You wrote:
That the number of directors was set at five does not mean that only five could stand for election. However, as there were no other valid nominations, the five were elected unopposed.
Is it your belief that had the shareholders' offered valid nominations by the deadline for proxy submittals, the current board would not have opposed this proposal? Or, if we had submitted a proposal to change the by-laws to reflect majority voting and limited terms for directors, do you believe they would not have opposed this proposal as well?
You also wrote
I have an opinion about the effect that the prolonged and ongoing attacks on the character, ability, and integrity of Board members has probably had and the consequent mental anguish suffered by each, but this is not the forum to discuss it.
I personally do not know any of the board members, so I cannot comment on their character or integrity. I believe that the general consensus is that they are nice people and that their intentions are well meaning. However, based on past performance and looking forward, are they the best people for the job and would they be willing to step aside, in the best interest of the company and shareholders and let shareholders vote on who should stay or go?
