# Round One Worldmark Owners



## cruisin (Jan 7, 2009)

There is hope for owners who want to take on the developers strangle hold on HOAs, hopefully this will prevail, and owners with concerns will be able to contact other owners as the law allows?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 7, 2009)

Wow.  That's great.  This will surely be appealed.  I wonder what tricks Wyndham will pull to try to stop this one?


----------



## Cathyb (Jan 7, 2009)

So I am sure I understand, can someone put in easy language what transpired on this decision.  Thanks


----------



## richardm (Jan 7, 2009)

Wow.. That was a very interesting document.. Please keep us informed on what happens during the appeal.


----------



## Sandy VDH (Jan 7, 2009)

Cathyb said:


> So I am sure I understand, can someone put in easy language what transpired on this decision.  Thanks



This has all come about because WM has the board stacked with Wyndham employees and the BOD is not doing things in the best interest to WM owners.

A worldmark member wanted to obtain a list of WM members and contact information as per the by laws of WM.

WM would not saying the list was a corporate assest and it would harm them if the list was made available.  So they denied the request.  They countered by saying they would provide mailing list to a 3rd party.  Cost of mailing would be approximately $260,000 to reach all WM members.

Judge denied WM and let request prevail, saying that WM needed to provide said member with owner list and email address.

I think that is the jist of it.


----------



## Amy (Jan 7, 2009)

Excellent!  Thanks for the update.


----------



## Pit (Jan 7, 2009)

Excellent news. Score one for owner's rights. Thanks for posting the news.


----------



## Cathyb (Jan 7, 2009)

Sandy:  Thank you for explaining!


----------



## PerryM (Jan 9, 2009)

*Dump Wyndham???*

So how much is 260,000+ WM eMail address worth to resellers?  10¢ each would be $26,000, heck even 1¢ each is $2,600 for the list.  Will the list be made free to the public so other WM owners can send their own eMails to WM owners and plug their own interests/products/services?

This will be fun to see how this list is controlled.

If the eMail addresses are released this is a very powerful tool for contacting WM owners.  The question is how will Wyndham counteract those eMails?  They might be forced into sending nightly eMails to all owners.

With Wyndham preoccupied with trying to survive the real estate tsunami can WM owners be convinced to:


Replace the 5 WM BOD members with non Wyndham owners
Dump the developer
Completely rewrite the by-laws
Hire a CEO and build our own management team to run 5,000+ condos
Force competitive bidding for the management company job, or do it ourselves
Find a construction company to build new resorts

Wow, I can see all the focused efforts of fighting Wyndham now focused on fighting fellow WM owners with different plans for the club.

Will it now be WM owner fighting WM owner - that's my guess.

A freebie eMail mailing program can easily shovel out 260k eMails overnight - dozens of WM owner groups plugging their own agenda each night?

Want to rent your WM credits - no problem - fire up that eMail program and send your list of credits to rent, or housekeeping tokens, or whatever - every night.

Count me in - I've got a well worn South Shore baseball cap I bought at the resort that I'd like to sell for $1.  With these freebie programs I can send my cap offer to all 260k WM owners every night until I find a buyer.  There is zero cost to me.

This will certainly be fun to watch…

The law of unintended consequences will prevail here folks.  What may seem a victory will easily decay into something horrible.  I predict that folks will look back at this event and mark it as a tipping point; just which way will WM tip is the question.  The results could be breathtaking.

You heard it here first.

P.S.

I demand my own copy of the eMail addresses - I'm a WM owner and am entitled to them.  Right?  Who do I send an eMail to and get my list?  If I can't get my copy how about a lawsuit by like minded owners against the folks hoarding the list?

I can't wait to present my ideas of hiring a CEO, management team, and 100+ WM employees to replace Wyndham.  I'm hopeful that I can sell these and many more ideas to the owners.

Let the eMails begin....


----------



## rhonda (Jan 9, 2009)

PerryM said:


> Wow, I can see all the focused efforts of fighting Wyndham now focused on fighting fellow WM owners with different plans for the club.
> 
> Will it now be WM owner fighting WM owner - that's my guess.


Sadly, I agree with Perry on this one.  I don't see the ruling as a victory for owners.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 9, 2009)

rhonda said:


> Sadly, I agree with Perry on this one.  I don't see the ruling as a victory for owners.



Wow! Really?

1) You have a developer controlled board that is taking specific steps to ensure that that they remain in power.
2) They have the ability to solicit proxies from owners at no cost (proxy solicitation is included in HOA mailings). 
3) They vote those proxies to negate the votes of the general membership.
4) They in turn attempt to block access by other BOD candidates to membership lists to solicit support/proxies. Access that is granted in the by-laws.
5) Forced with a weak legal position, they offer to grant access on a cost prohibitive basis
6) And then they illegally modify the By-Laws to attempt to block access.

Effectively they have taken action to ensure that the HOA is NOT a representative organization of the members. 

And as the BOD, they repeatedly make decisions on issues regarding their employer that they have inherent conflict of interest with.

How is this action not in our best interest. It puts on the path to a representative BOD. I will gladly put up with a few more spam e-mails, if it leads to a BOD that represents the interests of the membership, and is not beholden to the developer on multiple levels.

Without this step, the only way WM will have a representative BOD is when Wyndham decides they want us to have one.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 9, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> Wow! Really?
> 
> 1) You have a developer controlled board that is taking specific steps to ensure that that they remain in power.
> 2) They have the ability to solicit proxies from owners at no cost (proxy solicitation is included in HOA mailings).
> ...



I can't speak for anyone but me - this will be a disaster for WM.

You watch the warring factions of WM owners go at each other with meat axes and the tranquil setting we have now will be wished for by many WM owners.  We will long for the day of the heavy hand of Wyndham keeping order.

Haven't we seen similar scenarios like this over and over again?

I personally want WM completely independent of ANY developer and want a CEO who answers to the BOD, a management team, and hundreds of WM employees acting in WMs best interests.

But I can tell you that many owners want Wyndham to run our resorts and don't want ANY WM employees like I do.

There is but one knockdown battle I can name and I'm going to fight hard for my position.

