story by regina pancakes re: her mexican trip and how cryomonk mike perry almost died

story by regina pancakes re: her mexican trip and how cryomonk mike perry almost died

Joined: October 11th, 2006, 4:20 am

November 2nd, 2008, 10:23 am #1

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 16th, 2008, 4:54 am

November 2nd, 2008, 6:50 pm #2

I am very glad they were able to save Mike Perry.

I liked this quote: "it would be to professionalize the whole place with nothing but well funded medical professionals with a laser like focus as if this was the Manhattan Project. Then I’d just be serving coffee here." I would really love to see this happen. Not only would it improve the service it may help decrease our detractors like those at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?sid=5 ... 2805922484


Also interesting to see what she says about membership involvement in decision making:
"I see both sides on this though. I do think there should be some open door policies. Some mechanisms in the system of our interactions between the triad of staff, board and membership. But on the other hand, you can put too much of your time and energy just defending your positions on whether to turn right or left. Getting cryonicists to agree on anything can be like herding cats. There has to be a balance struck. Cooperation, like our lives depend on it….which it does."

Lots of interesting stuff in there.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 2nd, 2004, 8:27 pm

November 2nd, 2008, 11:45 pm #3

Regina said "...there should be some open door policies. Some mechanisms in the system of our interactions between the triad of staff, board and membership."

Many, including myself, would say to that: "Why not good old fashioned voting?"

And of course I'm talking about the larger issues, and electing who is on the board. I don't mean that everything that happens every moment of every day in the life of every employee and manager, needs membership approval. The balance to be struck is in determining what issues rise to the level of importance for membership vote. Membership rights to vote should not even be an issue; unfortunately for Alcor, it is an issue and one that is not even on the table.

FD

P.S. Since nobody replied to this yet, let me add right here: NO TABLE EITHER. The all powerful Board can only make a table on which the issue might be discussed. Unless a table were to be imposed on them such as by a lawsuit, but those we had hoped might go that route have gotten very quiet in recent months, hm..

Last edited by Finance_Department on November 3rd, 2008, 5:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 1st, 2007, 8:16 am

November 3rd, 2008, 2:35 pm #4

FD: “Unless a table were to be imposed on them such as by a lawsuit, but those we had hoped might go that route have gotten very quiet in recent months, hm..”

Those that started with great fanfare the “Reform Alcor” campaign earlier this year suddenly got cold feet and backed off. Either Alcor’s lawyers scared them off, or they were bought off. I hope the “Reform Alcor” will come alive again and will force Alcor to comply with the law. Heck, if Alcor members decided to force Alcor’s Board in the court to comply with the law, I would make a contribution to their legal fund. Alcor Board of Directors cannot be forever above the law.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 11th, 2006, 4:20 am

November 4th, 2008, 12:48 am #5

as I recall, I did some westlaw research and posted the results here, with respect to whether Alcor was complying with the law in not having members vote. As I recall the results were inconclusive. Why not start there, with my posted research?

BTW, you are a CI member, right? What is your interest in Alcor?


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 1st, 2007, 8:16 am

November 4th, 2008, 3:23 pm #6

Unperson: “as I recall, I did some westlaw research and posted the results here, with respect to whether Alcor was complying with the law in not having members vote. As I recall the results were inconclusive. Why not start there, with my posted research?”

I think the issues are clear. Alcor was a business entity created under the State of California laws. As such, it had a set of bylaws created in 1972, which mandated that only Alcor members in good standing shall have the right to elect the Board of Directors. It was so happening for a number of years. Then around 1984, the then current Board of Directors most likely concluded that they are no longer electable, so they capriciously, without member’s consent, decided that the members no longer will have the right to elect members of the board and that from then on, they and only the Board of Directors can re-elect itself. Clearly it was in violation of the California state law (California Corporate Code 5150). From the point when the directors re-elected themselves, all their decisions are not valid and have no standing under the law.

This creates very dangerous situation for Alcor members. Should the courts decide at any time in the future that Alcor existed for 24 plus years without a lawful Board (and thus also with unlawfully appointed management) courts might conclude that it is no longer possible to remedy the situation and that he only solution shall be to terminate and liquidate Alcor as a business entity. The proper disposal of all those cryopreserved patients will consume all of Alcor assets and Alcor will enter the history as just another liquidated cryo provider.

I doubt that this is what Alcor members (or Alcor management) want, but it could happen. It is in everyone’s interest to get these issues legaly resolved.


Unperson: “BTW, you are a CI member, right? What is your interest in Alcor?”

I ain't telling. Who is my cryo provider is just between myself and my cryo provider.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 16th, 2008, 4:54 am

November 4th, 2008, 4:22 pm #7

I do not understand the law on this much at all but I am glad it is still being discussed. It would be horrible to see Alcor or CI be dissolved. On having an interest in a provider that one is not a member of I don't see why not. I am a member of Alcor but I am still interested in CI. Our community is so small that what happens to one organization may affect the other (see CI as a cemetary) , I also feel it is worth learning about what works or doesn't work for the other. Sometimes I see people say things like "I hate members of the other cryo org" or such and I really don't like that, I hope for cooperation and support. I would really hate to see a monopoly in our tiny community that would make us even more vulnerable than we already are. I am glad people who are not members of Alcor care about Alcor and want to try to help it. Even if Alcor does not fall, yet another negative new story would not be good for Alcor or even CI at all. As an Alcor member I would still be horrified if CI was liquidated (I do not feel this is likely at the moment) and would want to prevent it.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 8th, 2008, 8:38 pm

November 4th, 2008, 4:45 pm #8

It would be horrible if either provider was dissolved.

