Tiffany CEO is “Proud” of Company’s ‘Pre-Boycott’ of Informally-Proposed Critical-Minerals Mine in Alaska

New York, NY / Washington, DC – All gold doesn’t glitter equally at Tiffany & Co. At today’s annual meeting of Tiffany shareholders in New York City, National Center for Public Policy Research Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. confronted Tiffany CEO Michael Kowalski over his company’s irrational decision to boycott a mining project that doesn’t exist.

“I asked Kowalski if a more reasonable approach to boycotting a mining project would be to wait until a final mine site plan is proposed, evaluate the plan on its merits, and if he and his management team conclude the proposed mining project is unsafe, boycott the proposed mine at that time,” said Danhof. “According to Kowalski, waiting for the all the facts and a formal plan, as I suggested, is ‘unreasonable.’ In reality, what is unreasonable it to jump the gun and boycott a project that would create jobs and expand U.S. access to critical minerals before a formal mining plan has been proposed.”

The “disputed” issue is a yet-to-be formally proposed mining project in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska, by the Pebble Partnership. At this time, the partnership has not applied for a single state or federal permit. Yet Kowalski already claims to know the dangers the possible mine will reap on the region, and is comfortable asserting in advance that Tiffany will boycott all materials from the mine

The National Center for Public Policy Research believes issues surrounding the proposed mine have national security implications, and questions whether businesses and interest groups that have joined the ‘pre-boycott’ – so named because it is impossible to boycott the use of minerals from a mine that has not yet been formally planned, let alone built – have even evaluated the national security considerations.

Tiffany joined the boycott of Pebble, a boycott officially known as the Bristol Bay Protection Pledge, at the behest of a radical environmental organization known as Earthworks. Funded by extreme-left groups such as the Tides Foundation, Earthworks uses bad science and scare tactics to foment opposition to energy and mining projects such as the Pebble Mine and the Keystone XL pipeline.

Estimates place the value of a potential Pebble Mine at $400 billion, and the U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that “Pebble could potentially triple U.S. reserves of copper, increase its gold reserves by 50 percent and make America the world’s largest holder of mineral molybdenum, an essential component of high-strength steel alloys.” The mine could also create 2,000 construction jobs and 1,000 high-paying operational jobs in the impoverished region.

“I asked Kowalski how he could possibly know the dangers of a mining operation that has not yet been formally planned, and he responded by claiming that I was taking an anti-jobs position because, he claims, the mine would destroy fishing jobs in the region. In doing so, Kowalski is simply repeating the mantra of Earthworks and its allies who have been promoting bad science as a means to grow opposition amongst the corporate community and local villages,” said Danhof.

On Tiffany’s website, Kowalski has stated: “there are certain places where mining cannot be done without forever destroying landscapes, wildlife and communities. We believe Bristol Bay is one such place.” And the jewelry company also took out a full-page advertisement in National Geographic expressing opposition to the mine.

“In the meeting, Kowalski took this one step further and actively called on the Environmental Protection Agency to use its powers under the Clean Water Act to stop the Pebble Project in its path,” noted Danhof. “The EPA appears more than willing to do Kowalski’s bidding.”

In May 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a highly critical report of the Pebble Mine project, but the report was based on a hypothetical mine that the EPA concocted. In a new paper, “The EPA’s Pebble Mine Assessment Puts Politics Above Sound Science,” National Center Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen, Ph.D. explains that “[b]y releasing its report before the permitting process has even begun, the EPA has reached a premature, if not predetermined, conclusion about a proposed mining project on the basis of woefully inadequate information in way that ignores requirements of law that the developer must follow.”

“In responding to my question, Kowalski also took the opportunity to take a shot directly at the Pebble Partnership, saying that he has heard them make many similar arguments and he wasn’t buying them from them or me,” added Danhof. “Kowalski said he has been to Alaska many times and feels strongly that he is taking the best position for his company, but it seemed clear to me that he is not willing to listen to rational arguments and can only hear what he wants to hear regarding Pebble.”

Statements made by the Pebble Partnership can be evaluated by visiting its website here.

“After the meeting, Kowalski approached me and thanked me for having a discussion with him, stating that ‘reasonable people can disagree.’ While I appreciated the gesture, his words rang hollow after he called my appeal for due process on Pebble unreasonable,” said Danhof. “Kowalski thinks I am a reasonable person with unreasonable ideas. That doesn’t add up.”

Since January 1, 2013, the National Center has participated in free-market/conservative activism at 24 shareholder meetings. Today’s Tiffany & Co. meeting moves that total to 25.

A copy of Danhof’s question at today’s shareholder meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

Danhof asked a similar question to Zales CEO Theo Killion last December. Te read more about the National Center’s activism at Zales, see here, here and here.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a Tiffany & Co. shareholder.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than 4 percent from foundations, and less than 2 percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. In 2012-13, zero percent of its contributions have come from mining interests or related foundations.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Money should be made to “serve” people, not to “rule” them, he said, calling for a more ethical financial system and curbs on financial speculation.

