IBJNews

WellPoint approves annual 'say on pay' measure

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Shareholders of WellPoint Inc. on Tuesday voted to approve hefty pay for the company’s executives and also for the right to weigh in annually on future executive compensation.

The votes came at the Indianapolis-based health insurer’s annual meeting of shareholders, held at the downtown Hilton hotel. Vote tallies were not immediately available after the meeting.

A year ago, WellPoint shareholders approved a measure that demanded an annual “say on pay” vote, which would not be binding but would allow shareholders to express displeasure with excessive pay to top brass.

Since then, the U.S. Congress required all publicly traded companies to allow “say on pay” votes as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation passed last year.

The law requires a “say on pay” vote every two or three years, but WellPoint’s board recommended an annual vote. And shareholders agreed on Tuesday.

Many other local companies, such as Eli Lilly and Co. and CNO Financial Group Inc., also this year approved annual “say on pay” votes.

The votes don’t require companies to do anything. Only if shareholders register a “significant vote” against the pay of WellPoint’s top five named executives will the company’s board consider "shareholders’ concerns, and the compensation committee will evaluate whether any actions are necessary to address those concerns,” the board members wrote in the company’s proxy statement sent to shareholders.

Angela Braly, WellPoint’s chairwoman and CEO, received total compensation last year of $13.4 million, an increase of 3 percent over the previous year, as WellPoint’s operating and stock performance improved even as enrollment continued to decline in the face of high unemployment. Braly's annual salary remained flat at $1.1 million, but her performance-based bonus rose more than 80 percent, to $2.7 million.

At the meeting, shareholder Karen Green-Stone noted that Braly’s pay is equivalent to the salaries of hundreds of schoolteachers. She then asked, “Would you kindly tell us why you are worth so much more than them?”

Braly, standing at a podium next to a digital clock meant to keep shareholder questions to less than two minutes, defended WellPoint’s compensation as in line with other companies, and vetted by the board, consultants and now the shareholders.

“We consider it important to have competitive [pay] arrangements for the CEO and the named executive officers,” she said, adding that Tuesday’s votes indicate that “our shareholders support it.”

In other votes, more than 75 percent of WellPoint shareholders approved the removal of various anti-takeover provisions in the company's articles of incorporation. The company will no longer require 75-percent shareholder approval to amend the the articles of incorporation and will no longer require a two-thirds majority to remove directors or approve an acquisition of the company.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Compensation
    I always love how the executives and corporate boards fall back on consultant recommendations. The compensation consultants serve at the pleasure of the board - they are just a rubber stamp. They wouldn't be around for long if they didn't give the board the answer they wanted.

    I also wonder how many of the stockholders actually voted as opposed to the company voting for them.
  • WellPoint Exec.
    Well, I wish we'd get a 3 percent drop* in our mortgage payments!! They "forgot Sallie Mae, in the Foreclosure plan; which covers VA loans"!!!! Most got a 3 percent drop or more in their payments.Tell me, did Wells Fargo ever payback their 28 Billion they got from Tax payers? Sincerely, Bonny H. Indpls., IN (Avid watcher of IBJ)
  • How can this be?
    I thought Obamacare was going to destroy everything! Poor Wellpoint execs, only got a 3 percent increase.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT