I. Our action in New York City resulted in about 50 attendees from our various coalition groups. There were appropriate signs and a large banner noting our various causes under the heading: "TIAA-CREF: Out of the bad and into the good." Many copies of our press release were distributed to passers-by and to those TIAA-CREF employees who were receptive. Several print media representatives were present, as were some broadcast media. Some photographs and video were taken by media. Press packets were distributed (see below for the Press Release as well as the NYC press advisory; there was an advisory for North Carolina, as well)

II. About a dozen folks from our various causes, most using proxies of TC shareholders, attended the meeting. That represented over half the TC shareholders attending the meeting. There was a slim crowd of both shareholders as well as TC employees – far less than typically attend at the New York headquarters. A few officers were in attendance, but, as far as we could tell, no CREF trustees (beyond one or two TC management/officers who are also trustees) were in attendance. Again, this is a deviation from the usual. Certainly holding the meeting in Charlotte down-played everything that went on. The only advantage I, personally, saw to that was in informalizing the proceedings and making it more intimate in communicating with TC officers on the podium.

Those in our group stood up with signs (some without signs), while Dennis Brutus noted our various causes as he spoke eloquently to one shareholder resolution. At different times during the remainder of the meeting, those in our coalition group gave brief, but motivational, speeches supporting their cause. The most consistent response given by management was that TC does not take social factors into account in its investment practices outside of the socially responsible Social Choice Account. They note that investors have a choice in where to place their money. However, they did not note that

1) they too have a choice in what to invest in and that

2) they publish materials that state that they take social and environmental factors into account in their investing

Four shareholder resolutions were discussed, all having either direct or indirect relation to social concerns. The results for the resolutions are immediately below. And it should be noted that given the typical vote industry – wise on such measures, the vote totals were quite impressive (given the typical difficulty in passing company opposed resolutions)
# 1. Divest from Companies Supporting Gun Control: FOR: 12.17 (2.55% Abstaining)
# 2. Report to participants on proxy voting and reveal how take social and environmental factors into account in its investing: FOR: 18.70% (4.79% Abstaining)
# 3. Separate CEO and Chairman of the Board positions: FOR: 23.46% (6.92% Abstaining)
# 4. Divest from Tobacco holdings: FOR: 22.22% (4.62% Abstaining)

III. Phone calls were made to the office of TC CEO Herbert Allison during the week preceding the annual meeting.Coalition groups were to have gotten at least 25 calls made by their constituents. Calls were made, but no record was kept, at least at an overall level.

IV. Finally, various media stories resulted, covering one or more of our causes. Most focused on the shareholder resolutions, particularly the one on TC revealing how they vote on proxies for their portfolio companies. But our groups/ causes were noted to varying extents. Our best guess now is that coverage included the following outlets: AFX, Indy Media, WBAI Radio (NYC), Charlotte Observer (two stories), Bloomberg News, Associated Press, Dow Jones, N.S., Investment News, Investor Relations magazine, Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, Far Eastern Economic Review, and Deutsche Presse-Agentor. Interviews were also conducted by Reuters NS and Pensions and Investments (prominent industry magazine) and a few other publications had an interest, but no stories have yet been seen from these outlets. Also a film crew from Toronto had interest in some videotaping that was done, but no details on that.