Day 141 - 23 Jun 95 - Page 09
1 want to say, and then Mr. Morris can ask you a further
2 question.
3 A. Sister Marie Lucy told us that that she was satisfied
4 with the information that we had given her. She also had
5 asked us for a statement of principles in this area. With
6 that, after receiving that, she said she was satisfied, and
7 did not suggest, to my knowledge, ever again that there
8 would be a shareholder proposal, that I am aware of.
9
10 MR. MORRIS: But you know that she did suggest that she was
11 thinking of a shareholders' proposal?
12 A. That is what I believe precipitated her writing, her
13 contacting us and then writing to me, setting up a meeting;
14 that is what my recollection was. I think that was the
15 purpose of meeting in New York, because she wanted to find
16 out more about this, because she was considering a
17 shareholders' proposal; and the gist of McDonald's contact
18 with her at that time dealt with satisfying her concerns
19 and interests in that area.
20
21 Q. If the meeting is in May 1992, what is the last possible
22 date that a shareholders' resolution could be brought up or
23 be prepared?
24 A. I really do not know. I have no idea. I do not get
25 involved with the mechanics of shareholder proposals or
26 shareholder proposals unless there is inquiry by someone in
27 my particular field, but I do not get involved with the
28 proposal per se. That is handled by a different
29 department.
30
31 Q. Would you accept that she would have been able, she and the
32 other shareholders that had indicated you to you their
33 interest in a shareholders' resolution could have, at any
34 time in that year up to May 1992, decided to go for a
35 shareholders's resolution, could they not?
36 A. Does she have a right as a shareholder to do that?
37
38 Q. Yes.
39 A. Absolutely.
40
41 Q. Then people in the Corporation would want to see a copy of
42 the original document, would they not?
43 A. I was the person who was handling this matter in
44 Philadelphia. If someone had an interest in that document
45 or anything more, they would have come to have seen me.
46 No one requested any further information than what I had.
47
48 Q. Yes. You were entirely the person responsible for this
49 matter and the existence of the TFP&C document, and it
50 could not have been destroyed without your authority, could
51 it?
52 A. Sir, we do not -- there no such thing as with or
53 without authority; we do not work in that fashion. I have
54 responsibility for this area. There is no question about
55 that. No one else had a responsibility for this area.
56 That is true as well, sir.
57
58 Q. Your head would be on the block, would it not, if
59 shareholders bring up a proposal, it is controversial,
60 McDonald's is shown to not even have basic data on which to