There will be dozens of other positions all fighting for the vote of the WM owner.

These will not be polite, sit down type discussions, they will be bare knuckle slug fests that will take place on new web sites and via eMail to the owners.

Yes, the good old days of Wyndham will be looked at with fond memories.

All because some bleeding hearts had to make the eMail addresses of 260k WM owners public knowledge.

But heck, I play by the rules.


----------



## bnoble (Jan 9, 2009)

Is the list email or snail mail?

If the latter, then perhaps the damage won't be quite so spectacular.

Edit: never mind, I read it myself.  Both.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 9, 2009)

PerryM said:


> We will long for the day of the heavy hand of Wyndham keeping order.



They said the same thing in East Germany and Russia during the fall of communism.

Having a "heavy hand" that manipulates the trust in order to have a class system to promotes their business interests does not sit well with me.

For instance, why should the trust/BOD care how the owners obtained their membership. The trust/BOD does not benefit from the sale of developer points. In the current system we have two classes of owners - those with developer purchased weeks and those with resale weeks. Increasingly Wyndham is modifying the rules of the trust to marginalize those members who purchased resale. Why should the BOD care how the members came to join the trust. They should not. They should be focused on stewardship of the existing resorts and the membership they serve. They should not rubber stamp programs that promote the developers interest and reduces the rights of a portion of their membership.

But since Wyndham has a vested interest in selling weeks, they implement practices to grant greater rights to those purchasing developer weeks. In a more balanced system, the BOD would not allow these practices to occur.



PerryM said:


> I personally want WM completely independent of ANY developer and want a CEO who answers to the BOD, a management team, and hundreds of WM employees acting in WMs best interests.



And how do you propose we get to this point, without steps like these? It is not a level playing field. Wyndham is not going to voluntarily cede control and face an uncertain future where they cannot rely on the BOD to support initiatives that assist their sales efforts.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 9, 2009)

*Katy bar the door....*

I like things Black and White and hate Gray; I'm an engineer.

In past WM elections the candidates I saw were not hard core, peddle to the metal, capitalists but amateurs who were hell bent on saving us from big bad Wyndham.  I voted for the Wyndham candidates since they had a vested interest in making money for Wyndham and I felt they understood business.  The amateurs were just going to screw up things.

Well, with total free access to all 260k+ WM owners that changes the game plan.  We can dump the developer and create WM the Company.

For 25+ years WM has been run like an overgrown timeshare resort; as of this second NOT ONE EMPLOYEE works for WM.  WM has 5,000+ condos worth about $1.5 B and an annual operating budgets of almost $200 M.  We need to grow up and get a CEO and hire our own management team and employees who answer to the owners of WM; in the process change the By-Laws and kick the developer out.

There are WM owners hell bent against hiring one employee – this is lunacy to me and I’m going to do my best to convince 260K WM owners to stop listening to those nuts.

But there are other folks who have entirely different plans to both plans – wars will erupt and I dare say those 5 WM BOD members might stay in power while we duke it out.

So all of this is in store for WM owners as soon as that eMail list is made public – count on me pushing my agenda to the owners.  Count on others doing the same.

I have a whole list of things I’ve wanted to say to the WM owners for 5 years now and had to do it slugging it out in chat rooms; Katy bar the door…


----------



## cruisin (Jan 9, 2009)

rhonda said:


> Sadly, I agree with Perry on this one.  I don't see the ruling as a victory for owners.



Wouldn't it be something to have a Board of Directors that fought as hard for the owners as our Board of directors fights for Wyndham. One can only dream....


----------



## Steve (Jan 9, 2009)

*What if Perry posted something extreme on TUG...and no one responded?*



PerryM said:


> I like things Black and White and hate Gray



Actually, I think you like things extreme and provocative.  It's been interesting to see your evolution over the past couple of years.  You've gone from being an unrealistic optimist who touted the virtues of developer purchases of Westgate (best timeshare in the whole world!), etc...to now being a Chicken Little "the sky is falling" pessimist.  Quite a transformation.

What I think you really like is attention...and controversy.  I believe you like to see yourself as the puppeteer.  The members of TUG...or WorldMark...or whatever group you are trying to influence...are the puppets.  You say something extreme to get people excited. Then you sit back laughing as you pull the strings to try and get the reactions you want.  

Of course, it goes haywire sometimes and you end up getting scorn instead of adoration.  But you have your fans, and it's interesting how often people respond to whatever you post.

Steve


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 9, 2009)

There is nothing in the ruling that says the list must be PROVIDED but that an owner, or his representative, can SEE it and copy if they wish. 260,000 emails? Who is going to copy THAT?  It's a good ruling but doesn't open any floodgates IMO. it does start to establish some real owners rights (Yeah!) so thats a good start and may get Wyndham/Worldmark nervous (and they should be).  The good old boys opeartions should have ended years ago with real owners taking over.


----------



## rhonda (Jan 10, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> Wow! Really?  <snip ...>


Eric,

I am, right now, watching a similar story play out at my favorite resort.  Current time is Saturday, 11:30a ... and I'm attending an Owner's Forum in the Lodge rather than getting my haircut (had that scheduled), horseback riding (had that scheduled, too) or soaking in the hot springs (no schedule required).  The purpose of this meeting is to discuss details of two offers from outside parties to purchase the resort in entirety.

About 3 years ago certain owners petitioned and gained access to the membership list for mailing.  There were restrictions on that access similar to the wording in the decision linked above restricting commercial interests, etc.  However, the list was misused ... personal interests expressed ... owner confusion spun up ... (fees paid for the misuse) ... leading to, in my observation, an exhausted BOD, increases in legal costs, increases in ownership fees, and a thoroughly exasperated membership.

In any community, there are an amazing number of personal agendas.  Some of these intentions are for the group's good ... but there are also, likely, a few wolves hiding in sheep's clothing until the right moment.  Access to inexpensive communication opens Pandora's box.  From what I've experienced in these few short years -- even the best personalities and purposes have a limited threshold for attacks.  The communications that may follow aren't simply a few extra spam email messages -- it could become an ugly and costly battle.


