Back to States List

Minnesota

Minnesota has three main public pension funds, MSRS, TRA, and PERA. The Minnesota State Board of Investment (SBI) manages these assets and discloses its specific proxy voting guidelines on this website. The SBI board is comprised of the Governor, State Auditor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State.

  • The MSRS board represents many state public employees; the board consists of 11 members: 3 appointed by the Governor, 1 appointed by the Met Council; 7 elected by MSRS members.
  • The TRA board represents public teachers and consists of 8 members: 5 elected trustees (Four of the five elected trustees are active members of TRA and one is a TRA retiree) and 3 ex officio members (the Commissioner of Education, the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget, and a representative of the Minnesota School Boards Association).
  • The PERA board represents remaining eligible public employees and consists of 11 members: The State Auditor (ex officio), 5 trustees appointed by the Governor to represent cities, counties, school boards, retirees and the public, respectively, and the remaining 5 members are elected by the PERA membership at large to represent the general active membership, Police & Fire plan members and all benefit recipients.

The first table utilizes the state’s publicly disclosed proxy voting records for public securities that it directly owns through pension fund portfolios. The second table uses the aggregated proxy voting records of the state’s asset managers, who manage the pensions’ stock market portfolio either through mutual funds or ETFs, and are therefore exercising proxy voting privileges as well. Both of these tables are necessary to reflect an accurate and comprehensive picture of the state’s proxy voting records.

Averages

Pro-ESG

Anti-ESG

State Voting Average

78%

State Voting Average

77.78%

State Rank

9th

State Rank

43rd

Asset Manager Average

32%

Asset Manager Average

4%

By Asset Manager

AQR Capital Management, LLC

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

80%

Ariel Investments, LLC

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

79%

Columbia Capital

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

60%

Fidelity Insitutional Asset Management LLC

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

31%

Goldman Sachs Asset Management

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

31%

Hood River Capital Management

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

31%

Hotchkis & Wiley Capital Management, LLC

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

31%

LSV Asset Management

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

31%

Morgan Stanley

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

33%

Sands Capital Management, LLC

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

33%

State Street Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

33%

State Street Global Advisors

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

33%

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

31%

Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

32%

Pzena Investment Management, LLC

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

32%

Zevenbergen Capital Investments LLC

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

32%

Acadian Asset Management

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

32%

Macquarie Investment Management Advisers

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

32%

Baillie Gifford

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

32%

Asset Manager Voting

Board Diversity:

17%

Require Environmental/Social Qualifications:

0%

Establish Environmental/Social Committee:

7%

Link Executive Pay to Social Goals:

6%

Climate Change:

30%

GHG Emissions:

37%

Climate Change Action:

18%

Report on Healthcare/Abortion:

7%

Weapons-Related Proposals:

3%

Social Proposal:

11%

Income Inequality:

13%

Political Activities and Action:

2%

Political Contributions and Lobbying:

27%

Political Lobbying Disclosure:

31%

Racial Equity Audit:

32%

Management Environmental Proposals:

90%

Anti-Social:

2%

Charitable Contributions:

6%

State Voting

Board Diversity:

100.0%

Require Environmental/Social Qualifications:

100.0%

Establish Environmental/Social Committee:

0.0%

Link Executive Pay to Social Goals:

0.0%

Climate Change:

97.6%

GHG Emissions:

100.0%

Report on Healthcare/Abortion:

100.0%

Weapons-Related Proposals:

100.0%

Social Proposal:

98.3%

Income Inequality:

68.8%

Political Activities and Action:

91.7%

Political Contributions and Lobbying:

100.0%

Political Contributions and Lobbying:

100.0%

Racial Equity Audit:

100.0%

Management Environmental Proposals:

100.0%

Anti-Social:

72.7%

Charitable Contributions:

100.0%

**The Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) has denied that State Street invests equities or casts proxy votes for the State. RSA has yet to publish its proxy voting records or disclose its investment managers. RSA’s public records list State Street a custodial bank and as a fund manager. No other investment managers are named in RSA public records, which is what is reported on the 1792 Exchange Proxy Database. RSA claims that Glass Lewis conducts its proxy voting. 1792 Exchange encourages RSA to publish these voting records in order that these records might be updated on this page. 1792 Exchange also encourages RSA to retain authority over proxy voting for ESG resolutions and not entrust these duties to Glass Lewis, a firm the Attorney General of Alabama has investigated for promoting ESG priorities at the expense of fiduciary responsibility.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this report, ‘Proxy Voting,’ is intended for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Click here for the full disclaimer.

Generate Reports
Clear
Toast