I'm not sure why there is a question about current BoD compensation. We know what it is. $3K/month each for Gloria and Carl, zip for Cliff for this role. $6K/month total, $72K/year.

This plus modest Options, which only pay off if the PPS when exercise-able exceeds the strike price, then the BoD member must pay the strike price and then pay tax on the profit as if it were regular income (in CA that would be as much as 42.3% for top bracket). And we know that Options are expiring, unexercised, clearly indicating that recently the BoD has made no income on that front.

So if the BoD received no compensation for that role, the savings would be $72K/year (which is written off as a business expense, so the real bottom line impact may be significantly less, perhaps as little as $40K).

Does that significantly impact the bottom line?

IMO, the noise level associated with this should be proportionate to the significance of ultimate impact to the bottom line.

Other income for other roles? Here I have "issues". But IMO the "pure" BoD compensation issue isn't worthy of much attention.

Having said that, assuming a customary BoD level of effort (which is NOT what they are experiencing IMO), compensation only in the form of properly priced Options would be most appropriate.

JMHO FWIW,

SGE