can't skip this unpleasant step.

>The Board
>runs Alcor and they are responsible for the few good
>things and the problems.  The Board runs Alcor and
>they are accountable to no one.  All other things
>being equal, a company that holds the managers
>accountable will do a much better job then a company
>where the managers account to no one.
>
>We the members want the Directors to be accountable to
>us.  Then if *they* don't "fix" the problems, we can
>"fix" the Board and keep fixing it evey year until we
>get a Board that can "fix" the problems.  In fact, a
>member-electing system will bring about a Board that
>not only can fix the problems it can prevent the
>problems from happening in the first place.

Riiiight.  Let me speculate that your expectation is that a member 
elected board would see the light and put you in as President, where 
the present board not only would not, but--in spite of your many good 
points and accomplishments--couldn't cope with you on the board.  (I 
say this without having talked about it to Hugh or any of the board members.)

>I urge readers to go to www.reformalcor.org now and
>log in and post your support.  Write an article or
>talk to all the rest of us in the blogs. There is too
>much at stake to not do anything.

Saul (like you) had the money to fund the split and so it 
happened.  He gave up after some years (I didn't follow it in detail 
so don't know why) and the splinter died.  Good things did come out 
of it though, like vitrification.  Maybe something good will come 
from the CryoNext split.

I don't expect my words here to have any effect on you or the course 
this particular split will take.

I am just speaking for the record like I did 15 years ago here:

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=1480  December 4, 1992

Keith Henson

PS.  You are welcome to copy this over to the other boards long as 
you leave it complete. 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30438