Re: Copy of email sent to SLI
in response to
by
Welcome To the WIN!!! St. Elias Mines HUB On AGORACOM
Keep in mind, the opinions on this site are for the most part speculation and are not necessarily the opinions of the company WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Message: Copy of email sent to SLI
Stewie, You are asking more for proof of my claims that they have done their job when you have not provided any proof that they haven't.
The only claim that I made regarding the board of directors being effective is that they decided to keep Lori.
PROOF: She remains as Pesident,CEO and Chair
is that good enough for you?
So far, every claim that has been presented with any form of proof on this board I have been able to effectively shoot down so I don’t blame you for not wanting to look foolish again.
Lol, effectively?!... based on whose evaluation? Your own? That's mighty Narcissistic of you don't you think?
As you know, the board of directors does meet and minutes are recorded. The company will have all of the proof you need.
I don't know that they meet, nor have I ever seen the minutes. Is this "proof" you speak of available for public scrutiny? Based on a call to the company over a year ago they said to me that the minutes are not made available to the public. Has the policy changed? If not, to assume what is in those unreleased records is hardly an arguement "effectively shooting down" anything.
You simply claiming that they have not worked does not mean that they have not worked.
I did not claim they have not worked...I only suggest that you provide NO evidence whatsoever that they did what you say is DONE....nor that they did it well if they did.
Who is Stewie? Nobody as far as the operations of teh board of directors.
Yes both Stewie and Santa are fictional characters (sorry to break that one about Santa to you)...yet you seem to have no trouble making definitive statements on who has been naughty and who nice...while I understand that it is your M.O....your arrogant absolute statements of "DONE" are foolish at best.
I will entertain your silly rebuttals briefly.
Condescension suits you...you wear it well.
1. Provide direction for the company. They, with the CEO, set the vision, goals, and objectives. (DONE)
You saying it was done doesn't make it true nor does it speak to whether it was done well. Show some proof that they were in fact involved and that those weren't unilaterally determined by the Chair.
>> The direction has been published in several news releases. I company is pushing forward with mining the Tesoro property.
--- and how does this prove that the board did or did not have anything to do with the direction? Your point? I must have missed it while I was still reeling from the stinging condescension prior...I guess you must have forgot to make a point as you were still basking in the glow of your clever dig.
2. Set the corporate policies to guide its own actions. (DONE)
You saying it was done doesn't make it true nor does it speak to whether it was done well. Show some proof that they were in fact involved and that those weren't unilaterally determined by the Chair.
>> Most of these policies have been in place since the inception of the company. They don’t necessarily have to modify them each year. If they simply ask the question, are there any policies that need to be reviewed then they have done that job.
--- The question was how can you say their job was "DONE"... and your brilliant argument is to state what they are responsible to do?
So let me see...Since it was their responsibility it must be done...hard to argue with that logic, I can see how you got there considering their credentials.
3. Supervise and evaluate the manager. Recruit and retain a manager if needed. (DONE)
You know my stance on this...what compelling reasons did they use to rationalize keeping the current CEO in place?
>> You have an opinion on the matter as do I. No definite reason as has been presented and effectively argued here to support your opinion.
--- I (and many others) have presented many reasons over time for replaceing the CEO with a more appropriate leader. I have never heard a single argument presented to the contrary. Go ahead if you want to be the first.
4. Set the cooperate policies to guide its interaction with the CEO (DONE)
You saying it was done doesn't make it true nor does it speak to whether it was done well. Show some proof that they were in fact involved and that those weren't unilaterally determined by the Chair.
>> Basically the same answer as #2.
--- again...Since it was their responsibility it must be done? thats a strong case you present.
5. Protect the company assets and member’s/investors investments. (DONE)
You saying it was done doesn't make it true nor does it speak to whether it was done well. Show some proof that they were in fact involved and that those weren't unilaterally determined by the Chair.
Incindently how well was this done in your opinion?
>> The minutes of the meetings should show a discussion of the properties. I highly doubt that it was the choice of a single person to trim mineral claims. Regardless, the company did what they had to do so that they could remain a going concern. I think that you continually forget that the company is broke, bankrupt, just not officially. They have no money left, debts are greater than cash.
--- Now I know I have been continually asking for someone to present a case for keeping management in place...and I thank you for reiterating a major compelling reason to have them removed...but I was hoping you would argue against me and not for me.
You have some nerve to suggest I continually forget that the company is broke/bankrupt, I am well aware...who got us there? Yet fools in our midst including the BOD want to actually keep the person in place who drove this company off a cliff...incidentally, it is the BOD who gave her the keys to the car.
6. The board hires the auditor and makes sure the audit is done each year. (DONE)
You saying it was done doesn't make it true nor does it speak to whether it was done well. Show some proof that they were in fact involved and that those weren't unilaterally determined by the Chair.
>> The audit was done, the results have been published. All the board does is hire the auditor and makes sure that it gets done. How can you even argue that the failed at that task when it is published?
I am aware the Auditors were selected and the Audit was published, however I suggested even with things that were done, it didn't mean they were done well.
S.
13 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply