But they got precisely nowhere. Murdoch’s response was to proclaim at the end of his 15-minute intro, and before debate even began, that the votes had already been counted and the proposals defeated by “more than a majority of the votes cast”. He also informed shareholders that their attempts to unseat directors and vote against the executive pay package had failed.
He could hardly have made his message any clearer: I don’t care what you think, I’ve already made up my mind; you might as well all go home. Yet none of the petitioners was brave enough to point this out.
Last year, a majority of independent shareholders voted against the election of six News Corp directors, including Rupert’s sons Lachlan and James Murdoch. And a similar majority voted against the company’s compensation package. The protest was widely reported, yet it has achieved little in the way of change, shareholders say.
This year, it’s possible the various resolutions will also win a majority of the independent vote (we should know later today), but they won’t get up because Rupert and his family own 40% of the voting shares and can rely on support from Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal Alsaud, who owns a further 7%.
And, even if they were to pass, there is nothing that News Corp would actually have to do about it, because they are purely advisory. If the board wishes to ignore them it can. Indeed, even if a majority of shareholders were to vote against half the board of directors, they would still take their seats at News because there are no other candidates.
But aside from the lack of action, there was fun to be had in observing it all: Rupert, looking bent and shorter and struggling up the steps to the stage; the “independent” directors all choosing pink ties while the executive directors opted for grey; the entire team of directors (at least the ones on stage) all laughing dutifully when Rupert made a nasty quip about The New York Times. That moment spoke volumes about who stands up to the boss.
There was also the process to savour: the black truckousines that ferried us onto the Fox lot; the besuited security guards telling us “this way, sir” and the ID and security checks to get us into the inner sanctum. There were even free copies of Rupert’s New York Post on offer, with a front-page headline announcing: “The Fallen Mighty”.
On this day, that certainly didn’t apply to the paper’s proprietor. Fifteen months after the phone-hacking scandal blew up, Rupert’s grip on power does not appear to have loosened.
All in all, one wondered why anyone had bothered to go, and certainly to fly in from the UK at great expense, as some of the shareholders had done.
At the end of the meeting, the advocates for change, led by Julie Tanner of Christian Brothers Investment Services, tried to put a brave spin on it by telling reporters that these issues won’t go away and nor will they. But as Tanner also told Crikey: “It’s very disappointing. This does not bode well for shareholders.” When asked what comes next, she replied: “That’s a very good question. It will be interesting to see the vote and to see how the board responds.”
It seemed the board?—?and Rupert?—?already had. And that no king, least of all this one, gives away power to the people unless he’s forced to.
Right now?—?and for the foreseeable future?—?the force is with him.
This article was first published on LeadingCompany’s sister site, Crikey.
