-----Original Message----- From: Ralph E. Frost [refrost@dcwi.com] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:37 PM To: rule-comments@sec.gov Subject: Shifting the balance File No. S7-24-02 Regarding efforts to improve integrity, honesty and thus public trust and participation in the marketplace, I propose that SEC's website be modified so as to add open public forums for each company containing: 1. listing of all the archived inquiries and complaints filed to SEC by individuals related to the company's behaviors 2. an open forum where individuals can post/discuss a complaint, classified in various ways and with a changeable "status" flag relating to the practices and behaviors of the corporations and their agents that the indidual is aware of. The basic notion here is to bring balance to the presently out of balance disclosure and oversight system by encouraging the public to speak up. The idea, simlply, is to increase freedom. God help us, it had better work. What I propose apparently runs counter to the prevailing policy. Yet, given the need to improve integrity, honesty, and trust in the markets, increasing freedom and free flow of information on the public side of the equation sure couldn't hurt and, therefore, ought to be implemented. If increasing freedom and free communication doesn't or can't help reduce dihonest practices and thereby increase authenticity and trustworthiness, then we all have a much bigger problem than we can possibly imagine. Case in point. Consider a merger where the public documents paint a bright clear picture, yet the details, hidden in the undevulged Appendices, contain evidence of unfair practices, contradictions, misrepresentations, large inconsistencies, etc, typically made against a small number of individuals. The merging companies could have taken appropriate and fair measures to resolve difficulties with such people, but, instead, the existing disclosure procedures encourage, yes, encourage that the expedient, unfair path is taken. Why? The rules allow it. The deck is stacked against the individual(s), in favor of a presumed to be honest corporate group. The difficulty is, once the corporation makes their initial wrong move, in essence what they have done is file false information with the SEC and the stock buying public. That situation is minimized and rationalized as being for the greater good (theirs), of course, but the dishonesty is still present. After it's done, a lot of legal resources will go into keeping that fact from coming to light. And so it goes. In for a penny; in for a pound. Since the crooked procedures 'WORK' in the existing system, the consequence is the practice is repeated with increasing frequency, leading, after a short while to the situation folks witness running rampant in the marketplace today. In contrast, consider the type of marketplace where companies expected to operate with integrity and would find it difficult to not address important issues? Consider a marketplace where wrong action could not be hidden or buried in years of litigation. Could such a system possibly damage the profits of an honest firm? Increasing -- encouraging -- open, free-flowing public communication sanctioned within the SEC on-line community can help bring the system back into balance. Very truly yours, Ralph Frost 305 S Prairie Street PO Box 433 Brookston IN 47923 765/563-3711 http://www.refrost.com