Rick C., good to see you are still here. It's good to hear there is a verification of our impressions from an outside source. We probably aren't all crazy then in believing Rhodes must go.
I'm not sure if I buy the hypothesis that the Board is trying to oust Rhodes. There were several times at the meeting when the stockholders wanted to have the order of the procedings changed so more questions could be asked, and each time Rhodes said that there were 8.1 million votes that said that the proceedings would stay as planned. There were, indeed, about 8.1 million votes cast in favor for the Board approved candidates for the open trustee position and about 675,000 votes against the trustees. Looking back, it was extremely arrogant for Rhodes to claim there were 8.1 million votes for holding the elections before the voters got to ask questions. Those who voted their proxies had no input on the structure of the meeting-- they only voted for the candidates. I had assumed that the board had nearly 8.1 million votes amongst them, but looking back at the meeting notice sent to us with our proxies, I see that the board only had about 764,000 votes amongst them with Rhodes having 718,000 of those votes. Rhodes claimed to have more votes on this matter than he did. I am kicking myself for not challenging him on this point.
In any case, none of the Board members did anything or said anything, to indicate that they objected to any of Rhodes' actions or the way he was conducting the meeting. Their behavior reminded me of the Communist Party members during the days of the Soviet Union-- they all followed the leader in unquestioning lockstep.
As far as I am concerned, the Board has ratified all of Rhodes' behavior by their silence and refusal to act. Until I have evidence that any of the Board members have acted otherwise, I tend to believe they are in cahoots with Rhodes. After all, I believe Rhodes is responsible for bringing all the current Board members on board.
Of course, the Mafia was crippled when some mobsters broke the silence of omerta when threatened with extensive jail time. Perhaps some of the Board members didn't like what they saw at the meeting and decided they no longer wanted to follow Rhodes, because Rhodes could end up leading them to jail. It could be that the wall is starting to crack, the rats are abandoning the ship, and that my cliches are flatter than a pancake. It could also be that some board members might try to maintain their seat on the board by tossing Rhodes to the stockholders as a sacrificial lamb and then continue running the business as usual.
Right now, I consider all the board members to be in cahoots with Rhodes, but my mind is wide open on this one. If I see any contrary evidence I am more than willing to change my mind.
Robin |
