Sounds like we're a bit closer to the same page. While I doubt any changes will occur any time soon, calling them out on the compensation issue makes the point - what are we paying these people for? And why so much?

I would think the desired message has actually already been sent (to RG), and received. And I would think that, at least in the back of his (RG's) mind, there may be a plan being formulated - but more a contengency plan. On that day when one of his new initiatives (that he is convinced is wise) gets blocked by the long standing, low contributing BoD members, he may be prompted to put a plan into play - a long term plan (by necessity).

My problem is with the "demands" that certain BoD members be replaced, immediately. It's just not practicable, and the voicing of the demand, in and of itself, makes PTSC a less desireable investment.

And what makes it ring even more of FUD is that EVERY corporation of significance has a BoD, and that BoD is compensated, and most certainly not all members of every BoD in every corporation is a significant contributor - many appointed only because of their name/background/affiliations. But do you hear a near constant complaining about those well compensated BoD do-nothings in all those other corporations? I've been investing for a long time, and have been involved on shareholder message boards for a long time, and never have I heard such noise as I find here - typically not even a whimper of a gripe. Typically, if shareholders are disgruntled, the ire is directed at the Pres/CEO - the person that is expected to actually do something/make things happen. And even if (it became known that) the BoD rejects the initiatives presented by the CEO, one must ask whether the CEO was effective in his/her presentation.

Hopefully you get the point.

Consider this: if the BoD compensation issue is THAT significant, isn't the location of PTSC HQ equally significant? In today's world, HQ location is far less important than it once was. Do they really need to be located in one of the most expensive areas of the country? Doesn't such location "drive" compensation for employees, to a large degree? They could be located in the tech hub of TX for probably 1/3 the cost. But I haven't heard a single gripe about this, ever.

Again, while I'm not happy with the BoD makeup, or their compensation, my attitude is that as long as they don't stand in the way of smart business, it's a relative non-issue. And further, my attitude is that pointing to this and making a huge issue out of it is, especially in our current circumstance, pretty FUDsy.

JMHOs,

SGE