I know Alcor has been having major issues, so it is imperative that it get its house in order.

Isn't there an agreement (informal or otherwise) between CI and Alcor in which one would receive the other's patients if either provider goes out of business?

I also am interested in what's going on with Oregon Cryo, since that group might have to take up the slack.

I asked a fellow cryonicists if setting up another cryo provider in the northeast would work.

He said it wouldn't, because the number of patients and signed memebers is too small to justify it.

Feedback is encouraged, for we're all at stake in this.

P.S.: would the next President have any interset in shutting down cryonics in this country, or is it too small an issue to address?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 2nd, 2004, 8:27 pm

November 5th, 2008, 1:48 am #9

Unperson: “as I recall, I did some westlaw research and posted the results here, with respect to whether Alcor was complying with the law in not having members vote. As I recall the results were inconclusive. Why not start there, with my posted research?”

I think the issues are clear. Alcor was a business entity created under the State of California laws. As such, it had a set of bylaws created in 1972, which mandated that only Alcor members in good standing shall have the right to elect the Board of Directors. It was so happening for a number of years. Then around 1984, the then current Board of Directors most likely concluded that they are no longer electable, so they capriciously, without member’s consent, decided that the members no longer will have the right to elect members of the board and that from then on, they and only the Board of Directors can re-elect itself. Clearly it was in violation of the California state law (California Corporate Code 5150). From the point when the directors re-elected themselves, all their decisions are not valid and have no standing under the law.

This creates very dangerous situation for Alcor members. Should the courts decide at any time in the future that Alcor existed for 24 plus years without a lawful Board (and thus also with unlawfully appointed management) courts might conclude that it is no longer possible to remedy the situation and that he only solution shall be to terminate and liquidate Alcor as a business entity. The proper disposal of all those cryopreserved patients will consume all of Alcor assets and Alcor will enter the history as just another liquidated cryo provider.

I doubt that this is what Alcor members (or Alcor management) want, but it could happen. It is in everyone’s interest to get these issues legaly resolved.


Unperson: “BTW, you are a CI member, right? What is your interest in Alcor?”

I ain't telling. Who is my cryo provider is just between myself and my cryo provider.
You said "...very dangerous situation for Alcor members. Should the courts decide at any time in the future that Alcor existed for 24 plus years without a lawful Board (and thus also with unlawfully appointed management) courts might conclude that it is no longer possible to remedy the situation and that he only solution shall be to terminate and liquidate Alcor as a business entity. The proper disposal of all those cryopreserved patients will consume all of Alcor assets and Alcor will enter the history as just another liquidated cryo provider."

As to the first item you address, it could happen, but in my view it would be very unlikely. It would have partly to do with how hostile the people were who were bringing the lawsuit. Assuming it would be Alcor members and others of goodwill, I'd guess that a guardian/attorney would be appointed representing Alcor members as a whole, and that legitimate elections would be held to appoint a new board, who would then be tasked with reviewing past decisions.

As to the second item, I have to wonder about your commitment to cryonics (if any) when you speak of "proper disposal of all these cryopreserved patients" by any other means than continued storage at liquid nitrogen temperatures. Thawing them out is not a given if a cryonics organization goes under for whatever reason. Two major organizations offer storage, and another or others could be started up if necessary, so there is already actual and potential redundancy in the cryonics world for storage.

Having said that, I will footnote here that it might not be a bad idea if Alcor's patients were forced into a cooler climate, anyway


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 2nd, 2004, 8:27 pm

November 5th, 2008, 2:33 am #10

It would be horrible if either provider was dissolved.

I know Alcor has been having major issues, so it is imperative that it get its house in order.

Isn't there an agreement (informal or otherwise) between CI and Alcor in which one would receive the other's patients if either provider goes out of business?

I also am interested in what's going on with Oregon Cryo, since that group might have to take up the slack.

I asked a fellow cryonicists if setting up another cryo provider in the northeast would work.

He said it wouldn't, because the number of patients and signed memebers is too small to justify it.

Feedback is encouraged, for we're all at stake in this.

P.S.: would the next President have any interset in shutting down cryonics in this country, or is it too small an issue to address?
There are probably no formal agreements to take each other's patients, but that kind of thing often happens anyway when needed, such as when CI took some ACS patients.

The following posts which you may have missed allude to the currently shelved state of Oregon Cryonics:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/m ... dan+Sparks

http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/m ... to+respond

You never know what will generate hysteria at the highest levels, such as the stem cell hoodoo. This is one reason why cryonics should proceed at a measured pace and under the radar. unperson's ideas about turning it into a popular religion are dangerous and totally off the wall.

FD
Quote
Like
Share