Ann: Notice of General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-5

Thanks BCCanuck, for the thoughtful analysis. Yes I have a large investment considering the size of my portfolio. I'll just say I have in excess of 100,000 shares and at 25c going to 5c you can see that my stake is not insignificant, nor the paper loss. I have been a positive advocate for VRS in the past and have several friends who have invested in the company on my advice. Sadly they bought in in the 13 - 20 c price range. I earn a pittance compared to the guys at the top of VRS yet I have a Masters Degree with First Class Honours, just that I work in helping people. Our capitalist system has serious shortcomings not the least being the massive remuneration packages some people find acceptable. That's a matter for society as a whole to correct and its time is coming. It's all part of the integrity I speak of, but let's leave that aside for another day.
You rightly point out that the pricing structure was horribly wrong, and if we are struggling to save a few million by shutting offices, it's obvious we were underpricing our services. A basic labourer needs to be charged out in many industries at at least $70 an hour just to cover holidays, super, sick days, training, equipment etc etc. and that's being paid the minimum wage. So we have done an awful lot of work in surveying for $90 million in revenue to make next to nothing...in fact a loss in the first half on the surveying. So there was an apparent blindness of the Board that has been the subject of discussion here for quite some time. This doesn't inspire any confidence when considering the issue at hand..who is best to be on the Board.

You do seem to have knowledge of Elton. I 'm just a shareholder, only party to company announcements but judging from the success of his advisory arm of VRS it seems that he may have the requisite ability to make sound contributions to the Board. That really leaves others holding the can for the disastrous drop in share price. It begs the question 'were Manganao and Goodridge complicit?', or were they the squeaky wheel that were cast aside, and now seek redress. The mind shudders at the inability of people to work for the greater good without obvious self-interest. One wonders about the workplace culture. In a roundabout way, it is often the determinant of the success or otherwise of a company. This is something the incumbent board is hugely responsible for, and one suspects in searching for someone with HR expertise there may well be problems. To this end bring in stretchercase, do you vote against the incumbents because you suspect problems are more endemic than publicised and you don't like it, or do you vote against the Requisitioners because you don't know what you'll get and don't like voting that way.
Only thing is my voting preference always goes for something with sound reasons to vote that way, as opposed to the vote against 'dislike' principle. Hence the dilemma.

BC, I get your comments about the incumbents and the Requisitioners saying similar things re core services and non-profit offices..(isn't it great how loss making is termed non-profit, by the spin doctors). There is little point of difference between the comments of the two parties although Aquara clearly highlights 'some diversity that is successful' V 'sticking to surveying'. So I would see this as a plus for the status quo. Another point worth consideration is the traction the Board seeks to gain out of its stated support of the Company Bankers. Dare I say this but banks are characterised by self-interest, and in my view we would have been better off had we pursued a more moderate acquisition strategy while at the same time, eliminating bank debt. We certainly had the cash to be debt free, and rather than debt being a way for growth, it can end up being a noose around one's neck. While things are in a state of flux, taking on more debt, is not a strategy I would support. Indeed some successful periods of sustained net profit is best put on the scoreboard I believe, before we even contemplate drawing down more of the available loan facility. When one grows revenue it is my opinion it is the time to retire debt, not take on more. If the revenue cycle then goes into a state of decline, that extra debt can be the very noose that strangles you, whereas a debt free position might open possibilities. I would like to know the Requisitioners position on debt. Perhaps it is something I could vote for.