General Electric 2004 Proxy Statement

	Proposal 1
	Proposal 2
	Proposal 3
	Proposal 4
	Proposal 5
	Proposal 6
	Proposal 7
	Proposal 8
	Proposal 9
	Proposal 10
	Proposal 11
	Proposal 12
	Proposal 13
	Proposal 14
	Proposal 15

Additional Information

Appendix: Governance Principles

Advance Registration


Related Content Download Adobe® Reader® Downloads 2004 Proxy Statement (714K PDF)

Shareowner Proposal No. 1
Evelyn Y. Davis, Watergate Office Building, 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W., Suite 215, Washington, D.C. 20037, has notified us that she intends to present the following proposal at this year’s meeting: “Resolved: That the stockholders of General Electric, 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 982,006,954 shares, representing approximately 16.6% of shares voting, voted FOR this proposal.

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

Our board of directors recommends a vote against this proposal.

Like most major corporations, we provide that each share of common stock shall be entitled to one vote for each nominee for director. We believe 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. It has served us well. The proposal would change this system by potentially allowing 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, we believe that changing the current voting procedure would not be in the best interests of all shareowners and therefore recommend a vote against the proposal.