|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > December 2004 > SEF: Why did it die?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
SEF: Why did it die?
|
|
| Simpledog 2004-12-16, 9:26 am |
| Why did SEF die? And what is it being absorbed into?
I don't mean to add to the "anti SEF" threads, but I think SE did some good
things. But why did it die? I mean, you can setup a website like that,
with the limited amount of bandwidth that they consume, and run it for 20
bucks a month.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-12-16, 9:26 am |
| As with all organizations created and initially led by a dynamic
personality, if/when that personality falters, so does the
organization.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-12-16, 9:26 am |
| "Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com> wrote in
news:Wo8wd.15769$nP1.14591@twister.socal.rr.com:
> That is the right answer. Doesn't matter what type of organization it
> is, does it? If the leader changes in a less than productive way, or
> is replaced with someone less effective, it becomess something lesser,
> or dies.
>
>
From what I have heard anecdotally from people who have used the site
extensively, the implementation of the user fee would seem to have been the
fatal decision. It not only discourages the casual surfer, but it seems
also to be antithetical to the spirit of an online virtual community. I
think that there is a natural antipathy to paying for internet services and
people will just continue to search until they find the information they
are seeking without having to pay for it. Just my 2 cents.
DrG
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2004-12-16, 11:10 am |
| I agree. Just on principle I have cancelled many internet gift orders
when I found the same item available with free shipping. Yes, I can
afford the shipping charge. But, I'll be damned if I'll pay the
operating expenses for a virtual retailer who already doesn't have to
pay for mall rent, payroll, utilities and the other costs of doing
business that you and I pay every day. Pay-per-view internet sites rub
me the wrong way, regardless of their subject matter.
| |
| serebel 2004-12-17, 2:08 am |
| People got wise to that they were just a money grubbing outfit.
SErebel
| |
| Sandy 2004-12-17, 11:09 am |
| Only the smallest of online retailers don't have to pay rent,
utilities, payroll and other costs. Since I got out of retail, my rent
is lower, but I still need offices and a warehouse. My payroll,
utilities and most other costs have remained the same or increased.
Local yellow page advertising was much less costly than national
internet yellow page advertising, national magazine advertising, etc.
I do use internet price comparison sites to get the best deal, and then
I search on Google for coupons for each site I buy from before placing
the order, sometimes saving another 20-25%. However, after shopping
the internet for kitchen appliances for our new house, last night I
made a far better deal ($2,000 less) by going to my local Home Expo,
armed with the best internet prices. Of course, it didn't hurt to tell
them that we have an entire house that needs sinks, faucets, granite
and marble, flooring, tile, furniture, faucets, etc, etc, etc.
SEF sells nothing for profit, and does have many expenses. Why should
the directors cover all of those costs?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-12-17, 11:09 am |
| >SEF sells nothing for profit, and does have many expenses. Why should
>the directors cover all of those costs?
Because it is the responsibility of the officers of a nonprofit
organization that the bills be paid. That is why.
Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the Board of Trustees of the
SurgicalEyes Foundation to be certain that the policies set by that
board are being implemented and the officers are acting appropriately
and within the law.
If SurgicalEyes can't pay the bills, then the organization needs to be
placed into bankruptcy, let the court oversee the sale of all assets -
including the domain and the website - and then distribute those
assets among the creditors as appropriate by law. Many courts would
determine that whatever debt remains is the responsibility of the
officers of the organization. Any surplus must be distributed to
another nonprofit(s) that is similar in nature and scope.
Any attempt to distribute the assets of the organization to parties
other than its creditors - such as turning over the website to a newly
formed organization made up of many of the same individuals who drove
SurgicalEyes into the ground - may be found to be an attempt to
circumvent the rights of the creditors and subject to criminal and
civil sanctions. Since there are many individuals and organizations
that would be interested in purchasing the SurgicalEyes.org domain
(yes, including CRSQA), this is probably the most valuable asset the
organization owns and cannot just be handed off in sweetheart deals or
back room negotiations.
Since SurgicalEyes founder Ron Link has publicly claimed that he has
not received over $30k wages owed, the officers of the SurgicalEyes
Foundation may also be liable for back wages, social security taxes,
federal and state withholding taxes, waiting time penalties, and may
be guilty of criminal acts, depending upon the exact circumstances.
If the members of the governing board who are not officers did not
fulfil their oversight responsibilities, then it is possible that they
would be found liable.
With no small amount of irony, if Link was an officer at the time
wages were not paid, then he may be found liable for payment of his
own wages and possibly even guilty of criminal charges for not paying
himself in a timely manner.
To paraphrase Oliver Hardy, "And this is another fine mess you've
gotten us into."
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org 2004-12-17, 7:13 pm |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
should[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Because it is the responsibility of the officers of a nonprofit
> organization that the bills be paid. That is why.
The question of ultimate fiscal responsibility is quite a different
question from what Sandy was referring to, which was choice of
operational funding sources.
Nonprofits of this sort typically either fund their operations via
donations or membership fees or both. In fact, a nonprofit almost
certainly CANNOT obtain 501(c)(3) status as a charitable organisation
if it is funded exclusively by its own directors. Charging a
subscription fee for bulletin board is a perfectly legitimate (though
not necessarily workable) source of funding.
| |
|
| Let me translate. Glenn is being nice to Ron by calling him a dynamic
personality. Ron is actually (not making this up) a permanently brain
damaged man with severe personality disorders that cost him his job
and prevent him from working. He is actually living off of disability
from this mental problem. He was beaten severely and left for dead
years ago.
Now is that the kind of person you want to be getting advice from?
There are some of you who might think I'm mean for pointing this out.
But since he is living off of disability payments for this problem, it
is fair game. The source for this information is a long post made by
Ron himself.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:18:40 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>As with all organizations created and initially led by a dynamic
>personality, if/when that personality falters, so does the
>organization.
>
>Glenn Hagele
>Executive Director
>Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
>Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
>http://www.USAEyes.org
>http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
>I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| It died way before they started charging.
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:08:51 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>"Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com> wrote in
>news:Wo8wd.15769$nP1.14591@twister.socal.rr.com:
>
>From what I have heard anecdotally from people who have used the site
>extensively, the implementation of the user fee would seem to have been the
>fatal decision. It not only discourages the casual surfer, but it seems
>also to be antithetical to the spirit of an online virtual community. I
>think that there is a natural antipathy to paying for internet services and
>people will just continue to search until they find the information they
>are seeking without having to pay for it. Just my 2 cents.
>
>DrG
|
| |
|
|