Anyone who watches ESPN's Chris Berman knows his often used phrase of "No one circles the wagons...like the Buf-fa-lo Bills!". Well, I think this proxy just proved Mr. Berman wrong, lol. Though in his defense, he's likley been lucky enough to never hear of the crew from PTSC!

While I understand their boilerplate opposition to anything that doesn't find its genesis from within their group, it's amazing that they continue in their practices of no accountability. Reduction of BOD members to 3 can be considered a positive, but how can the market understand why they are doing it from this filing? Has there been any other public communication that would explain this sudden about face, barely a year, though $102K after Mr. Mistry's heralded addition to the BOD? Is it a cost saving measure? If so, why no additional changes in compensation levels? Is it a result of strategic changes? If so, why the continuation of an expressed strategy to build PDSG if those with some experience in that field on the BOD are the members being eliminated.

Furthermore, is there any reason ALL of the existing BOD members couldn't be included on the ballot, and allow shareholders to vote in the 3 that we choose, even if only by plurality vote for now? Or considering the factors they list at the desireable qualifications of BOD members, in light of their consistent failures, is there no one more qualified that they could have nominated to replace themselves or that could have stood for election along side of them allowing shareholders a choice, and the market an opportunity to believe that positive changes were underway?

The only perceptible reasons as supported by the historical record are those who are standing for reelection's desire to continue to line their own pockets regardless of their inability to deliver value to shareholders and/or their arrogance that they still believe they are singularly best suited and from their perspective most deserving of the chance to turn PTSC's fortunes around. Those are probably the most positive interpretations of the facts in evidence, and clearly there are several much less positive interpretations.

I hope all shareholders INCLUDING THE BOD MEMBERS vote for your proposal. In a vacuum, one could argue that it is not a necessary revision. However, in the context of this company, and these directors, it is CLEARLY a much needed change to the process, even if it won't take effect until the next meeting. Keep in mind, the next meeting doesn't necessarily have to be a full year away. I'd remind you of the Big Dog needs to be fed annual meeting, lol. We've had October meetings, April meetings, etc.

In light of their attempts to solidify their control of the company and their disregard for shareholders calls for accountability, a vote for the proposal is probably the best option available at this time.