10 replies to this topic

[Shannon Vyff]

There have been recent discussions on Cryo-net ( feed://www.cryonet.org/cryonet.xml ), Cold Filter ( http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/ ), Alcor United ( http://www.alcorunit...forum/index.php ) and elsewhere, about how the board of directors are chosen at Alcor.

You can read more at the above mentioned sites, especially the issues that David Pizer has been bringing up--but here is a link to a the poll at Alcor United:

****Please go vote here**** http://www.alcorunit...hread.php?t=918


My hope is show how Alcor members actually feel about this issue--there is much speculation on both sides, that members are happy the way things are, and that they want change. Possibly we can get more people involved than those that have brought these discussions up in the first place. Also it may be shown than this is not as big of an issue or concern than some people think it is.

Currently the board of directors can choose successor directors or advisors. Some Alcor members want all the members to be able to vote on who the directors and advisors will be.

Edited by Shannon, 18 January 2008 - 03:30 PM.

[Richard Leis]

I need to study this issue more closely; thank you for the links! When we attended the Alcor Conference a few months ago, I was surprised when this issue was raised. While most members seemed to raise their hand in support of how things are currently done, the other members seemed quite passionate about their views. Overall, I was amazed by the level of involvement by members in the Alcor business, and the apparent openness but also frustration by some Alcor representatives. Obviously this is a topic of importance to follow within the cryonics community.

Thanks again for the information to look more closely at the issue. Interesting times, indeed...

[basho]

Currently the board of directors can choose successor directors or advisors. Some Alcor members want all the members to be able to vote on who the directors and advisors will be.

What about the Alcor patients who are, for obvious reasons, unable to participate in the vote? I'd assume most of them put their trust in the existing system of a self perpetuating board of directors, which presumably is a good way to ensure long-term stability and consistency of direction.

[bgwowk]

I'm reluctant to get into the public fray because I personally don't have strong opinions about this issue. For those that are interested, the following article was just put up on the website

http://www.alcor.org...rpetuating.html

[dangerousideas]

Although I read Cryonet almost every day, I very rarely post there. However, I did feel sufficiently strongly about this issue to contribute the following, which will appear in the digest tomorrow.
...

It is a bit of a cliché, but true none the less, that all failures are ultimately leadership failures.

David Pizer is correct when he observes that any organization that allows leadership authorities to be exercised in the absence of leadership accountabilities will ultimately generate pathologies such as a tolerance for incompetence, and even actual criminality - both of which have been observed within Alcor with distressing frequency over the past few years.

At issue is whether or not the leadership renewal that may be required to correct the decline in the business trajectory of Alcor can be achieved when there is no effective organizational mechanism to hold the Directors/Managers accountable for the use of their authorities. David is correct in pointing out that the self-election of directors insulates them from the discontent of the membership. Even if there was a majority (or even universal) consensus among the membership-at-large to remove the leadership of Alcor in favour of new leadership, no mechanism short of dissolution and reconstitution allows it.

I also agree with David Pizer that the early markers of a business in trouble are emerging from Alcor: business errors that are not caught and corrected in a timely manner; increasing losses to criminals; declining business growth, high overheads relative to competitors, falling market share, all leading to declining financials; an innovation culture that appears to have become stagnant; increasing stakeholder discontent; leadership churn and governance issues, etc..

However, I think that I also agree with David that these issues are correctable if the leadership of Alcor can be renewed and can get control of its business so that it is executed with an appropriate degree of business acumen and rigor. But the window for that to happen will not stay open forever.

Normally, a business that runs into these kinds of troubles gets sorted out by the shareholders, one way or another. The management and directors either regain the confidence of company shareholders or they get replaced. Unfortunately, if the management and directors of Alcor cannot regain the confidence of the membership, then the members may begin to feel that they need to meet their cryonics needs elsewhere. It could happen that a significant fraction of the membership may decide that there is a better chance - and a clearer mechanism - to fix the things that they don't like about CI and SA, than to struggle to find a mechanism to fix the things that they don't like about Alcor.

[Shannon Vyff]

Here is a long post by Pizer: http://www.cryonet.o...p.cgi?msg=30250

Here is Mike Perry's current view, after changing his previous position in support of self electing directors: http://www.cryonet.o...p.cgi?msg=30259

A list of wise advice from Robert Ettinger: http://www.cryonet.o...p.cgi?msg=22065

Finally this post which directly counters the paper Merkle put up at Alcor:

http://www.cryonet.o...p.cgi?msg=29972

Thanks everyone who is engaging in this, I'd like to learn more...

