As for what Kathy is recommending and comments……
The attorney’s recommendations are in our LEGAL Best Interest as a board. They do not have to do with creating more fees.
We are all legally responsible for all that we do. I have serious concerns about going against the legal advice of our attorney. It’s not personal advice. It’s legal advice.
The land sale and the distribution are two completely separate issues. One follows the other but they are not one in the same.
If I were a shareholder I’d be highly suspicious of any board that forced a vote on the land sale to be strictly tied to the vote on the distribution. It limits your options and essentially forces shareholders who would be in favor of voting for the land sale to vote for only that exact distribution amount or lose the land sale altogether.
Kodiak Island Broadcasting Co., Inc.
KVOK-AM / KRXX-FM
From: Richard simeonoff [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 1:23 PM
To: Alyce Roberts; Ellen Simeonoff; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: land sale tied to distribution(sorry no spell check)
I know that a lawyer is a necessary evil in this process. she seems adamant to pursue certain issues that would mean more billing for her. is it clearly advantages to her if we were to draft up two separate votes, But as I have stated we don’t want to sell the land if we cant be have a major benefit to the shareholders it would be in the best interest of the shareholders to just keep the land if that were the case. I would rather divide that land up amongst the shareholders. we would certainly get more than 55 thousand a piece. if we sell it must be tied to distribution. otherwise we should have a firm plan for the money. and we don’t. I would rather keep it. its pristine land it is a jewel. This lawyer has already lied. she said the modifications and amendment was meant for only grammar and minor changes.(if you want the email that confirms this let me know) It is definitely in her best interest and lawyers in general for corporations to keep the money. I would rather divide up the land. This lawyer would be no different than any other they are all going to promote litigation and legal chaos. we all know that the shareholders will vote for a land sale and distribution that is well written. The lawyer job is to create as many billing hours as possible. I think the proxy as it is written works. as long as the 5500 per share is tied in. From the beginning we have had the sale tied to distribution. it is clearly in the lawyers best interest to keep Native corporations spending money. we have not spent $60,000 since inception why would we need more than that?? now? to spend on lawyers? accountants? per diem? salaries? I am not accusing anyone but if we have other plans they should be clarified. we still have Exxon money coming. We must be sure we do not have our personal goals instead the will of the shareholders. I have not spoken to one who wants anything other than to distribute the money. if anyone else has information to the contrary please let us all know. remember we are not an elected board. all shareholders have a right to know what is going on. Ellen told me not to share information with shareholders. why? and my personal views are also shared by many shareholders. i have been sending emails to donene too but she never sends any back does she just communicate with you ellen? you seem to be having alott of side conversations. maybe if you shared them we would all know whats going on.