Investor representatives from Sacramento to London joined forces this week to urge the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission not to roll back investors’ proxy access rights.

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association, the Washington State Investment Board, five New York City pension funds, the Council of Institutional Investors (CII), and the United Kingdom-based Universities Superannuation Scheme and Hermes Equity Ownership Services all criticized SEC Chairman Christopher Cox’s plan to move forward with a vote on proxy access this year.

The SEC plans to consider the issue, along with rule changes to promote electronic shareholder forums, during its next open meeting on Nov. 28.

The investors held a Nov. 19 telephonic press conference as part of a final campaign to head off an expected SEC vote to prohibit access proposals. Cox has warned that the lack of a clear rule on proxy access--or the right of investors to nominate candidates to appear on management proxy statements--would cause legal uncertainty and possible fraud during the 2008 proxy season.

“The argument that there is uncertainty in the market is not borne out by the messages of these institutional investors,” said Jack Ehnes, CEO of CalSTRS. “We must not run backward out of fear of an illusionary uncertainty,” said Ehnes, who also serves as board chairman for CII, which represents investors with more than $3 trillion in assets.

The SEC took “no view” on corporate requests to exclude access proposals this year after a U.S. appeals court ruled that the agency improperly allowed American International Group (AIG) to omit an access proposal by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Three proxy access proposals went to a vote in 2007, including a resolution that received 53.4 percent support at Cryo-Cell International in July.

A hedge fund also filed an access proposal at Reliant Energy, but the Texas-based company sought a court ruling that it was not bound by the AFSCME v. AIG decision. That proposal was withdrawn before the dispute was decided. At a Nov. 14 hearing, Cox told lawmakers that this case is an example of the legal ambiguity plaguing the market after the AFSCME decision.

At the press conference, the investor representatives rejected this argument. “Often critics do not like the unknown or a sense of uncertainty,” said Fred Buenrostro Jr., CEO of CalPERS, which hosted the press conference. “What has happened over this year has been practical for investors, and that fear [of uncertainty] is unfounded.”

“[O]nce the rights of shareholders are advanced, shareholders will quickly learn how to exercise them prudently and responsibly, which is the case in other jurisdictions,” said Bess Joffe, a manager at London-based Hermes.

Shareholders in the U.K., Australia, and South Africa, are allowed by law to nominate directors to a management slate, provided they meet ownership thresholds, Joffe noted.

The SEC issued two competing rule proposals on proxy access in July. One draft rule would essentially bar access by allowing companies to resume excluding such resolutions. The second draft rule would impose new disclosure requirements and a 5 percent ownership threshold for filing access bylaw proposals.

Both were met with significant investor backlash; most of the comment letters from investors urged commissioners to scrap both proposed rules and let shareholders file access resolutions again in 2008. Cox has said repeatedly that he plans to have a firm rule on proxy access in place by December--either one of the two draft rules or a not-yet-disclosed third option. Cox has promised that the SEC will revisit the issue in early 2008.