Thursday, March 19, 2009

As fortunes sank, GCI paid director Williams $892K

[Gannett-paid fees to board's current nine independent directors]

Chairman and CEO Craig Dubow isn't the only one raking in big bucks from the board of directors, despite Gannett shares plunging 79% last year. Public documents reveal another group enriching itself, too: the directors themselves.

Led by Karen Hastie Williams (left), the nine independent directors have paid themselves $3.1 million in fees over the past 11 years. Williams, 64, the longest-serving, collected nearly 30% of the haul: $891,724, since joining the board in December 1997, Gannett's annual proxy reports to stockholders show.

Last year, the retired Washington, D.C., attorney got paid $167,887 in cash and company shares, the new proxy report says. That was on top of $223,144 Chubb Group said it paid her, in a new regulatory filing today; the insurance giant is one of four other companies where Williams holds board seats. She's also one eight directors up for re-election on the 10-person board at next month's annual meeting.

As a public company, GCI pays a board of directors to guard the interests of shareholders, by keeping an eye on management. Gannett's board elects a chairman and hires a CEO; sets key compensation, and reviews big initiatives. Above all, the board's duty is guarding shareholder interests. Dubow is the board's lone employee-member; as such he does not get paid director fees.

Actual amounts higher
In fact, GCI paid Williams and other directors more, according to my review this morning of GCI's 1997-2009 proxy statements, filed annually with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

For my review, I treated as income only the annual retainer fee paid to directors through 2005, when it was $45,000. I didn't count additional fees paid for attending meetings, or for serving as committee chair, because Gannett didn't break these out by director until 2006. That year, GCI started publishing a separate compensation table for directors, one that details each member's total fees and whether they were paid in cash or stock. Adding the earlier fees, Williams' income over the past 11 years approaches $1 million.

No. 2 on the list: Donna Shalala, 69 (left), a director since 2001. The former Health and Human Services secretary in the Clinton White House got paid at least $666,142. But that figure includes the estimated value of stock options that have declined in value with the share price.

Williams is the presiding independent director, a position akin to deputy chair that she's held since 2004; she is elected by the other non-employee directors. Williams also sits on more corporate boards than any of her co-directors -- four, taxing her ability to fulfill all duties. Among them: Chubb, which disclosed the $223,144 in 2008 fees to Williams earlier today, in a new fee table.

Since the start of her first full year on Gannett's board, shares have fallen 96% vs. smaller declines of 86% at New York Times Co., and 15% for the S&P-500 index, according to Google Finance.

Williams is among eight members of the 10-director board seeking re-election at the April 28 annual meeting. The other seven are Dubow, Shalala, Marjorie Magner, Duncan McFarland, Neal Shapiro, and the two newest members: Howard Elias and Scott McCune.

How they get paid
The compensation year for directors begins at each annual meeting of shareholders, and ends at the following annual meeting of shareholders, the proxy says. Here's the current fee schedule:
  • Annual retainer fee of $45,000
  • Additional retainer fee of $15,000 to committee chairs
  • $2,000 for each board meeting attended
  • $1,000 for each committee meeting attended
  • a long-term award, of either 1,250 restricted shares or 5,000 stock options, granted on first day of compensation year
  • travel accident insurance of $1 million
  • a match from the Gannett Foundation of charitable gifts made by directors, up to a maximum of $10,000 annually
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green rail, upper right.

23 comments:

  1. this post is amazingly bad. the content contradicts itself and seems to purposely mislead the reader into believing that there was a big payout to williams and others. in fact, williams total payout, if your numbers are to be believed, was paid over an 11 year period. this would average out to just over $81k a year. i don't believe your numbers because you don't show your work and have probably convoluted them in some way or simply have added incorrectly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jim,

    I am one of your biggest fans and appreciate all of your work, but you got this one wrong.

    Gannett mage over $1B in profits per year. Being paid $80K as a board member is no problem to me.

    Keep up the good work.

    NB

    ReplyDelete
  3. I meant MADE not mage.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1:57 pm: Thank you for stopping by.

    I've updated my post to show that my figures are based on the company's annual proxy reports for 1997-2009. I've added a link to those, which are on Gannett's investor relations page.

    If you care to check my math, or do research of your own, you may find those documents via this short link: http://tinyurl.com/crev6w

    As to whether the fees paid are exorbitant, that is for shareholders to decide when they cast their votes next month at the annual meeting. My intent is to share information so you and others can make informed choices.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the information, Jim. The chart certainly puts things into perspective.

    Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  6. your headline says: "As fortunes sank, GCI paid director Williams $892K" in fact, fortunes were not sinking for most of the time of williams tenure on the board. the stock began taking major hits in april/june of 2007. that's 10 years after she joined the board. one again, this post is misleading at best. i do like how you've now wrapped yourself in the "just the facts mam" position. oh yes, "my intent is to provide the facts" - um, perhaps not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @2:45 - oops, you posted just a bit too soon. chart now gone.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gannett's stock peaked in early 2004; it has been falling ever since.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I see the chart still.

