Much has been said about the criticisms of the BOD. Many have defended them tooth and nail, some less enthusiastically, but giving them coverage by saying things were out of their control. Others have said while they're not satisfied, NOW (or in this prolonged case - the last 2 years) is not the time to change them out.

While I clearly don't agree with the tooth and nail crowd, and see very little merit in the victim mentaility argument of the second category considering the over $100M squandered by this BOD, I have thought about the pitfalls of changing some or all of these directors out during this time in the company's life. Obviously, there is a bit of merit in the idea of continuity.

However, when you consider the totality of the issues that have been swept under the rug by this BOD, either through incompetence, poor judgement, misdirection, and possibly outright intentional misleading communication, it really renders any perceived benefits moot and void. When you consider that the highest ranking member of the BOD (one milestone argued was "Chairman of the Board" even though that's clearly not true), allowed questions of Mr. Leckrone on obviously CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT issues, (considering they're now the point of litigation) to go unanswered, renders the question, are these really the people we want battling this battle for us? When you consider the questionable decisions, the poor judgement, and the lack of success they've exhibited for so long, is NOW the time for them to get a chance to amend for those missteps?

IMO, the only thing more appaling than Carlton Johnson's admission that he questioned these things back in 2008, yet we received assurances to the contrary after that, is the complete lack of business sense he displays in making that admission at all. He's either so uninvolved and detached from the company as to not realize what they've said to shareholders over the last few years, or he has no business sense to realize what kind of light that statement puts him and the BOD in with respect to their abilities and / or intentions.

His statements simply reaffirm that this BOD, and this management have acted with minimal and defective fiduciary responsibilty to shareholders, and in essence have treated this company as a private company of their own where they only answer to themselves. And we shareholders have allowed it, and some have even promoted it through their defense of the BOD, or their proclamations of our helplessness to change things. With that in mind, I'm convinced the primary strategy with the current litigation will be for the BOD and management to protect themselves first and shareholders last. I say last as I think they would give TPL unmerited benefits even at the risk of doing shareholders harm, if it were necessary to accomplish protecting themselves.