Morning Dogman, I agree with most of what you put together...

Morning Dogman, I agree with most of what you put together above. But, figured I'd put down a little expansion on my comments (on another thread) expressing some frustration with the board, and what will likely be my voting intentions.
As a bit of context, PAR is the first company I've really felt myself engaged with as an investor and was really hoping to attend the AGM in person as a learning experience. Rather than the very passive holdings I typically have, typically not even voting. ... So there is every chance I'm viewing this a little naively and too much from a perspective of employee performance, compared to realistic board performance of a company I'm invested in. (Love seeing comments from the more experienced holders).

From what I understand (reading the notice of AGM):

• Even if a spill motion (resolution #8) is passed, Paul is "safe". The Board Members who will cease to hold their positions are:
• Donna Skerrett (CMO & Acting CEO)
• John Gaffney (non-Exec)
• Amos Meltzer (non-Exec)
• Helen Fisher (non-Exec)

Although I'd love to read through board meeting minutes, I know I'm not going to get them. But, since there is no clear information (and my personal opinion is that board communication hasn't been particularly clear over the last year or so), I feel that I'm needing to try and infer how much value each of our board members is delivering based on how I believe the company is doing.

Looking at our board members individually:

Paul Rennie(Founder, Chairman):

• The last few years have been a struggle, and probably not Paul's best ... however, I'm very happy to give Paul a long rope based on his previous success getting the company to where it is today.
• I wasn't happy with him holding Chairman / CEO / Chairman of another company, but relinquishing the CEO role has left me happier with his workload/responsibilities to PAR. ... I'm not overly pleased that our permanent CEO search is still ongoing, and likely won't be resolved before the AGM. Even though it should have been on the radar for nearly a year.
• If nothing else, Paul holding ~9% of the company I believe entitles him to a seat on the board.
• Bonus shares - I believe Paul's previous success has been previously recognized & rewarded. The last year's performance, I'm not convinced justifies a strong bonus. I'll probably be voting against, from a last-year's performance perspective. (I would be happier to approve, if the loan shares had a much higher watermark than +25% on next week's price ... would be happy to see Paul buy 450k shares on-market, rather than issuing more shares under a loan-scheme).

John Gaffney(non-Exec):

• Similar to Paul, John's long tenure (~8yrs) on the board and previous success of the company encourages me to give John a long rope.
• My assumption is that ~8yrs on the board means John has a very deep understanding of the company, and can provide valuable guidance to the executive team. He's got a reasonably shareholding, so I'm expecting will be personally invested in the success of the company.
• However, his bio on the company page suggests that his primary "brings" to the board are Compliance, Corporate Governance and Financial Services experience. ... I'm not convinced these areas have performed particularly well over the last couple of years. At the very least, as a retail shareholder, I don't believe I've been brought along on the journey.
• On the fence for re-election, I don't think I'd be overly opinionated with either outcome.

Donna Skerrett (CMO, acting CEO):

• I'm a technical person, I enjoy seeing technical people on the board. Donna has the background to truly understand our company's product, and I believe that the progress to Ph3 trials are a tick against her competence as a CMO.
• I believe she's remunerated quite well, but I'm not overly pleased with how far our trial timelines have slipped ... and what in my opinion has been poor communication around trial scope creep/delay.
• Very happy to have Donna on the board.
• Bonus Shares - Unsure on this one, big-tick from me for getting Ph3 underway. Big scowl for major timeline creep and poor communication of what's going wrong.

Helen Fisher (non-Exec):

• I struggle to fully grasp what Helen is bringing to the board, and would like this better communicated.
• She's the managing director of what appears to be an institutional investment fund. On the board of an Aus tech company, and worked previously for a big-4 accounting/accounting company.
• I'm assuming that Helen's supposed to be delivering institutional investment guidance / competence, either for relationship management with potential partners such as 51Cap, Collins St, Bell Potter, Morgan's ... and/or, working on investment partnership? .... From what I've seen as a retail holder during her tenure, this hasn't been even remotely successful.
• Helen holds no shares in PAR, despite being on the board for nearly 1yr ... and what is a comparatively low share price to previous levels.
• Personally, I'll probably be voting no for Helen's election to the board.

Amos Meltzer (non-Exec):

• Technical background (I like), with 25yrs Intellectual Property Law experience. - Big tick, I believe we desperately need this experience on the board. It's well identified that our Patents, and Bene agreements are critical to the success of this company.
• Life science product development and commercialization experience, through licensing and sales/marketing.
• To me, everything I read on Amos' Bio is exactly what I want to see on our board. ... I'm genuinely curious to look further into his background, and validate. But from what I'm reading so far, I'd like another of him on the board or even in an executive position (probably not CEO though).
• It makes me a bit sad that despite being on the board for 12mths +, Amos doesn't hold any shares. With all that experience, why doesn't he believe in us yet . ... Hopefully something to rectify.
• Unless my further research tarnishes my opinion significantly, I'll almost certainly be voting for Amos' election to the board. However, I'd really like to see his commercialization experience brought to bear over the next year or two (well before OA NDA completion).

Just a few of my thoughts, it's actually been quite useful to go through writing this out to help flesh out my otherwise vague opinions.