----------



## RichM (Jan 10, 2009)

timeos2 said:


> There is nothing in the ruling that says the list must be PROVIDED but that an owner, or his representative, can SEE it and copy if they wish. 260,000 emails? Who is going to copy THAT?  It's a good ruling but doesn't open any floodgates IMO. it does start to establish some real owners rights (Yeah!) so thats a good start and may get Wyndham/Worldmark nervous (and they should be).  The good old boys opeartions should have ended years ago with real owners taking over.



The bylaws are being upheld by the ruling and the bylaws DO state copying is allowed:



			
				WorldMark Bylaws said:
			
		

> 7: RECORDS AND REPORTS
> 7.1 Inspections.
> 7.1(a) Members. The Articles, Bylaws, Declaration,
> Rules, Membership register (including mailing addresses and
> ...



___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## PerryM (Jan 11, 2009)

*buy the letter...*

7: RECORDS AND REPORTS
7.1 Inspections.
7.1(a) Members. The Articles, Bylaws, Declaration,
Rules, Membership register (including mailing addresses and
telephone numbers) or duplicate Membership register, the books of
account and minutes of proceedings of the Members, the Board and
any committees, and all other records of the Program maintained by
the Club or its Manager, shall be made available for inspection and
copying, upon written demand and reasonable notice, by any Member
or his duly appointed representative, at any reasonable time and
for a purpose reasonably related to his interests as a Member. The
Club may restrict the use of information from the Membership
register by requiring Members to sign a written agreement not to
use or allow use of Membership information for commercial or other
purposes not reasonably related to the affairs of the Club. An
original or copy of the Articles and Bylaws, as amended to date,
shall be kept at the principal office of the Club and shall be open
to inspection by the Members at all reasonable times during office
hours. The records shall be made available for inspection at the
office where the records are maintained. *Upon receipt of an
authenticated written request from a Member along with the fee
prescribed by the Board to defray the costs of reproduction, the
Manager or other custodian of records shall prepare and transmit to
the Member a copy of any and all records requested.*

There are 260,000+ WM owners – If I were Wyndham/WM I’d follow the bylaws to the letter.

Simply print each WM owner’s name, address, and eMail on a separate sheet of paper *and make the WM owner come in and sign each sheet*.  You know, a thousand words stating the owner won't let the document out of their sight and heavy penalties to those owners who lose control of the documents; this would be underneath the data on each page.

Then a notary republic might be needed to verify the person signing is who they say they are - that would be a $3 - $5 charge per page.  There are notaries in the lawyer's office. Who knows, maybe the law office offers quantity discounts and $500,000 in notary fees would be a bargain. 

A ream of paper has 500 sheets which would mean 520 reams of paper.  Each ream is about 2” high or the stack would be 1,040” high or 86.7 feet tall.

Of course the documents will be at the lawyer’s office and they will charge a fee to make copies.  At 50 cents each that’s $130,000 plus 260,000 signatures.

Each ream weighs 5 pounds 1 oz so the total would weigh 2,600 pounds.  A mid sized U-hall truck should do the job.

I’d bet the court would have no problems with that.  It's called a document dump and its done all the time.  The lawyers and courts are used to it - no big deal.

Of course I'd hope for the list could be moved to my cell-phone - it has a 8 GB micro SD card that would easily hold all of the data.

But I know better....

(Off to a business trip - back middle of next week)

P.S.
As I am running out the door this morning it occurred to me that the court isn't going to get into the order the names will be released.  Wonder if Wyndham will release them in this order:


WM owners without an eMail address
WN owners whose eMail address keeps bouncing back as bad
WM owners delinquent in their MFs
WM owners who don't use their accounts much
WM owners who have loyally voted for Wyndham in past elections
WM owners who have been with WM for 10+ years
WM owners living outside the USA
Finally everyon else and they will get an eMail warning them of spoof eMails from unknown folks (and give sample topics)...

Nah...this is a clear cut victory for those lawyers who charged big bucks to get this list.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 11, 2009)

rhonda said:


> Eric,
> 
> Access to inexpensive communication opens Pandora's box.



Are you kidding me?  That is almost like saying the freedom of speech opens a Pandora's box.



rhonda said:


> I am, right now, watching a similar story play out at my favorite resort.



Sorrry - which of the resorts you own are you referrring to?



rhonda said:


> Current time is Saturday, 11:30a ... and I'm attending an Owner's Forum in the Lodge rather than getting my haircut (had that scheduled), horseback riding (had that scheduled, too) or soaking in the hot springs (no schedule required).



So I am assuming that you are doing so to protect your equity investment in that resort. That is the responsibility of ownership. If you do not want to accept that responsibility then you can just accept the decisions that are made for you - i.e. not question the mf you are charged each year and go do these things....


----------



## rhonda (Jan 11, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> So I am assuming that you are doing so to protect your equity investment in that resort. That is the responsibility of ownership. If you do not want to accept that responsibility then you can just accept the decisions that are made for you - i.e. not question the mf you are charged each year and go do these things....


Two different things altogether.  Regular meetings and company business are one thing.  The difficulties raised by the special interests are another.  There is much truth in the old saying, "One bad apple spoils the barrel."


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 11, 2009)

PerryM said:


> 7: RECORDS AND REPORTS
> There are 260,000+ WM owners – If I were Wyndham/WM I’d follow the bylaws to the letter.
> 
> Simply print each WM owner’s name, address, and eMail on a separate sheet of paper *and make the WM owner come in and sign each sheet*.  You know, a thousand words stating the owner won't let the document out of their sight and heavy penalties to those owners who lose control of the documents; this would be underneath the data on each page.
> ...



This would be a great legal strategy. 

Put yourself in the position of the judge on this case. It's basically your standard David vs Goliath case. Members are sueing for a right allowed by the membership by-laws. Wyndmam blocks their request, on the technicality that the by-laws do not cover e-mail addresses.  Based on Wyndhams weak position, they devise a "alternative solution" of compliance that costs the requestor $260k. Then after the case has been filed, they violate your by-laws by unilaterally passing a policy that violates the by-laws without obtaining a quorem on the issue and with questionable notification. 


