Shareholders in ConocoPhillips (COP) have submitted some excellent proposals for today’s shareholder meeting in Dallas, beginning with the proposal quoted at length on recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples.

In the interest of full disclosure: On my mother’s behalf, I have voted our family’s (modest) block of shares in favor of the proposals listed below, all of them formally opposed by company management. The number of shares involved will not change company history. I am confident that I am voting as my parents would have wished, but other shareholders less influenced by family considerations would do well to support these.

Apparently boards of directors virtually always oppose proposals from stockholders.

The stockholder proposals are listed pages 77-  in the company’s definitive proxy statement. The indigenous peoples proposal is quoted nearly in full, the others excerpted.

Stockholder Proposal:

Report on Recognition of Indigenous Rights

(Item 5 on the Proxy Card)

“WHEREAS:

 

ConocoPhillips understands that “respecting indigenous communities is an important part of addressing the company’s community impact” and has declared a commitment to “conduct our business in a way that promotes economic growth, a healthy environment and vibrant communities.” (ConocoPhillips Sustainability Report 2005)

 

Emerging standards on Indigenous Peoples rights, such as the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent embedded in the recently adopted UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will likely shape the laws and regulations of the countries in which we operate.

 

The Voluntary Principles on Human Rights and Security acknowledges that accurate assessment of human rights conditions present in a company’s operating environment is critical to the security of personnel, local communities and assets and to the promotion of human rights.

 

Since its acquisition of Burlington Resources in 2006 and new upstream investment, ConocoPhillips has become a major holder of oil concessions in Latin America, located particularly in remote rainforests where there are: 1) Indigenous Peoples who have expressed outright opposition to oil activities in their territory; and 2) where there are Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation.

Burlington Resources faced legal challenges, protests, and accusations of using divisive tactics in attempts to obtain consent for its projects from Indigenous Peoples in Ecuador’s south-central Amazon. The oil blocks remain in force majeure due to community opposition

 

ConocoPhillips is a minority partner in Block 39, located in the Northern Peruvian Amazon, where substantial evidence indicates the presence of four groups of uncontacted Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation, the Abijiras (or Aushiris), Taromenane, Arabela and Pananujuri. They are susceptible to epidemics and mass deaths because they lack immunological defenses. Contact through oil exploration could lead to their extinction.

ConocoPhillips’s operations impact Indigenous Peoples in other parts of the world as well, such as in the Southwestern United States where its natural gas operations in the San Juan Basin have caused concern regarding the impacts on remaining sacred cultural sites and wildlife resources, plus noise and odor impacts on nearby families, of the Navajo (Dine) Nation in northwestern New Mexico. The area is the Navajo’s ancestral homeland known as Dinetah . . .

 

RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board prepare a report by November 1, 2008, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, on ConocoPhillips’s policies, procedures, and practices for obtaining consent of Indigenous Peoples affected by our activities — whether as operator or minority partner — through their recognized and official governance structures; and its policies to avoid contact with Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation.”

 

Company response:

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE “AGAINST” THIS PROPOSAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

[excerpt from company argument]

“We continue to expand our dialogue with members of communities in which we operate. One such initiative is our recent election to participate in the Extractive Industry’s Transparency Initiative. This initiative provides for improved transparency of operations in resource-rich countries through the publication and verification of a company’s payments to, and government revenues from, oil, gas and mining operations.

 

In summary, we are committed to respecting the rights of, and have a sound record of appropriately interacting with, indigenous peoples affected by our business activities. We openly discuss our record and listen to any specific issues with legitimately interested parties. We therefore believe that the report requested by the proponents is unnecessary and not a good use of resources.

 

The Board believes developing a special report on policies and procedures regarding consent of indigenous peoples is unnecessary and would not be value added and, therefore, recommends that you vote AGAINST this proposal.”

 
Stockholder Proposal:

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation

(Item 6 on the Proxy Card)

“The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has submitted the following proposal:

 

RESOLVED, that stockholders of ConocoPhillips request the board of directors to adopt a policy that provides shareholders the opportunity at each annual shareholder meeting to vote on an advisory resolution, proposed by management, to ratify the compensation of the named executive officers (“NEOs”) set forth in the proxy statement’s Summary Compensation Table (“SCT”) and the accompanying narrative disclosure of material factors provided to understand the SCT (but not the Compensation Discussion and Analysis). The proposal submitted to stockholders should make clear that the vote is non-binding and would not affect any compensation paid or awarded to any NEO.”

 
Stockholder Proposal:

Political Contributions

(Item 7 on the Proxy Card)

“The Nathan Cummings Foundation has submitted the following proposal:

 

RESOLVED, that the shareholders of ConocoPhillips (“Conoco”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually disclosing Conoco’s:

 

1.	Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds.

 

2.

Monetary and non-monetary political contributions and expenditures not deductible under section 162(e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code, including but not limited to contributions to or expenditures on behalf of political candidates, political parties, political committees and other political entities organized and operating under 26 USC Sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code and any portion of any dues or similar payments made to any tax exempt organization that is used for an expenditure or contribution if made directly by the corporation would not be deductible under section 162(e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code.

 
Stockholder Proposal:

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

(Item 8 on the Proxy Card)

“New Covenant Funds has submitted the following proposal:

 

Resolution to ConocoPhillips on Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals

Resolved: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors adopt quantitative goals, based on current technologies, for reducing total greenhouse gas emissions from the Company’s products and operations; and that the Company report to shareholders by September 30, 2008, on its plan to achieve these goals. Such a report will omit proprietary information and be prepared at a reasonable cost.”

 
Stockholder Proposal:

Community Accountability

(Item 9 on the Proxy Card)

“The Church Pension Fund has submitted the following proposal:

 

ConocoPhillips

Community Accountability

 

RESOLVED, that the shareholders request the Board of Directors to report to shareholders, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, on how the corporation ensures that it is accountable for its environmental impact in all of the communities where it operates. The report should contain the following information:

 

1.

how the corporation makes available reports regarding its emissions and environmental impacts on land, water, and soil—both within its permits and emergency emissions—to members of the communities where it operates;

 

2.

how the corporation integrates community environmental accountability into its current code of conduct and ongoing business practices; and

 

3.

the extent to which the corporation’s activities have negative health effects on individuals living in economically poor communities.

As stated, these proposals all sound good. They also sound rather modest.

The one about indigenous peoples, in particular, could include some practices broadly analogous to allowing archaeologists and paleontologists to conduct research during highway construction; or encouraging ‘green demolition’ during house/building demolition, letting all possible materials be carted away and reused, etc. All of this is good for the texture of the community/globe, something fraying in our national/global infrastructure—rather as digging channels through coastal lands frays our coastline and affects our weather patterns--and is good for goodwill for the company as well.

The company opposition is regrettable.