I'm not sure the problems are all solved, page-16

I'll try and address some of your points. However if you are inclined to vote for the resolutions because you see a strike as unnecessary and costly my views may well be irrelevant to you

There is normally only one mechanism available to us to register any protest against board actions and that is by voting against the remuneration report. However we have also been presented another opportunity in the case of Cheney - reelection and Thurman - confirmation

I have doubts that cheney is actively involved in securing any military contract. Maybe he was useful once but we are supposed to be well down the track and by now it should be a matter of whether our chemistry performs to standard. Further if he is or was actively involved in representing the business in discussions with the military that, combined with the fact that he was the CEO of the company that leased us the office space (thus a related entity payment) would call into question whether he is an independent director (He also has a substantial number of options and a small parcel of shares ). Further he was party to the actions of the business last year by virtue of his role and as part of the remuneration committee last year takes his own share of responsibility for what we all thought then was an excessive pay packet for executive directors.

A good look at remuneration for chairman of businesses with a market cap the same as Alexiums and a consistently backward moving share price would show you that even with the cut it is still generous. (My view but I've checked)

That takes us to the issue of a strike. Well I just don't know any other mechanism available to shareholders to register concern about events of last year. Whether the vote passes or fails it is still an option and last year's strike clearly had an impact. It seems to me that even if a board spill fails a second strike is likely to keep the Board "on notice" that views of shareholders matter. That was the whole point of the change to the Corporations Act.

You comment on the additional Australian director. I'm sorry but it matters not what an Australian director might add. One thing might be a strong knowledge of corporate governance in australia. One might be an understanding of local markets one might be a "wise head". But it is irrelevant. As an Australian listed company it is a legal requirement to have two directors who are ordinarily resident in Australia. I find it quite frankly rather interesting that we have been unable to meet that obligation since Smith-Gandar's resignation in January/February? Of this year. Does that mean the Board doesn't care about their obligation? Does it mean they move slowly? Does it mean they aren't well enough connected to be able to find someone? Dies no one want to join the Board? What other reasons? I'd rather like to think our Board could have expedited an action that was a legal requirement

As for the board composition. I'd rather have industry experience than a raft of lobbyists and ex politicians. (And in any event as much happens at state level as federal level -check out California for example). I'd also rather have people with experience in rapid profitable growth businesses and we don't have that.

I'd rather like to share my experiences in trying to raise some absolutely legitimate concerns and additional information I have which I admit deeply colour my perception but this is not the right forum for that. I also don't expect anyone else to share my concerns. Each one of us has the right and obligation to vote in accordance with our own ethical and moral standards and our own views on matters. I'd expect that to be the case this year as it was last year.

Parsifal