Replies

I've been googling the coverage of the Exxon board meeting. The spin has been reasonably (considering the sources) subdued, until I came to a report in the Financial Times by the appropriately named Sheila McNutty.

How anyone can call the FT a "conservative" paper is beyond me. Nutty Sheila tried to portray the across-the-board shareholder smackdown of the radical agenda as a harbinger of future success for leftish corporate 5th columnists, and implied that the radicals dominated the meeting.

This was in marked contrast to other reports which dryly reported the facts, including that most of the radical agenda items only improved their vote by a percentage point or so. Also in contrast to Nutty, the Dallas Morning News (link in msg #131) noted that radical measures unsuccessfully forwarded by shareholders were nothing new, described how new procedures decreased the malcontents' ability to dominate the meeting relative to previous years, and quoted one of the malcontents themselves to the effect that they were in receipt of more open and vocal mockery and hostility from fellow shareholders:

Remarks from throngs of shareholders have become an annual tradition for the Exxon Mobil annual meeting, which has long been a target of environment and human rights activists.
On Wednesday, Dr. Raymond fielded more than 50 comments – most about two minutes each – for and against the proposals.
Some shareholders objected to new meeting rules alternating the comments from supporters and opponents on each proposal, at separate microphones and monitored for time limits by a system of green, yellow and red lights.
Critics said that Exxon Mobil changed the procedure to give its supporters – including groups backed by the company – more leverage. Dr. Raymond said it was designed to provide both sides of each issue.
"I thought there was a new level of mockery for the shareholder process," said Sister Pat Daly of the Dominican Sisters of Caldwell, N.J., the lead filer on the climate change resolution. "The company spent a great deal of lobbying resources to try to diffuse support."

So, meanwhile, in The Financial Times' alternative universe...

Activists hijack Exxon AGM
By Sheila McNulty in Houston
Published: May 28 2003 23:11 | Last Updated: May 28 2003 23:11

Shareholders demanding reform on Wednesday hijacked?ExxonMobil's?annual general meeting, traditionally a forum for the world's biggest oil company to boast of its achievements.

Shareholder proposals ranged from one by Ram Trust Services requesting the separation of the positions of chairman and chief executive, to another by a member of the audience urging a vote against the "puppet, flunky, rubber-stamp" board proposed in the proxy by management.

As the meeting went on for three hours supporters and opponents took the microphone for each proposal, with Lee Raymond, ExxonMobil's chairman and chief executive, making occasional retorts.

The shareholder proposals failed. However, the fact that they were even made, by a variety of backers - and won as many votes as some did - underlined the trend towards investor activism amid a crisis of confidence in corporate America.

Shareholders' calls to reform ExxonMobil were put forward after a quarter in which the company reported record profits and continued a trend of increasing dividends and returns.

That some shareholders were still pushing for change supported the contention that investors are no longer content merely to make money, but want to do so responsibly.

The proposal to separate Mr Raymond's leadership duties was the most closely watched, with supporters of the proposal saying he held unlimited power over the 21st largest enterprise in the world. "This is really an empire, Mr Chairman," one shareholder said. "A more appropriate title for you would be emperor."

"I don't think so," Mr Raymond retorted. The proposal received 21 per cent of the vote. A company supporter told critics: "If you don't like this corporation, take your money and get out of this stock." But critics fired back that they would not give up the fight to improve the company.

A proposal by the Community of the Sisters of St Dominic for ExxonMobil to conduct a climate change report received 22 per cent of the vote. One by Province of St Joseph of the Capuchin Order for the company to conduct a report on renewable energy won 21 per cent.

Most others were defeated by a wide margin, including a proposal by The Catholic Funds for more board nominees. Proponents likened the company to Iraq, which only offers one candidate per position.

ExxonMobil said it put forward the best candidate for each job.

Huh, wha... Who got nuked?

Hey, we made it into The Telegraph (U.K.) although they mistakenly described us as "shareholders" (no pics):

Exxon investors sing: 'Give oil a chance'
By Malcolm Moore (Filed: 30/05/2003)

Shareholders at Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, have voted to throw out a series of resolutions on reducing global warming, promoting renewable energy and banning discrimination against homosexuality.

The shareholders, who met amid tight security at the company's annual general meeting in the Morton H Meyerson symphony hall in Dallas, managed to drown out environmental protestors by singing: "Give oil a chance".

Their view was backed by Exxon Mobil's chief executive, Lee Raymond, who said even if wind and solar power experienced rapid growth, they would still account for less than 1pc of world energy consumption by 2020.

"We believe oil and gas, which represents about 60pc of energy supplies today, will remain the dominant energy source," he said.

"We won't jump on the bandwagon just because others may have a different view. We don't invest to make social statements at the expense of shareholder return."

BP and Shell have both recently made moves to appear more environmentally friendly, with BP rebranding itself "Beyond Petroleum".

The company's stance found favour with its shareholders, 97pc of whom voted in favour of the board. A measure to promote renewable energy was opposed by 79pc of shareholders, while a proposal calling for a report into the risks Exxon Mobil faced due to climate change was opposed by 78pc.

Only 27pc of shareholders voted to support a resolution to change the company's equal employment opportunity policy to include a category on sexual preference.

The company said it was not its policy to grant rights for special categories, and that explicit protection for homosexuals was unnecessary. Institutional Shareholder Services, which advises pension funds, had urged its members to support the proposals.