One of the key elements of the judges ruling is that BOD proposed policy for meeting the requirements of your by-laws is illegal (i.e.

"The alternative proposed by WorldMark is a violation of its By Laws, without a proper membership vote. Such an attempt to violate the By Laws by the Board is void, as in excess of the Board's grant of authority under the WorldMark By Laws." 

So you are going to suggest another alternative solution, one that makes it more costly for the members to exercise the rights they have under the bylaws. That sounds a sound strategy. I wonder how the judge will respond to that.


----------



## Steve (Jan 11, 2009)

rhonda said:


> Eric,
> 
> I am, right now, watching a similar story play out at my favorite resort.  Current time is Saturday, 11:30a ... and I'm attending an Owner's Forum in the Lodge rather than getting my haircut (had that scheduled), horseback riding (had that scheduled, too) or soaking in the hot springs (no schedule required).  The purpose of this meeting is to discuss details of two offers from outside parties to purchase the resort in entirety.
> 
> ...



Rhonda,

The resort I guess you are referring to is Warner Springs Ranch.  It's unfortunate what is happening there, but it seems hard to justify keeping the WorldMark owner list private based on that isolated case. 

As you are a former member of the WorldMark board, you are in a somewhat unique position as you know better than any of us how things really operate.  It seems like the board isn't looking out for the best interests of the members in a number of areas.  Do you really feel it best that Wyndham prohibit access to the membership list?  I'd be genuinely interested in your views on this with the background and experience that you have.

Sincerely,

Steve


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jan 11, 2009)

Option A: keep the means of communication tightly controlled to only a privileged few who by dint of position or authority are deemed to have a legitimate access.

Option B: make the list available to anyone for any purpose, with resultant messiness and chaos.

*****

Seems that in the 18th century there was a group of people in the 13 colonies who were confronted with a similar issue.  They, of course, decided that it was better to trust ordinary citizens to sift through the information and garbage presented and arrive at a decision than to allow the power of information to remain in the hands of a privileged few.

I do recognize Perry's concerns.  Those concerns might even be correct.  

*Be that as it may, if I were a Worldmark owner I would rather have the freedom for myself to decide what information is important for me to see rather than to have someone from Wyhdhan deciding what information I should see.*  Further I suspect that most Worldmark owners would prefer to make that choice for themselves rather than have someone else making that choice for them.  

Yes it will be messy and ugly.  Perry is probaby correct when he says it will likely be terrible.  But like, democracy, it's not so bad when you consider the alternatives.


----------



## cotraveller (Jan 11, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> So you are going to suggest another alternative solution, one that makes it more costly for the members to exercise the rights they have under the bylaws. That sounds a sound strategy. I wonder how the judge will respond to that.



Perry's numbers are off a little, but on the right track.  At one line each, name, address, phone, email (if allowed), plus a space between records is at least 6 lines for each entry.  Allowing for a page header and footer (title and page number), that makes at the most 9 entries per page.  260,000 members, at 9 per page, is just under 29,000 pages.

When I go to a local courthouse to inspect and copy public records, the inspection is free, sometimes via hardcopy, sometimes on a computer terminal.  I can copy all I want using a pencil and paper, there is no charge for that either.

But when I requested a copy be supplied for me it was printed copy only, at $1 per page.  I have seen rates at other courthouses of $2 per page.  Would the court object to the same methods and rates that they and other government offices use?


----------



## rhonda (Jan 12, 2009)

Steve said:


> As you are a former member of the WorldMark board, you are in a somewhat unique position as you know better than any of us how things really operate.  It seems like the board isn't looking out for the best interests of the members in a number of areas.  Do you really feel it best that Wyndham prohibit access to the membership list?  I'd be genuinely interested in your views on this with the background and experience that you have.


The WM BOD I was fortunate to work with are hardworking, patient and highly considerate folks.  A short list of examples: John H. spent _countless hours_ with me exploring the impact to owners when changes were introduced to the "weekend only" rule.  His eventual rewording of the rule resulted in a far more generous policy.  Jack's research on changing the smoking policy was extremely extensive; his desire to "do the right thing" was backed with piles of relevant documentation.  Gene has an _amazing_ ability to hear, represent, and respond to owners.  Every member of the team, even in 2004/5, was looking forward to the 2010 Olympics and how to present the most fair method of room reservations in nearby WM properties.  The group was willing to entertain suggestions for improving IRIS and the way it handled expiring WM credits.  It was my personal impression that the team sought to do right and put forth every effort to do so.

My long overdue confession: I wasn't up to the task.  Huge changes in my career, the loss of several friends and family, natural disaster, a split in my church, health and personal troubles in 2005 weakened me.  I failed, I'm sorry.

The thing that surprised me the most, as I completely caved, was the enormous strain of owner communication.  The volume is in line with our growing member base -- but the demanding and unpleasant tone surprised and disappointed me.  I guess I thought more Owners were like this TUG community -- respectful, hopeful, eager to see good outcomes, willing to know and understand the "rules" and to suggest/discover improvements/solutions.  Instead, I faced what seemed as a mob of angry voices.  Owners who wanted special preferences and to have their personal interests catered to.  Plenty of folks who wanted a magic wand waved over their crisis ... daily. Sorry to say, the owner communication became very unpleasant to me.

So yes, I do have reservations about various forms of owner communications; no, I don't believe WSR is an isolated case.  Certain people will use every channel available to make themselves heard - often and loudly.  This has many outcomes: (a) valid or not, the claims are heard in ever widening circles; (b) impressions are formed by both owners and non-owners; (c) responding to the communications becomes costly in both time and money; (d) value of the product is influenced; (e) as claim/response cycles escalate it becomes more difficult to track the real issues and keep the right people involved; (f) lacking careful use, words when multiplied may lead to misunderstanding more often than greater understanding and may, on occasion, inflict hurt; (g) time spent responding takes away from time intended to do other needed, on target, efforts; etc.

Oh, that communications were constructive and respectful.  If they were, I'd gladly lift my reservations.  In the meantime, let's each treat others kindly.  (Thx!)

