Before this fund is started, wouldn't you at least like to know the purpose for which it is being set up?

You mentioned placing one person on the BoD, to effect a change. Both sides of the argument have acknowledged that this would have no impact whatsoever. Even if this person were proposed for inclusion on the proxy, the BoD could use Rule 14(a) 8 to deny the application until such time as Rule 14(a) 11 became effective which, with the smaller company exemption, would not be for 3 more years.

This only leaves an opposing slate.

Please, put aside the contempt by which most hold the current BoD and focus on those proposing change.

Why do they want others to do all the work for them?

Why do they want others to subsidize their appointments which would result in millions of options being granted to them, and not the contributors, once the as yet unknown performance targets are met?

What can they do to increase shareholder value if they don't even have a viable means of communicating with prospective donors?

Does anyone remember this?:

Meet regularly with company owners, CEO's and directors to discuss in detail short and long term business plans, goals, and objectives. Analyze company's current plans and programs to determine any potential problems. Meet with human resources to determine employee requirements; with CFO to determine budgetary requirements; and with senior management to determine optimal balance of diverse interests between stakeholders. Work closely with owners and senior management to discuss company operations and requirements, with a goal of delivering the very best service at the most competitive cost

Where is there evidence of any of the above in the "FDC"?

.

.

.

Be well