Eisner Receives 72.5% No Confidence Vote

[Kapp]

Eisner Receives 72.5% No Confidence Vote From Disney 401K Plan Participants; Roy Disney, Stanley Gold Say This Further Confirms Eisner's Lame Duck Status
Monday April 19, 4:01 pm ET

BURBANK, Calif., April 19 /PRNewswire/ -- Records received today from The Walt Disney Company confirm that Michael Eisner received a No Confidence vote from 72.5% of the votes cast by the Walt Disney Company 401K trustee at the Company's 2004 annual meeting and that George Mitchell received a No Confidence Vote from 63.7% of the votes cast by the Walt Disney Company 401K trustee, said Roy E. Disney and Stanley P. Gold. A total of 28,625,419 votes were cast.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of people who participate in the company's 401K plans and voted their shares at the annual meeting have No Confidence in either their CEO or their newly-elected chairman," Messrs. Disney and Gold said. "It is hard to imagine how Mr. Eisner can do what needs to be done at this company without the support of the Company's employees."

They added, "Despite an attempted Disney spin to the contrary, we believe this vote by the company's 401K participants is a meaningful barometer of employee dissatisfaction with the way The Walt Disney Company is being run. The vote was strictly confidential. Plan participants, which include both current and former employees, were given a chance to express their views on Mr. Eisner and the Board without fear of reprisal. As anyone who has done any polling knows, you only need a small sample to get a statistically valid survey. We believe it would be hard to argue that these results are not statistically valid."

Messrs. Disney and Gold said, "This overwhelming rejection by employees voting their shares in the 401K plans, together with the 45.4% No Confidence Vote from the company's shareholders at the annual meeting, makes it undisputedly clear that Michael Eisner is a lame duck and the Company's Board of Directors must address this untenable leadership vacuum.

"The question remains, how long will this Board ignore the will of the Company's shareholders and now, its employees? The message couldn't be clearer: action must be taken to replace Michael Eisner now," they said.

They added, "For the Disney PR department to 'spin' these facts in any other way is insulting and demeaning to the many loyal and dedicated employees who work for Disney; they deserve better -- shareholders expect better."

Messrs. Disney and Gold said that in light of the 26% No Confidence Vote that Mr. Mitchell received from the company's shareholders and the 63.7% No Confidence Vote he received from the votes cast by the Walt Disney Company 401K trustee at the Company's 2004 annual meeting, the Board really has no choice but to re-examine their appointment of Mr. Mitchell to the post of Chairman.

"If Michael Eisner's No Confidence Vote wasn't so staggeringly high, everyone would be talking about the substantial No Confidence Vote cast against Mr. Mitchell," they said. "It's important that this not get lost in the process."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Roy Disney and Stanley Gold

 

[grinningghost]

Things that make you go hmmm...

 

[dcentity2000]

What's a 401k thingy?

Why is the number almost double the last shareholder one?

Things don't change THIS quickly!

What's different about this figure?



Rich::

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by dcentity2000
What's a 401k thingy?

Why is the number almost double the last shareholder one?

Things don't change THIS quickly!

What's different about this figure?



Rich::

A 401k is a pre tax investment plan offered by many employers to their employees. It usually involves investment in stocks, bonds and mutuaral funds and frequently includes some form of matching contribution by the employer.

This specific 401K is the retirement investment plan offered by Disney to its employees. It includes investment in Disney stocks. This means 72% of the Disney Employees who take part in the 401k and took the time to vote voted against Eisner.

Why is this number so much bigger than the number taken from the votes of the public at large? I would say it is because Eisner's own employees know him to be a bad CEO through their own experiences with him and want him gone to protect their retirement investments. In other words, those who work for him have no confidence in him. Not a good thing.

 

[manning]

So, the old saying is true. "you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time"

I guess Eisner is having trouble fooling a lot of people.

No wonder that plastic bottle is still (I assume, haven't heard anything lately) laying there at Splash Mountain.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

Even the cast members who embody the Disney ideal arent what they used to be and I can confidently say it is because of Eisner and the current attitude of management.

 

[WDSearcher]

But the question remains ... what next? OK ... we get it. No one has confidence in ME or GM. Roy and Stan -- you've proved your point. Good job guys.

NOW what?

We've still not seen any sort of even tentative list of possible board members from the "Save Disney" camp. We've still not had any remote rumblings from them of who they feel would be a good replacement for either George Mitchell or ME. We have no indication that Roy and Stan are even approaching those folks on the WDC board who they feel are being effective board members to try and forge any sort of relationship that could help ease a transition. All we get is yet another rehashing of the vote to prove, once again, that Roy and Stan were right when they said there was "no confidence." But then ... we knew that a couple months ago.

What's next?

 

[JKanownik]

Originally posted by dcentity2000

Why is the number almost double the last shareholder one?

Things don't change THIS quickly!

What's different about this figure?



Rich::

The shareholder vote also included proxy votes. The company withholds proxy rights to all shares that don't actually vote. So if only 50% of the shares vote and 50% of those vote no confidence, the company will vote the remaining 50% with 0% no confidence. The total tally is a under-reported 25% no confidence bid.

The 72% is actually misleading in itself, because only 25% of 401K members voted and dissatisfied employees are more likely to vote. If all members voted I would expect results to fall somewhere between 40% and 60%. Roy is correct in stating that you only need a small sample to get a statistically valid number, but in order for that to be true the sample being unbiased.

-DH

 

[manning]

WDSeacher -

You won't hear from Roy or Stan until they are ready for you to hear from them.

 

[WDSearcher]

Yeah ... I get that. But any strategist will tell you that if they wait much longer before doing anything, they're going to lose some of their support. A week after the shareholder's meeting, they had thousands of people who would have walked through fire for them. Now ... not so much. You can only say "Welcome to Round Two" for so long before people start wondering exactly what round two is, you know?

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by WDWHound
Why is this number so much bigger than the number taken from the votes of the public at large? I would say it is because Eisner's own employees know him to be a bad CEO through their own experiences with him and want him gone to protect their retirement investments. In other words, those who work for him have no confidence in him. Not a good thing.

Indeed. Seems some people want a new boss. Any employees care to give an opinion in this?

EDIT: Ooops, didn't see JKanownik's post. That's aloso a very good point, angry people are far more likely to take action than their opposite numbers. WDWHound's point remain, in my opinion, valid though as the number even with JKanownik's point taken into account is still huge.

Sorry for the poor grammar; I'm just a little snoozy



Rich::

 

[manning]

WDSearcher -

It wasn't long ago a lot of experts said they couldn't do what they just did. I'll put my money on Stan and Roy. It's all in the timing...in the timing.

 

[flyinglizard]

WDWHound- You explained a 401K and the Disney employee mind set very well.

I love the parks, but that is not why I invested my money many years ago in Disney. I expected growth on my investment, from a company that offers a unique product. I am not getting that now, but I see cut back after cutback at the parks. I would really like to see a cutback on Ei$ners annual tribute. He (the company) is not performing and there should be no reward for non-performance and lack of profit and growth.

After all is said and done, the question remains: "Would you invest in Disney today?"