============
EDITED TO ADD:  FWIW,  Communication was the very heart of my career up until 2005.  I was involved regularly in both public and private discussion forums, "knowledge management" repositories (pre-wiki era), and other forms of collaborative computing.   I wasn't new to communication techniques, styles or supporting technologies -- but was still caught completely unprepared for the owner communications I refer to above.  Again, I'm sorry.


----------



## LLW (Jan 12, 2009)

rhonda said:


> The WM BOD I was fortunate to work with are hardworking, patient and highly considerate folks.  A short list of examples: John H. spent _countless hours_ with me exploring the impact to owners when changes were introduced to the "weekend only" rule.  His eventual rewording of the rule resulted in a far more generous policy.  Jack's research on changing the smoking policy was extremely extensive; his desire to "do the right thing" was backed with piles of relevant documentation.  Gene has an _amazing_ ability to hear, represent, and respond to owners.  Every member of the team, even in 2004/5, was looking forward to the 2010 Olympics and how to present the most fair method of room reservations in nearby WM properties.  The group was willing to entertain suggestions for improving IRIS and the way it handled expiring WM credits.  It was my personal impression that the team sought to do right and put forth every effort to do so.
> 
> My long overdue confession: I wasn't up to the task.  Huge changes in my career, the loss of several friends and family, natural disaster, a split in my church, health and personal troubles in 2005 weakened me.  I failed, I'm sorry.
> 
> ...



Rhonda:

For all the failure that you are saying you had, I think you remain a well-respected owner of Worldmark who has seen it from inside the board.

One key contention of the "small but vocal group" on wmowners.com is that the WM board is controlled by people on Wyndham payroll or under its influence or control, therefore there is a conflict of interest evidenced in some board decisions. Therefore the pursuit of the owners list to counter the Wyndham-controlled board election communication.

I may be jumping to conclusions here, but are you implying that the position of a WM Board member is so demanding that only a person whose full-time job it is to do the communication (and other board responsibilities) is capable of doing it? How does the new position of Director of Board/Owner Relations (or more similar positions) change that? How is it different from other volunteer timeshare boards? 

Thanks in advance for explaining it.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 12, 2009)

rhonda said:


> Two different things altogether.  Regular meetings and company business are one thing.  The difficulties raised by the special interests are another.  There is much truth in the old saying, "One bad apple spoils the barrel."



Rhonda.

Thanks for your (other) detailed post on your experience on the WM BOD. When I first responded to your post, I had no idea that you were a former member of the BOD.

And I do completely understand your comments on the challenges of the position. While my opinion might be in the minority, I personally do not feel that a BOD member IS responsible for individually responding to each communication they receive from the members. Asking a small volunteer board to do so when faced with a large community seems unworkable.

And I do agree with your statement about special interests, and think it goes to core of what some owners are trying to achieve. What we really want is a BOD that is independent, and does not cater to the largest special interest - that of the developer. It sounds like the WM BOD might have been more like that during your tenue. However, now it seems to have changed.


----------



## bnoble (Jan 12, 2009)

> They, of course, decided that it was better to trust ordinary citizens to sift through the information and garbage presented and arrive at a decision than to allow the power of information to remain in the hands of a privileged few.



Not entirely.  The Electoral College was originally designed as "a third way"---a compromise between the extremes of all citizens vs. only congress.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jan 12, 2009)

bnoble said:


> Not entirely.  The Electoral College was originally designed as "a third way"---a compromise between the extremes of all citizens vs. only congress.



I wasn't referring to elections at all.  I was referring to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.  The founders of the country made a decision that it was better to allow anyone to say anything and let the listeners decide what is relevant and what is trash than to attempt to have government attempt to regulate public discourse to maintain orderliness and relevance.

The need to maintain orderliness, accuracy, courtesy, and relevance is the standard line spouted by people everywhere who deem it important to control or manage the flow of information.

In the end, there isn't any difference between Wyndham's attempts to control distribution of information and a  government that decides to limit it's citizens internet access to only those websites that have been approved as  trustworthy and reliable stewards of the public trust.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 12, 2009)

*I vote for beer-pong....*



ecwinch said:


> This would be a great legal strategy.
> 
> Put yourself in the position of the judge on this case. It's basically your standard David vs Goliath case. Members are sueing for a right allowed by the membership by-laws. Wyndmam blocks their request, on the technicality that the by-laws do not cover e-mail addresses.  Based on Wyndhams weak position, they devise a "alternative solution" of compliance that costs the requestor $260k. Then after the case has been filed, they violate your by-laws by unilaterally passing a policy that violates the by-laws without obtaining a quorem on the issue and with questionable notification.
> 
> ...



Not at all.  Simply saying that WM/Wyndham should follow the bylaws as they stand.

I’m assuming that the clever lawyers have already figured out all the ways Wyndham might follow the judge’s ruling.  This should be nothing new to these sharp fellows.

I'm guessing that the cost has been OK'd by the judge.  If the judge hasn't said anything then it's up to Wyndham/WM to determine those costs.  That's what the bylaws say.

If the eMail list is released then ANY WM owner now has access to ALL other WM owners as long as it has something to do with club business.  That’s a VERY broad definition that will be stretched to the point it breaks.

I can’t wait for the smoking folks to point out the blatant discrimination they suffer at WM resorts.

The dog and cat folks will be pitching their desire to save a buck or two by turning the WM resort into a kennel.  The new rage is Doggie-Hotels what better way to make WM stand out from the rest of timeshares!

Don’t forget the nudist community with a nudist night at the swimming pool.

The gun show folks will want to talk about holding demonstrations on site.  I'd love to try an AK-47 target shoot in the back of the resort.

I'd like alcohol to be served at all WM resorts - especially at the pool.  I sure would look forward to a couple of games of beer-pong at 2 AM.  I think we need happy hour to be from 4 PM to 8 PM myself.

My son and his frat brothers play beer-pong all the time and it sure sounds like WM owners are missing out of a great way to relax while on vacation.  


