This excerpt taken from the CVS DEF 14A filed Mar 24, 2006.
Adoption of the Proposal is Unwarranted
In light of our history of electing strong and independent boards, and given the current, uncertain state of play on majority voting for election of directors, we believe that moving to a majority voting election system is unwarranted.
Various constituencies (including the American Bar Association, or ABA) have been evaluating whether adoption of the majority voting standard for U.S. public companies is a worthy and workable goal. In January 2006, in a Preliminary Report, the ABA Corporate Laws Committee stated that it would not recommend changing the Model Business Corporation Act to modify the current plurality vote default rule and establish a default majority vote standard for U.S. director elections. Instead, the ABA Committee (i) made recommendations to strengthen the ability of boards and shareholders to change the way directors are elected at individual companies, if such companies wish to do so, and (ii) outlined amendments to the Model Act that it is considering proposing, which would (a) provide boards and shareholders new tools to modify or eliminate the Model Acts holdover rule in an effort to address the issue of failed elections; and (b) permit corporations to adopt director resignation policies and, for corporations that choose to do so, to ensure that those policies are binding and enforceable.
Furthermore, the New York Stock Exchange is considering changes to its rules applicable to broker non-votes in the case of uncontested elections. The NYSE changes being considered, if implemented, would have a significant impact on director elections. At this point, therefore, we believe it is unwarranted to adopt a proposal whose workability and unintended consequences are uncertain.
The Board of Directors recommends a vote AGAINST the Carpenters Proposal.