    ReplyDelete
  10. however, there were consistent dividend payments to those shareholders with consistent increases year over year. and, that was seven years after she started on the board and there was a cyclical downturn in the middle of her term. your head is misleading, period. this type of thing calls into question your "reporting" on gannett and the veracity of the information that you provide in general.

    bottom line, you are not "providing the information." the information is provided by the company. you are deciding to mislead using the information for whatever reason you have.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 2:59 pm: Following your timeline, here's what I get:

    Gannett's stock peaked in the low $90s in spring 2004. By summer 2007, it had lost half its value, trading for around $45. Even by your logic, Williams was paid $347,012 in 2007 and 2008 -- after shares had fallen off a cliff. Are you satisfied with that track record?

    Also you know who I am, but I know nothing about you. And I'm curious: Are you a board member? A newspaper press operator? Midlevel manager? What's your stake in this?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jim,

    Your "just the facts" statement is really something. Your dangerous if you really believe your role in this blog is and has been to just present the facts. At least be adult and honest enough to consistently present yourself as anti-Gannett management.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 3:25 pm: This is what I wrote: "My intent is to share information so you and others can make informed choices."

    That includes analysis, snark, facts, photographs, quotes and everything in-between. I have never hidden any of that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In aggregate, Williams and Shalala made a bundle of money for themselves over the past 10 years. Unfortunately,they've done very little for who they have a fiduciary responsibility to represent: shareholders. They were around when McCorkindale's pay package was approved. They were around to bless the bad deals he made. They've been around to sit on their behinds while the stockholders suffered - yet they've continued to back McCorkindale's incompetent successor - annointed by McCorkindale. They've blessed the matching funds the company pledges to make top execs seem "charitable." What are they doing now to challenge management to perform better and accept responsibility for shareholders' losses outside of collecting annual retainers?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jim,

    Keep rockin and rolling.

    A Blog is for the exchange of information and opinions. You do it well.

    As I said earlier, that I have no problems with the board of directors pay in the past. Gannett made a lot of money of the backs of their employees and they got paid well.

    Now that the company does not make money, they need to take a pay cut.

    When times are good, pay them good

    when times are Bad, pay them Bad.




    NB

    ReplyDelete
  16. Williams also sits on more corporate boards than any of her co-directors -- four, taxing her ability to fulfill all duties.

    Do we know that's true? How many hours per week (or month or year) does being on a board require? Is she really stretched thin?

    ReplyDelete
  17. 9:44 pm: If I thought you were serious, my reply would be: "You haven't been paying attention." In fact, I think you know exactly what I'm talking about.

    Otherwise, you will list all of Director Williams' qualifications for holding directorships at two companies in deeply troubled industries. What did she do for the shareholders of these two companies, Gannett and Chunb, to earn her a combined $390,000 last year? (And I write this without having seen how much another troubled company, SunTrust, paid her as a director in 2008.)

    ReplyDelete
  18. 1:57 -- Assuming your numbers are right, I would take a part-time job paying $81k a year. Especially if I wouldn't take heat for doing it as poorly as the GCI board has. Any other takers?

    ReplyDelete
  19. What I'm saying is, you're attributing what she's done (or hasn't done) to her being too taxed to "fulfill her duties." Maybe she's not stretched at all. Maybe she's just out of touch and would have made the same decisions if this were her only board position.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 9:44

    maybe she ISN"T stretched thin, but for that kind of money she should be if she's on four boards.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @11:49 - hopefully you are able to divide 891,724 by 11...if you are having a problem, most computers have a calculator which might be helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'd have to join the people calling you out a bit on this one, Jim. I suspect you may have made about as much for Gannett in the 97-09 (well, 07 I guess) pay period than did the company directors you're naming here.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 10:01, surely you jest. The fact that Hopkins earned as much from USA Today and other GCI properties over the same time frame as Williams poached from Gannett is immaterial. Hopkins functioned as a writer and editor and he actually contributed to the product hundreds of times, if not thousands. Williams is a part-time board director who appears to have been phoning in her duties for the bulk of the time Gannett fortunes were sinking. She signed off on whatever the CEO at the time wanted. At most, Gannett's directors met maybe 10 times a year, aside from committe meetings. Not a bad way to spend retirement. Yet in many ways, her legacy, or lack of, in performing her FIDUCIARY responsiblities on behalf of shareholders is incredibly negligent and lame. THAT's what a board director is SUPPOSED to do. She and others have not done their JOB. The fact that she is an African American woman made her in high demand as a director candidate - hence four directorships. Prudent corporate overseers say no matter how well one is versed in corporate managerial experience, three directorships should be the absolute limit. And that's stretching it some. She and Shalala and other more recent directors that Dubow and others solicted to join the company should not be voted back by shareholders.

    ReplyDelete

Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.