Those WM owners who want this access will rue the day the eMail list was taken from the WM BOD and handed out to WM owners - you watch this turn into a zoo as all kinds of folks demand access to WM owners.  

But I play by the rules and will be plugging my special interests to the WM owners - so should you.

*Think beer-pong!*

I might get some beer distributors to start the thing off.  Same with the dog and cat folks - free coupons at the front desk from Purina to get the thing voted into the bylaws.  If I send out some literature via snail mail maybe I can get a large company to underwrite the mailing costs - you would not see their name but it might be something they would sponsor.

The commercial interests sure could put together some mouth-watering eMails, web sites, and slick marketing gimmicks that would not have their name shown but they would profit from new WM bylaw changes.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 12, 2009)

You seem to be glossing over the fact that those "smart" guys have already come up with one way - and that the judge shot it down.

I think you might be playing beer pong right now, and not too well.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2009)

Rhonda,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, and for your service on the BOD.  I wondered why you had kind of dropped out of sight, and your post explains it.  I hope that things are going better for you now!

Before building my current house, I lived in a condo for five years.  For almost all of that time, I had the unenviable task of being president of the HOA.  Although there were some good times and I accomplished some good things, overall it was a thankless job.  Lots of people like to complain, but almost no one wants to help do anything constructive.  I was so happy to move into a house with no HOA and no neighbors through the wall.  So, I do understand what you are saying.  

It's a difficult task that the WorldMark board has, but I do wish...as do many others...that they were independent from Wyndham.  

Steve


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 12, 2009)

This all boils down to the devil you know vs. the devil you don't.

The devil we know is WorldMark by Wyndham.  They create rules that allow us to use our ownerships while systematically devaluing them.  They add new resorts and we get to enjoy new locations because of it.  For many, this really isn't a bad situation.  It's what we know.  It works.

What many are saying is true which is that if Pandora's box it opened and for some reason the email list gets readily available to any owner with a cause, then owners could get pummelled with spam and lots of special interest groups lobbying for their favorite cause.  The question is which is better?  The wool pulled over the eyes of most owners? Ignorance is bliss?  Or, the full information about what is and what could be?

I say let the owners decide with all the information available to them.  I think the Club would work fine.  I think that all owners would be apprised of resales and there would be a real market for our credits.  If we want to add a new resort, we would create it by selling credits at cost plus over developers that the board hires.

It would be a brave new world for WorldMark and WorldMark by Wyndham would probably just walk away.  VRI could be the management company.  And a special committee could evaluate proposals for adding new resorts.  The biggest difference is that the board would be dominated by owners and not the developer.  That would create a material difference in motivation and priorities.  It could kill WorldMark, but it could also make it great.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 12, 2009)

*coup d'état or status quo - I'll take either one of them*

I firmly believe that there are but two courses of action for WM:


Developer controlled
Owner controlled

I don’t see a third alternative of a mixture of both.  This has been my contention for a few years now.  You either have the developer running it, just like all the major timeshare developers, or let the HOA run it like all the small independent timeshare resorts where the developer left long time ago.

I’m not aware where a mixture of the two works – but maybe there is a great example of where the owners tell the developer exactly what to do.

The ability to reach many/most WM owners via eMail changes all of that; this is a tipping point in the history of WM.

So I can live with either outcome – the status quo or a coup d'état.  But I can’t go for a mixture of both.

Don't think for a second that the coup d'état will be a peaceful outcome - there will be plenty of different ways for WM to evolve - this will be a very rocky road.

And that's exactly what getting that eMail list means - a coup d'état is the logical outcome when dozens of groups take WM dozens of directions all at once.

All one has to do is look at some WM chat rooms where its "All Wyndham hate all the time" and that's what will be spread among the WM owners - hatred of Wyndham and the drum beat to dump Wyndham first at the BOD level and later just get rid of them.  The silly thing is those same folks who hate Wyndham demand Wyndham run our 5,000 condos for $200 M each year - lunacy.

As these fear mongers send out their daily cesspool of hatred of Wyndham expect WM owners to panic and sell their WM credits at firesale prices - the logical outcome is falling resale prices.

I'm assuming the folks putting up the money to get the list know this and wish this on WM.


I must tell you that a coup d'état without WM having ONE single employee is madness but apparently we are headed down this road.  Thank the do-gooders who demand this list - they are about to tear this club to pieces - typical do-gooder mentality; they want you to judge their intentions and not the outcome.


----------



## cruisin (Jan 13, 2009)

Worldmark is a truly great timeshare system, started by a number of people who had great intentions toward the ownership, many tremendous owner protections were written into our governing documents, Owner services are fantastic, our customer service really is unbelievable, but all of this culture came before cendant/wyndham etc. Wyndham is not good for Worldmark. Owner protection goes down, use value of our credits goes down, charges that benefit Wyndhams bottom line go up, a developer controlled board looks out for the developer.

There is only one reason that Wyndham has the owner list locked up in a vault, and its not to protect owners from other owners, its to protect Wyndham from the owners.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 13, 2009)

*The perfect storm is setting up...*

Exactly how will 5 WM owners, who hate Wyndham, change anything?

There are many crazy topics like “credit dilution” which are false – I’ve spent many a post correcting some of these topics – folks don’t want to hear.  Hating Wyndham is emotional and supersedes any logic out there.

It takes little to criticize Wyndham and even less to say that 5 different warm bodies in the WM BOD will make ANY difference.  This is just too easy to spout “I’m for an independent WM BOD” and not back it up with ANY concrete plans to address our supposed problems.

This all comes at the worst possible time – a perfect storm is setting up to swamp WM; the timeshare bubble is bursting in front of our eyes and sadly WM is about to burst too.

As I've said many times - ALL the problems plaguing WM are caused by the flawed founding documents - *WM is fundamentally a flawed system that I believe Wyndham is doing its best to address.*

I know this is hard for folks to appreciate and hating Wyndham is much easier - too easy folks.  Wyndham is NOT the problem here - we are; we, the WM owners, have a flawed system and are tackling the wrong problems.   But it feels so good....

