I'm engaged in a battle with the Gray Lady, and trying to get the paper's board of directors to get with the web-age and webcast their annual meeting, and allow me to speak via teleconferencing. You'll find lots of background on my assorted advocacy efforts with the Times on my blog.
I own exactly one measly share in the New York Times Company because I wanted the privilege of attending the annual shareholders meeting and raising gays issues with the executives of the paper, which I did at the 2004 annual meeting. This year, I am unable to travel to New York City for the meeting, so I'm requesting the Times, with its vast technological capabilities, wires me into the meeting, without me leaving my apartment. Got my fingers crossed the Times will accommodate my request.
This message was sent on April 14:
Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.
Chairman
The New York Times Company
Dear Mr. Sulzberger,
As a shareholder, I wish to thank you for inviting me to attend the annual stockholders' meeting on April 22 at the Times' new headquarters in Manhattan.
Unfortunately, due to financial and personal health concerns, I regret that I will not be able to be at the meeting.
However, even though I cannot physically be present, I still would very much like to be an active participant during the meeting.
In your letter to the shareholders in the annual report, you said the new Times building "includes the technology we need as a 21st century media organization."
I hope the technology in the building will allow me to observe the meeting live, as it is unfolding, through web-casting.
Also, I want to address the board of directors and the senior management of the company, either via web-cam or through tele-conferencing, regarding important gay and HIV/AIDS matters.
Just because I will be at home in San Francisco on April 22, that should in no way prevent me from listening in and watching the annual meeting, and directly speaking to the board and management team.
Frankly, I see no reason why the Times, and its new building, replete with the latest communications technologies, shouldn't be able to easily accommodate my request to interact with you and other Times executives during the meeting.
Please get back to me as soon as possible so we can work together to make sure my voice is heard on April 22.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Petrelis
Did the New York Times spend buckets of money building its sparkling new headquarters and really fail to make the auditorium webcast ready?
In a message dated 4/17/2008 6:54:12 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, mathis@nytimes.com writes:
Michael,
Thanks for your e-mails to me and to Arthur. I have checked and we do not have webcasting capability in the auditorium. The paper's official spokeswoman replies to my letter:
Best,
Catherine
My reply to her:
Hi Catherine,
And thank you for getting back to me. I am disappointed the Times' auditorium is not equipped to provide webcasting services, either during the annual shareholders' meeting or at other times.
It's quite shocking to learn the Times spent enormous amounts of money on the new building and can't webcast meetings from the auditorium.
You and Arthur might want to look at the growing number of American companies webcasting their annual shareholders' meetings. The Times should join their ranks.
Here is a link to the results from a Google search on this subject.
Lack of webcast capabilities aside, I still want to participate in the meeting on April 22 through teleconferencing, a request included in my original letter to you and Arthur.
Surely your auditorium has telephone capabilities that will allow me to listen in to the meeting, and for me to also address the board during the question and answer periods over the phone.
Please get back to me about how the Times will work with me to ensure my voice, as a shareholder, is heard at the annual meeting.
Best,
Michael
In this modern technologically advanced era that we live in, it should be a piece of cake for the Gray Lady to possess the tools that would allow shareholder participation from San Francisco.