I assume your interpretation of what is the role of a shareholder rep is based solely on what you read in the letter from Mr. Pohl. If you have other information please let me know. IMO your interpretation is a very simplistic, literal reading of that letter. It is puzzling that you dont think the rep that advises the company has any obligation to then communicate the response to that advice to the shareholders he supposedly represents. It appears that is your opinion because the letter does not expressly state that. That seems illogical to me but assuming you are correct, then as I stated before, the shareholder rep is nothing more then a lackey for the company and who cares - it becomes a completely meaningless position. Why would the BOD want to hear the prospectives of the shareholders unless they cared about appeasing the shareholders concerns, to keep them happy, keep them invested...etc. But you think they want to accomplish all that without allowing the shareholder rep to communicate back to the shareholders????????????? That does not make sense to me but if you are correct then my complaint is with the company. It doesnt really matter because the point is that the "shareholder representative" position does not appear to be doing anything for us regardless of who is to blame. Further, why should we have to be arguing over the role of the shareholder rep, is that not something that can be officially explained to us. Maybe you should be less defensive of Brian and more offensive regarding getting information from the company we own.