Our developer company has been sold in the past - Wyndham is the latest company who is our developer.  Tick Wyndham off and they might dump us and the new management company could be a much more aggressive partner.

Chanting "It can't get any worse" is yet another slogan that some folks keep spewing - this is wrong too.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jan 13, 2009)

BocaBum99 said:


> What many are saying is true which is that if Pandora's box it opened and for some reason the email list gets readily available to any owner with a cause, then owners could get pummelled with spam and lots of special interest groups lobbying for their favorite cause.  The question is which is better?  The wool pulled over the eyes of most owners? Ignorance is bliss?  Or, the full information about what is and what could be?



Do you take the red pill or the blue?


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 13, 2009)

Why is the immediate implication that an independent BOD will result in Wyndham not managing the resorts? It obviously is one possible outcome. But it is one that I would not support. 

I want a BOD that will do what is best for the membership as whole. I think the whole process of Wyndham building new resorts that get folded into the WM trust is a great system. I love the properties that I have stayed at so far. 

But we clearly are in the midst of a tough period for real estate development. Wyndham is in that real estate market, and Wyndham has already stated that they will be scaling back operations in 2009+. Meaning less benefit to the members of the WM Trust.

What if our "partner" (Wyndham) encountered financial difficulty? Are we prepared and properly protected for that possibilty? Both things are only possible with an independent BOD. Just think of all the questions you would ask if you learned tomorrow morning that Wyndham declared bankruptcy. We need our BOD to ask those questions and protect our interests.

It is not enough to assume that our rights as owners are being looked after. It is debatable. I want to be sure that someone has looked at it. For me that needs to be the BOD.

Perry - And I do not agree with your assessment of how it needs to be. Everything is not black or white. I think MVCI is a better model and their BOD tends to be a little more representative. Others may disagree, but MVCI has not had to stoop to manipulating BOD elections.

And given the challenges our developer faces, it might be a bad thing to have them dump us. But in today's environment, that is not a choice we have. But our developer does.


----------



## GeNioS (Jan 13, 2009)

Ok...hold on...are people here really discussing the "problem" that they may get spammed?  Seriously?  :hysterical: 

Perry...get the list and do your worst.  I'm already getting sex ads, drug ads, weightloss ads, money-making ads, and some Dr. Genoble continues to tell me that he is holding $50,000,0000 US for mee to clam at eny tyme.

If a Worldmark member wants to get his message out to the membership and someone thinks that they can make a buck, big deal.

Besides, based on the court order, no member is allowed to use the list for commercial purposes.  You don't think they're going to keep an eye on who gets the list?  With that in mind, the only guy that will "buy" the list from you is Dr. Genoble, and what do you think he's going to pay you for them?

This is a victory, albeit a small one, for anyone who values a _representative_ form of leadership.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 13, 2009)

*Burn 'em...*

I have yet to see one of those Wyndham hating WM BOD candidates address the real problem facing WM – our flawed system.  Until they do they are simply taking aim at the wrong target.

This is like prescribing aspirin to a cancer patient – it might make them feel a little better for a while but the cancer will overtake them eventually.

Me, I’d rather work with 5 Wyndham folks who are trying to make a profit for Wyndham and as a side benefit we keep chugging along in our broken system.


Or, we dump Wyndham and hire a CEO, management team, and 100+ employees and grow up and fix our broken system.

Either way I plan to maximize the opportunities presented me - that's my job.  Burning Wyndham at the stake is a waste of time.

Folks laughed at VP Dick Cheney for hitting the wrong target with his shot gun – I laugh at all the do-gooders leaving a wake of destruction aiming at wrong targets too.  There are zillions of them running around trying to fix problems which are caused by much larger problems – a total waste of time; but its entertaining to see them shoot the wrong target.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 13, 2009)

*Bungles...a court specialty*



GeNioS said:


> Ok...hold on...are people here really discussing the "problem" that they may get spammed?  Seriously?  :hysterical:
> 
> Perry...get the list and do your worst.  I'm already getting sex ads, drug ads, weightloss ads, money-making ads, and some Dr. Genoble continues to tell me that he is holding $50,000,0000 US for mee to clam at eny tyme.
> 
> ...



This is the least of our worries.

Courts and lawyers are a horrible substitute for management.  Having them bungle their way into a club like WM invites all kinds of unintended consequences - just you watch.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 13, 2009)

PerryM said:


> Me, I’d rather work with 5 Wyndham folks who are trying to make a profit for Wyndham and as a side benefit we keep chugging along in our broken system.



Until they decide that for them to survive, you need to go.



PerryM said:


> Or, we dump Wyndham and hire a CEO, management team, and 100+ employees and grow up and fix our broken system.



 Your thinking is too binary. They are only the management company. There are other management companies that we can contract with if Wyndham is not delivering value. It does not require us to embark on this course.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jan 13, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> Your thinking is too binary. They are only the management company. There are other management companies that we can contract with if Wyndham is not delivering value. It does not require us to embark on this course.



Perry was very clear that as an engieer he likes to simplify things down to basic black-and-white.  You're pretty much putting unnecessary war on your keyboard.  

Now, most of us know the world isn't that simple; dare I even say the best engineers I've worked with were all extremely skilled at working with issues that don't reduce to black-and-white.  That was what made them such fine engineers; they could find solutions through the fog that left the black-and-white engineers groping.

Of course it's not a binary choice.  Further, I would say it's even probable that with full disclosure Wyndham will continue to hold most of the seats on the board; if Perry is correct in his assessment there will be a multitude of swirling interests.  But since there is a limited number of seats on the board, only the very largest of those interests will have enough traction to elect anyone to the board.  

And by far the largest group of members, probably the only coalesced group with enough pull to actually influence the outcome will be Wyndham and allied owners who think the system is pretty much fine as it is.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 13, 2009)

*Doing something isn't necessarily better than doing nothing...*

Well the flawed founding documents have gotten us to this stage – a developer who is having a rough time (that’s why that slot keeps getting sold over and over) and WM owners watching their resale value go down the toilet for years now.

You could substitute 5 monkeys for the WM BOD and it won’t improve WM until we address those flawed concepts that Wyndham has to work with.

