Hi, Bosco-I haven't been doing a very good job of communicating my concern. My main issue is not with Mr. Pappas. I believe he is doing what Mr. Pappas does and he will continue to do it. My issue is with the perception that the Board of Directors who has hired Mr. Pappas is entirely comprised of individuals tainted with the company's prior history. Consequently, they may be more interested in protecting themselves than insuring the viability of our investment. Why haven't outsiders been invited to at least monitor the proceedings, if not actually join the board? Perhaps they have, and that just hasn't been communicated to us. I admit that we small investors historically haven't had much to say, but I suspect that in this instance, the majority of shares may be held by "small investors".
I agree that we are all in the same boat. My effort hasn't been to rehash the past or turn on anyone, but to express these ideas and, thereby, test their validity with this forum of interested (and perhaps better informed) folks. I very much appreciate your willingness to engage in the dialogue and, in retrospect, perhaps I should have left
out the criticism of Pappas' PR and just focused on the BoD.
I was trying to use the example of the cost of Pappas composing his "pap"; and then having it reviewed by attorneys and other consultants prior to it being shared by us; and then the resulting lack of new info for us shareholders; that perhaps the folks who employed him weren't being very demanding about getting something for our money. I don't know these Directors. I don't know if they have any business savvy. Perhaps there is someone out there who does know them and can give me some comfort as to their capabilities. What I fear is that these folks were on board in 1999 when an SEC investigation was launched, were placed on the board originally by prior management, were incapable of performing required board oversight functions in the past, and now have the burden of overseeing the entire operations. (All the time, being quite concerned about their own eventual culpability) You used the word suspect referring to my characterization (I surmise) and I would answer that the entire board is suspect in my mind until they have been augmented with individuals looking out for your interests, my interests, and those of all the other shareholders.
I should also state that I wouldn't be spending any time on this if I didn't believe that there is still an opportunity for us to realize a return on our investment. With the technology, products, and customers that are in place today, and the prospects for future growth, we could do real well. I am much more interested in doing well than punishing anyone for past trangressions. I believe that someone deserves credit for putting these elements in place where we have a chance to do well. To the extent that the company does well, the damages that current owners suffer will go away or be mitigated, so having a strong board would seem to be in everyone's best interest, even former management's. |