[bgwowk]

Here is a long post by Pizer: http://www.cryonet.o...p.cgi?msg=30250

Here is Mike Perry's current view, after changing his previous position in support of self electing directors: http://www.cryonet.o...p.cgi?msg=30259

A list of wise advice from Robert Ettinger: http://www.cryonet.o...p.cgi?msg=22065

Finally this post which directly counters the paper Merkle put up at Alcor:

http://www.cryonet.o...p.cgi?msg=29972

Thanks everyone who is engaging in this, I'd like to learn more...

If you have not seen them, you should also check out posts expressing the other point of view, such as

http://www.network54...7s Board and de

http://www.cryonet.o...p.cgi?msg=30247

http://www.cryonet.o...p.cgi?msg=30267

http://www.cryonet.o...p.cgi?msg=30313

Also, Platt's post does not really counter the Merkle paper. Charles Platt's post, posted three months before the Merkle paper, lists famous non-profit organizations with boards that are apparently member-elected without really addressing what portion of all non-profit organizations are operating that way. On the other hand, Merkle's paper cites two different credible sources that assert most non-profit boards are self-perpetuating. In any case, I don't find this particular point persuasive either way because cryonics is so different from what most non-profit organizations do.

Although my feelings about this issue are not especially strong, I am developing strong feelings about how the latest campaign for member-elected boards is being run. The more innuendo, exaggeration, and misleading statements that are posted on CryoNet about how Alcor is run, the less enthusiastic any reflective person is going to be about making director elections susceptible to that kind of rhetoric.

[basho]

If you have not seen them, you should also check out posts expressing the other point of view, such as

http://www.network54...7s Board and de

...

The more innuendo, exaggeration, and misleading statements that are posted on CryoNet about how Alcor is run, the less enthusiastic any reflective person is going to be about making director elections susceptible to that kind of rhetoric.

Some very good points are made in that first link. The protagonists in the current spat seem to have lost sight of Alcor's core mission, and if they truly cared for the existing patients and future continuity of service, I'd expect more focus on cooperation and productive support to be given to the board to aid in resolving any existing or perceived issues, rather than the somewhat petty and antagonistic approach of bitching on the mailing list. (Although, if things were truly looking bad, a radical approach would be more than warranted. I hope that is not the case.)

[xlifex]

Although my feelings about this issue are not especially strong, I am developing strong feelings about how the latest campaign for member-elected boards is being run. The more innuendo, exaggeration, and misleading statements that are posted on CryoNet about how Alcor is run, the less enthusiastic any reflective person is going to be about making director elections susceptible to that kind of rhetoric.

Even if only 10% of Pizer's claims are true, this should be reason for great concern.

I must say that I find Tanya Jones recent blog entry vague and disappointing. We read a lot about what Alcor plans to do in the future, but not much about what Alcor has exactly accomplished during the last 2/3 years.

[Shannon Vyff]

Although my feelings about this issue are not especially strong, I am developing strong feelings about how the latest campaign for member-elected boards is being run. The more innuendo, exaggeration, and misleading statements that are posted on CryoNet about how Alcor is run, the less enthusiastic any reflective person is going to be about making director elections susceptible to that kind of rhetoric.

Even if only 10% of Pizer's claims are true, this should be reason for great concern.

I must say that I find Tanya Jones recent blog entry vague and disappointing. We read a lot about what Alcor plans to do in the future, but not much about what Alcor has exactly accomplished during the last 2/3 years.

I agree with Dr. Wowk that the current public debates would worry a person 'new' to cryonics. I invite people daily to look into cryonics, and would prefer them to find a more unified front. Alcor has to look at a much longer future than most businesses, and I'm happy that Tanya's post did focus on the future. There were mistakes in the organization even before I became a member, in fact reading cryo-not back when I was 20 is what caused me to choose CI initially. Currently, being an Alcor member I'm sensitive to where it is headed, I want my children to be able to include their future family and friends into their own cryonics organization. I can empathize with both sides of the current debate--I understand why many issues must remain confidential, yet also want more accountability and input from members about and from Alcor's leadership.

I along with other cryonicists, wish that the field was growing faster than it is. It is relatively new though in the grand scheme of things, if one looks at the growth of other businesses, religions or ideas. Over all, we are doing a good job and I appreciate all who are working at cryonics organizations, and supporting them.

[Shannon Vyff]

I agree with the comments Tanya put up in the voting thread. http://www.alcorunit...a...=918&page=2

Sounds like a system most of Alcor's members would be happy with, a nice compromise that would make both sides happy.