4 comments on “Shareholder Voting Rights

  1. Great job Dave, on digging this one out. This is the most comprehensive information I have seen on the subject of voting at the shareholders meeting. This is so important for everyone to read,that it should be front and center on the home page.

    What little I know, comes from first hand experience last year, when I wanted to vote my shares held in street name. What is very important is a person cannot vote their proxy, and expect to vote at the annual meeting. If you check the box that you want to vote your own shares,internet site proxyvote.com will not let you vote for anything else. They will automatically send you a power of attorney to vote your shares and each will specify the number of shares for that proxy only. Therefore if you have a regular account, an IRA and a Roth IRA account you will receive three powers of attorney,each indicating the number of shares you can vote for that account. If you fail to return your proxy for any account you cannot vote that number of shares.

    I believe that the most powerful change in the new regulations is the stockbroker cannot vote your shares for directors. If you look close at the 8-K (results of last years election) that I previously posted, that is the reason that three of the questions had over 1 million stockholder non-vote but the one question(approval of auditors) had 0 stockbroker non-vote because they could vote for that question.

    As I see it if a person cannot make it to the meeting, and wants to vote for a director that will be nominated from the floor then the best vote for them is not to vote for any director on the proxy. This leaves less shares for the votes at the meeting to over come.

  2. What little I know, comes from first hand experience last year, when I wanted to vote my shares held in street name.

    Robert: What is the drill when I arrive at the annual meeting with the power of attorney? I assume the bank takes the power of attorney, and hands you a pre-printed ballot – for the 14a-8 proxy proposal, the bank’s recommened directors, auditor, etc? Then what? If I want to save my vote for, say, Steve, how does that work? I will want to vote on the proxy proposal, etc – but how will the tellers know that I didn’t vote for directors?

    If a nomination is made from the floor, do you expect that ballots for that will be passed out separately, after Steve’s name is placed in nomination? I can visualize a bit of turmoil and confusion. What if, at that point, the bank declares the meeting in recess until several days later when new ballots can be prepared – and there are shareowners present who have traveled from California, etc? I fully expect the bank to have a gaggle of their lawyers present to advocate whatever the bank’s management directs.

    Personally, I think it would be more orderly to handle the floor nomination first – before any other business is conducted, including receiving of bank proxies, the powers of attorney, etc.

    Sorry for the paranoia.

    • This is what happened last year. I handed my three power of attorney to LuAnn who was a greeter at the door with Thom. At that point in time they did nothing. At the point in the meeting when they were ready to announce the results of the vote, from the paper and electronic voting proxies, they had not even allowed my vote yet. They then asked who was eligible to vote from the floor and about 6-8 persons held up their hand. A couple of persons passed out copies of the proxy for us to vote. If you held up your hand you got a ballet. No checks, no balances. You then wrote the number of shares on the ballet and cast your vote. In the meantime Craig announced the results of the election without counting our votes and said he had won. I knew he had won before our vote,but would have felt better if they had counted all the votes before announcing the results. I wish we had a parliamentarian that could give us input. The way the meeting is run is more of a dog and pony show that takes up 3/4 of the time, a very limited question and answer period and then lets eat because it’s time.

  3. If that is the way it’s handled again this year, there will be at least one very strenuous objection. Those PNBC people, senior management and directors, are very arrogant, and have been for years. They have been blowing us, the stockholders, off. I’ve had it.

    I say, forget the dog-and-pony show. Let’s get down to business. We’ve been hearing their line of bull for years, and where are we?

    Tom Ogaard has been telling people to give him two more years, and he will have it all straightened out. How? What’s his plan? Does his employment agreement pay off in two years? How would we know?

Comments are closed.