X-Message-Number: 731
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:22:53 EDT
From: Brenda Peters <>
Subject: Moving to Arizona

There are two aspects to moving to Arizona that have attracted attention: how 
the decision is being made and whether a move is a good idea.

I am among those who were not happy with the way the infamous meeting about 
moving to Arizona was run. I do not think that the Board was railroading a 
project through but I do think that it was not handled well.

First, my understanding was that everyone would go around the room and ask 
questions and make any points they wanted to make. Fine. But Carlos and Dave 
got to rebut any potential criticism of members but no one else was allowed to
do so. Effectively, Carlos and Dave were half the meeting as they responded to
people's concerns and questions. Certainly they should respond to questions 
but I felt that they should have waited for their turn to express their 
opinion after they had made their initial presentation.

In addition, I felt that Carlos was not acting in the manner that a chairman 
should act. The chairman should always strive to be above the argument taking 
place and allow all participants an opportunity to speak their minds within 
the rules of the meeting. I do not feel that he filled that role. Instead, he 
let Dave rebut anything that Dave wanted. Yet I thought that the meeting would
have been much less rancorous and information would have flowed more quickly 
if Carlos had been more even handed. The classic example of Carlos' inability 
to distance himself from his position was his phrasing of the motion to either
carry on the exploration of moving to Arizona or "stick your head in the sand 
and your ass in the air". Frankly, at that point, I would have voted (if I 
could vote) for sticking my head in the sand because I felt that that kind of 
dismissive and condescending attitude had no place in the meeting, 
particularly from the chairman. Just on principle, I hate being treated like 
that.

Certainly I wanted Carlos' opinion on the move. He probably knows more about 
it than anyone else and I valued his opinion more than anyone. I just felt 
that he handled the meeting in a non-professional way and allowed his bias to 
dominate his handling of the meeting.

The second problem I had with the meeting was that my time was wasted. The 
best way for the proposal to be made would have been to have written a short 
explanation of the proposal, including pros, cons, and issues to be resolved. 
That would have saved several hours of questioning Dave and Carlos. It would 
have also showed the members that serious thought was going into the project 
not an off-the-cuff approach. People could then look over the proposal and 
discuss it in a more intelligent manner.

Instead, several members presented some positive aspects of the move before 
going into the swing around. Unfortunately, critical and basic questions were 
left out of the presentation. Once again, I felt that the people who made the 
presentation would have done everybody a service by presenting both the pros 
and cons of the move. Otherwise, they hold themselves out for criticism of 
railroading the proposal and of not being really concerned about the thoughts 
and wishes of the members and other board members.

For example, the simple and basic question of how much it was going to cost 
Alcor was not addressed until it came my turn on the speaker phone! I was 
borderline dumbfounded that no one had brought this up until it came my turn. 
This should have been part of the initial presentation. I was left with the 
impression that this had not been considered by the people making the 
presentation. This made me concerned that Alcor was rushing into a major 
financial decision without examining all the ramifications. 

As far as the move to Arizona is concerned, I am all in favor of it because of
all the reasons given by other people so I won't repeat them here. What I 
don't want to see is Alcor rush into the decision. Carlos' letter here makes 
me feel better that more thought is going into the decision than appeared at 
the meeting. The meeting got me very nervous because I felt that concerns were
being shut off rather than considered.

Carlos' letter made me feel better because he let us know more about the 
background of the decision and the efforts that he has made. I did not know 
any of those things. The board must be patient with us members who don't know 
as much as they do rather than shut off discussion.

I would like to see the move to Arizona happen. There is no question that it 
would solve many current problems of Alcors and give Alcor a strong base to 
expand for the coming years.

However, there still remain some unanswered questions that I feel should be 
addressed before moving:
        What is the monthly rent for Alcor?
        Who will pay for the moving expenses?
        Who will pay for the moving expenses back if this is necessary for 
political concerns?
        Do we need enthusiasm from local officials or will we settle for a 
non-committal response from Carlos' letter?
        Will Cryovita move to Arizona or will Alcor have to buy new operating 
equipment? If Cryovita is moving, who will pay for it?
        Are we going to run two facilities simultaneously? If so, how are we 
going to pay for the double rent? If not, who is going to move into the 
Riverside facility?
        Can we transport our current patients over state lines?

Once again, I support the move to Arizona if it can be pulled off. I just want
to make sure that all the i's are dotted and the t' crossed and that we don't 
get into a crisis just because we forgot to check something. That could mean 
life or death to our current and future patients. This is a big move and 
should be carefully considered.

Live longest and prosper,
Courtney

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=731