By Shira Ovide

It’s that time of year. Wall Street firms are prepping for their annual meetings with investors, their yearly chance to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi, otherwise known as their stock holders.These meetings also are shareholders’ one chance a year to float proposals for corporate policy changes. (It should be said: Most shareholder resolutions fail. Companies generally urge their shareholders to vote no, and most investors go along with those recommendations.)

This year, executive pay remains a hot-button subject at investor meetings, particularly now that companies must allow their stock holders to vote yay or nay on how much executives are paid.

An early look at some shareholder proposals at Wall Street firms also shows social issues are top-of-mind for shareholders. (And it’s not a financial firm, but a group of Philadelphia nuns wants McDonald’s to examine its “policy response” to childhood obesity and other diet-related diseases.

At Goldman Sachs, six proposals submitted by investors — ranging from shareholder voting issues to executive stock ownership rules and the business risks of climate change – will be up for vote at Goldman Sachs Group’s annual investor meeting on May 6. Before last year, reported Deal Journal colleague Liz Moyer, Goldman wasn’t much of a target of shareholder proposals.

Goldy asked the SEC for permission to exclude six different shareholder proposals, Moyer reported. The SEC agreed with Goldman in two cases, including a group of nuns who wanted a report on the company’s risk management. The SEC agreed with Goldman that was too broad and duplicated disclosures that already appeared in its annual regulatory filing. (A different investor group, the Sisters of Charity of St. Elizabeth, submitted a similar proposal to Citigroup, where it did pass muster.)

Companies can argue for all sorts of reasons to exclude their unmentionables from ever seeing the light of day in the proxies mailed to investors. Bank of America sought to spike an investor resolution seeking to block the bank from absorbing losses on any home sales involving relocating executives. This was after BofA took a $533,500 hit on the sale of a home that belonged to one of its executives. BofA’s argument was that the SEC wouldn’t meddle in how companies set reimbursement policies for employee Blackberries or gym memberships, so why would they meddle in this?

J.P. Morgan also sought unsuccessfully to boot off a shareholder resolution dealing with human rights.

The proposal says it is seeking to “prevent holding investments in companies that, in management’s judgment, substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity, the most egregious violations of human rights.” The proposal, backed by a group called Investors Against Genocide, targets J.P. Morgan’s stock holdings in Chinese oil company PetroChina. Critics have said the company’s work in Darfur indirectly supports genocide in the region.

J.P. Morgan advised its investors to vote against the proposal. The bank says it is concerned about human rights but believes “the Firm’s existing policies and procedures appropriately address these issues.” J.P. Morgan also says its investments in PetroChina are held for bank clients.

Investors Against Genocide has pushed similar proposals at a range of mutual funds including TIAA-CREF and Vanguard. But Eric Cohen, chairperson of Investors Against Genocide, said this is the first time they’ve tried the genocide proposal with a corporation.

“If they knew what J.P. Morgan was doing they would not want it to be done on their behalf,” Cohen said, referring to J.P. Morgan stock holders.

That is one of five shareholder resolutions on which J.P. Morgan stock holders will vote this year, including proposals dealing with loan modifications and preventing the company from coercing employees to make political contributions.