It doesn't really matter whether you are for or against certain members of the board. Our BoD made a decision to limit board seats to five. It could be argued that it was a cost saving measure for shareholders. My belief is that it gave Johnson, Felcyn and Faulk absolute power over the board. To further my point, let's just say that Mistry and Schrock disagreed with every decision made by Faulk, Felcyn and Johnson, it wouldn't matter unless they were able to sway one vote. Do you see that happening, I don't? Three control everything.
Personally, I don't care whether any of you like or dislike the board members. I am a shareholder just like you and our voices should be heard. We should be demanding and fighting for changes to the by laws. Then when it comes to re-election time, the majority will rule and if the majority thinks that certain board members should go, this is the way we can accomplish telling them "you're fired."
Without these changes we have the same old people doing the same old thing with the same old results. I think they have had years to deliver their promises of bringing value to shareholders. There is no value and that alone should be reason enough to kick them to the curb. Where does the buck stop?
