|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Shareholders Meeting
August 4, 2009
Four allowed to attend the meeting; Ten denied entry. Six exam the shareholder ledger; Four cited for disorderly conduct walking past the barrier.
(Eden Prairie) ATK placed the registration table for its annual meeting in the company's parking lot. The table included the shareholder ledger. The conversation with the pleasant ATK representative sitting behind the desk went something like this for most of us:
"Yes, your name is right here on the list. You are welcome to examine the shareholder ledger and I will deliver your proxy for you, but your ticket to the meeting has been rescinded."
"But I have a legal right to attend the meeting and you are in violation of your corporate charter and the company's by-laws."
"I don't know anything about that, but I could give you a blank proxy to vote with in case you forgot yours."
Having never been arrested at ATK, three AlliantACTION shareholders were allowed to attend the meeting. The fourth shareholder admitted to the meeting had been previously arrested committing nonviolent civil disobedience at ATK.
As shareholders we also had the right to examine the shareholder ledger (a binder that contains the name, or fund, of every company shareholder and the amount of shares held). The six AlliantACTION members who chose to examine the ledger possessed photographic memories and promptly debriefed after the meeting. Before examining the binder they were told by ATK security "No paper or pens" and later while viewing the ledger were told "for security reasons stop saying the names out loud".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arrested were (l to r) Char, John, Pepperwolf and Tom. |
|
|
|
|
Between the registration table and the building, control barriers had been placed, the kind used at the airport to herd people around in. It had one small opening for those with a ticket to enter.
Without their rescinded tickets, the four AlliantACTION shareholders joined the outside queue to enter the meeting. They were promptly blocked by an ATK security employee at the entry point.
We calmly explained as shareholders we had the legal right to attend the meeting. Security replied "you have been arrested before at ATK and we are not letting you in". We asked under whose authority we were being denied entry and were told "ATK". We asked who was ATK? They replied "you have been around long enough to know who ATK is". In fact, ATK is a piece of paper on file in the state of Delaware, which incidentally gave us the right to attend the meeting. When pressed further, security explained the directive came from their "superiors".
One of the shareholders turned to an Eden Prairie police officer standing close by. Explaining once again we had a legal right to attend the meeting and this ATK security person was, for whatever reason, breaking the law. What were the police going to do about it? Glancing at the ground, the officer replied "I'm sorry, but nothing."
The group moved away from the entry point. But several minutes later Tom Bottolene, 59, lifted the "barrier" and started walking towards the building. Several Alliant security personnel attempted to stop him and as he was walking around them he was apprehended by an Eden Prairie police officer. Tom explained to the officer he had a legal right to attend the meeting. The officer asked ATK security "do you want him arrested for disorderly conduct?" "Yes."
Others released the nylon strap barrier to get closer to the building: Char Madigan, CSJ, 72, Pepperwolf, 52, and John Schmit, 67. They were arrested several steps past the barrier. All four were charged with disorderly conduct and released. |
|
|
|
609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT
Subdivision 1.Crime.
Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others. |
|
|
| We wonder what charge the City will try to prove – beyond a reasonable doubt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
