The non-compliance sinners were staff who are long gone, not...

The non-compliance sinners were staff who are long gone, not Directors. But it certainly does speak to a lack of governance oversight for the failure to have occurred so many times before being spotted (by our Chairman, he tells me).

LTers will know that I am not an apologist for the Directors, but know this: the Directors are not paid very much*. Do the math and verify this for yourself. Remember, we're talking about Directors, not staff. Furthermore, they are not paid in cash, but in shares, so their interests in that regard are very much aligned to ours.

That said, I believe a complete change of Board is required. Not because of what they earn in fees, but their long-term lack of performance. 11 years of under-performance is more than enough. A new COO is probably required too, but that would be a decision for a new Board, not shareholders. The trick might be in finding talented replacements who are willing to take on this basket case -- hopefully made a little easier with improved sentiment within the sector.

(*An exception here is our Chairman, CI, who is also acting in the role of CEO (0.4 FTE at last count). He is earning Director's Fees (paid as shares) and also part-time CEO income (also paid as shares). His CEO earnings element is not immaterial.)