GE imagination at work
GE.com | GE 2006 Annual Report

Shareowner Proposals

No. 1 — Cumulative Voting

Evelyn Y. Davis, Watergate Office Building, 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W., Suite 215, Washington, DC 20037, has notified us that she intends to present the following proposal at this year’s meeting:

“RESOLVED: “That the stockholders of GE, assembled in Annual Meeting in person and by proxy, hereby request the Board of Directors to take the necessary steps to provide for cumulative voting in the election of directors, which means each stockholder shall be entitled to as many votes as shall equal the number of shares he or she owns multiplied by the number of directors to be elected, and he or she may cast all of such votes for a single candidate, or any two or more of them as he or she may see fit.”

“REASONS: “Many states have mandatory cumulative voting, so do National Banks.”

“In addition, many corporations have adopted cumulative voting.”

“Last year the owners of 1,414,418,654 shares, representing approximately 22.3% of shares voting, voted FOR my resolution.

“If you AGREE, please mark your proxy FOR this resolution.”

Our Board of Directors recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal.

Like most major corporations, GE provides that each share of common stock is entitled to one vote for each nominee for director. The Board believes that this voting system is most likely to produce an effective board of directors that will represent the interests of all the company’s shareowners. This shareowner proposal could potentially allow a small shareowner group to have a disproportionate effect on the election of directors, possibly leading to the election of directors who advocate the positions of the groups responsible for their election rather than positions which are in the best interests of all shareowners. Because each director oversees the management of the company for the benefit of all shareowners, the Board believes that it is appropriately addressing shareowner concerns over the election process and that cumulative voting would not be in the best interests of all shareowners. The Board, therefore, recommends a vote against the proposal.

Back to top

Previous  Next