"His charter was to be the average shareholder's voice to the company, providing advice from our point of view. 16,000-21,000 shareholders were counting on HIM to do this job, which he willingly accepted. I challenge Brian to advise us of one solitary accomplishment he's made in this role."
I'd like to make 2 quick points with respect to Brian's role, as I understand it, and as your quote above reflect's it.
First - You state Brian's role was to provide advice from our point of view, and you challenge Brian to advise us of one solitary accomplishment he's made in this role. Are you claiming that Brian has never provided advice to the company from a shareholder's point of view? Or are you complaining that his advice has not resulted in action from the company? Clearly, it's not Brian's responsibility as to how the company acts. The BOD/CEO and management team are responsible in that regard. Acting as a voice of the common shareholder affords him only that power, to provide a voice. Whether that voice falls on deaf ears or whether his voiced advice/concerns are implemented in a plan of action that succeeds or fails can not be a reflection on him, IMO. That would be akin to blaming the Post Office for your mail being thrown out by the receipient, even though they properly delivered it. While I can't say for certain, I don't doubt Brian has fulfilled his role in providing advice from a shareholder's point of view.....Do you?
Secondly - Since he is s a shareholder, even if he is the "Shareholders Representative", does that preclude him from voicing concerns, complaints, opinions, etc. whenever and however he sees fit? How do his rights in this regard differ from any of ours? He's still a shareholder, and he's not paid by the company or a company insider, so why should his rights to post, not post, complain, praise, analyze or otherwise be limited by anything more than his desire, energy level, discretion, agreements with others, personal strategies, etc. I don't see why his role as shareholder rep should impact that aspect of his life in anyway that he doesn't feel it should. From that regard, certainly he can be subject to the same craziness that others are hit with here as well, but I don't see these demands and criticisms being voiced here as applicable to him any more so than anyone else.
IMO, these comments that most are posting, including yours, are barking up the wrong tree. The company, its officers and directors, and employees are repsonsible for the successes and failures, not someone who can only provide a voice that is reflective of what....16,000 to 20,000 individual voices?! Doesn't that seem as absurd to most here as it does to me?