Countries should impose more control over their economies and not allow “absolute autonomy”, in order to provide “for the common good”. <<<Read More from The Telegraph>>>

Ridenour attended the meeting to ask Roberts why Comcast hired an outside law firm to help it squash a shareholder proposal from his wife, Amy Ridenour, that simply asked for a non-proprietary report to shareholders detailing how Comcast avoids libel suits.

David Ridenour is president of the National Center for Public Policy Research; Justin Danhof is general counsel and director of its Free Enterprise Project. Amy Ridenour is chairman.

Danhof asked Roberts about a new Comcast policy that bans ads from gun shops while Comcast properties continue to broadcast vast amounts of violent programming, asking, “Why does Comcast’s management believe it is appropriate for Comcast to profit from the excessive glorification of gun violence, but not appropriate for gun shops to advertise legal firearms and ammunition to people who overwhelmingly use firearms in a lawful and safe manner, including in self-defense?”

Noting that Roberts was smirking and laughing as Danhof asked his question, the full text of which can be found here, Danhof interrupted himself to tell Roberts, “you can sit and laugh, but I’m going to finish my question.” After Danhof did so, Roberts told him that was his point of view and that Comcast was sticking by its decision to ban advertising of guns and ammunition.

Danhof replied, “If you’re naive enough to think that Americans who respect gun rights aren’t gonna vote with their wallets and leave Comcast, you’re as naive as you are hypocritical.”

Ridenour and Roberts went numerous rounds on the issue of Comcast’s accuracy standards, with Roberts at one point saying the FCC has banned Comcast from interfering with the editorial standards of its own media properties. Ridenour, who reviewed the FCC requirements in place when General Electric transferred control of NBC Universal to Comcast, disagreed with the accuracy of this assertion, and added that, regardless, accuracy standards are not editorializing, they are legal standards put in place to protect the corporation from libel suits, and Comcast needs to have them.

Roberts then claimed Comcast does have these standards, to which Ridenour replied, “If you have the procedures, why aren’t shareholders allowed to see them?”

Ridenour’s microphone was then cut off by Comcast.

At one point in the exchange, Ridenour told Roberts that if NBC Universal had trouble devising accuracy standards, that the National Center for Public Policy Research would be willing it share its own standards. Roberts said Comcast would be willing to take a look at them.

Ridenour’s question, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

Amy Ridenour had filed a shareholder proposal asking Comcast to reveal its accuracy procedures to shareholders after Rachel Maddow of MSNBC falsely accused the National Center, under her leadership, of bribing Members of Congress, a felony. When Amy Ridenour and the National Center requested a correction, they instead received a hostile letter from MSNBC President Phil Griffin that made additional false statements.

Following the meeting, Ridenour and Danhof met with David Cohen, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Comcast. On the question of the original libel, Cohen said Comcast thought it was covered against a libel charge because of a 2006 Washington Post story. While the National Center strongly disagrees, in part because Maddow made accusations not included in the Post story, Ridenour limited his response, telling Cohen that the Post story was very old, and significant parts of it later were proven untrue. Danhof added that even if they believed the Post gave them legal cover, since the story was untrue, what about “ethical” standards? Cohen said ethical standards are more “difficult.”

Cohen said he had reviewed the Post article as cover for MSNBC’s broadcast, but had never seen any of the other materials that the National Center had sent to Comcast’s outside counsel. Cohen agreed to do so if the National Center would send this information to him.

David Ridenour concluded, “MSNBC believes itself – wrongly, we think – to be covered legally, but ethically, they think it’s more complicated. They’re apparently not holding themselves to an ethical standard.”

Amy Ridenour’s original proposal, Comcast’s legal team’s objections to it, Ridenour’s response and the SEC’s ruling can be found on the SEC’s website here. For those interested, this PDF document contains details of the core of Maddow’s defamatory claim and Amy Ridenour’s response to it (see pages 6-8 of Ridenour’s February 7, 2013 letter to the Office of the Chief Counsel of the Securities and Exchange Commission).

A press release with more details about Comcast’s hypocritical gun policy can be found here. A press release with more details about the shareholder proposal seeking access to Comcast’s accuracy standards can be found here.

A link to Justin Danhof’s exchanges with Comcast CEO Roberts about accuracy and bias at MSNBC at last year’s shareholder meeting can be found here.

A link to David Ridenour’s exchanges with General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt in 2010 (when GE controlled MSNBC) over bias at MSNBC can be found here.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than 4 percent from foundations, and less than 2 percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Hutchens has never harmed or threatened another human being. Yet local officials, led by Bonner County Deputy Prosecutor Shane Greenbank – an inventively dishonest official – are trying to make a criminal out of her. Failing that, they might simply seek to have her imprisoned indefinitely in a psych ward.<<<Read More from Lew Rockwell>>>

On April 29, two bills passed the Oregon House that would hit tree sitters and non-violent protesters with felonies and mandatory minimum sentences.<<<Read More from Vice.com>>>

My brothers and sisters all said that my coming out of the shadows and announcing that I am heterosexual would not change how they felt about me and that they would stand with me when all the media requests began to come in for me to be interviewed.<<<Read More from End R Times>>>