I guess we will see if opening the eMail addresses of WM owners makes things a lot better – my guess is that we are simply shooting ourselves in the foot.  Sadly the concept of how WM should work should be a role model for ALL timeshares to emulate.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 13, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> Why is the immediate implication that an independent BOD will result in Wyndham not managing the resorts? It obviously is one possible outcome. But it is one that I would not support.



I feel pretty confident that if owners are allowed to communicate freely with owners that our relationship with WorldMark by Wyndham will eventually be terminated.

Why?  Because WorldMark by Wyndham must out of necessity sell product for 4 times more than it is worth to pay for it's high cost of sales and marketing.  Since WorldMark by Wyndham is a resort developer primarily and a management company as a secondary business, free flow of information to owners will kill their business model.  Resale information must out of necessity not be allowed to be known to the majority of owners.  Otherwise, they won't be able to sell credits for a profit.

So, the fact that good information will be made available to owners would lead them faster to the conclusion that they should NEVER buy from WorldMark by Wyndham.  When that happens, they are out of business and must withdraw.  We are better with VRI managing the Club because they are in business primarily to manage resorts instead of profiting from sales of resorts.


----------



## Jya-Ning (Jan 13, 2009)

With 5 borad members, why the assumption will be either owners that hate Wyndham control all or Wyndham affliate takes all?  This is more close like 2 major parties.  I don't even see any parties can get 100%.  When Russia commuism loss its power immediately follow the fall of Berline Wall, they gain most back in the recent year.

Jya-Ning


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 13, 2009)

Jya-Ning said:


> With 5 borad members, why the assumption will be either owners that hate Wyndham control all or Wyndham affliate takes all?  This is more close like 2 major parties.  I don't even see any parties can get 100%.  When Russia commuism loss its power immediately follow the fall of Berline Wall, they gain most back in the recent year.
> 
> Jya-Ning



100% isn't required. Only 51% is.  Once the owners get control, this will lead to the end game of the ouster of WorldMark by Wyndham as the resort developer.  I don't believe many have this as a goal.  But, it will happen.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 13, 2009)

*Hello - a smart WM owner is a nightmare!*



BocaBum99 said:


> I feel pretty confident that if owners are allowed to communicate freely with owners that our relationship with WorldMark by Wyndham will eventually be terminated.
> 
> Why?  Because WorldMark by Wyndham must out of necessity sell product for 4 times more than it is worth to pay for it's high cost of sales and marketing.  Since WorldMark by Wyndham is a resort developer primarily and a management company as a secondary business, free flow of information to owners will kill their business model.  Resale information must out of necessity not be allowed to be known to the majority of owners.  Otherwise, they won't be able to sell credits for a profit.
> 
> So, the fact that good information will be made available to owners would lead them faster to the conclusion that they should NEVER buy from WorldMark by Wyndham.  When that happens, they are out of business and must withdraw.  We are better with VRI managing the Club because they are in business primarily to manage resorts instead of profiting from sales of resorts.



WOW WOW WOW!!!!!

This is a fantastic point that I completely missed.

Imagine Wyndham losing that market - yikes!

Like I've said many times before:

*"The timeshare industry exists mainly because ignorant consumers made foolish decisions"*

Wyndham can't have the fact that $2.00 Wyndham sold WM credits are essentially the same as 52 cent credits from ANY WM owner known to the 260,000+ WM owners - they need to sell them $1.50 WM credits at a "special owner discount".

A smart consumer will bypass Wyndham for the resale market if they simply know about it and have testimonials from other WM owners who know its as simple as buying a TV.

Remember the old WM club's web site where the censor erased any mention of RESALES - imagine all 260,000 WM owners knowing this tid bit!!

Great point BB!


----------



## cotraveller (Jan 13, 2009)

*Seniors for WorldMark*

How about groups that will form to oppose the current ones?  Seniors for WorldMark!  A tight knit organization with the goal of making WorldMark more senior friendly.  We won't fight against management or the developer, we'll work with them.  We'll start with a small goal, say a 10% discount on Bonus Time for seniors.  That is outside the bylaws, no vote of approval is required.

Think it couldn't happen?  Consider the demographics.  If the WorldMark population distribution is similar to national trends, around 15% of the owners are 65 or older.  But we don't need to limit it there.  The Feds drop the age for early retirement to 62 to collect Social Security.  The company I worked for offered early retirement at age 55.  That will give us a large block of owners for our organization.

What do we offer in return for the concessions we would seek?  Voting power.  15+ percent of the voting power is enough to control almost any facet of the election.  That's a powerful tool.

Not convinced yet? Here's some more from one of the many seniors web sites.   Seniors have more discretionary income than any other age group. The 60+ population owns 77 percent of all U.S. financial assets.  Seniors spend more dollars on travel and recreation then any other age group.  Since the majority of us are retired, we also have a lot of time to persue whatever endeavor we choose.  

The wheels are already in motion.  WorldMark seniors unite!  We have the time, we have the numbers, we have the money.  Break loose the membership list and we will have the power!


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 13, 2009)

BocaBum99 said:


> Once the owners get control, this will lead to the end game of the ouster of WorldMark by Wyndham as the resort developer.  I don't believe many have this as a goal.  But, it will happen.



How would the WM trust benefit from this occurring? We effectively would be saying that we do not want to have any new resorts developed and placed in the WM system. Again, not something I would support.

I think it is far more likely that Wyndham would terminate the relationship, if Perry's doomsday scenario would occur i.e. hostile BOD undermining sales efforts and resorts with gun-toting nudists running around playing beer pong to all hours of the morning.

It is a partnership between WM and Wyndham. If that partnership is not working for one side or the other, then you evaluate your options. We do not have that option at this time.



cotraveller said:


> The wheels are already in motion.  WorldMark seniors unite!  We have the time, we have the numbers, we have the money.  Break loose the membership list and we will have the power!



I think this is a great idea. You guys go to bed early so the pool/hot tub is rarely crowded at night, and you do not make much noise. And we can fund it by increasing points required for families with small children.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 13, 2009)

*Blundering do-gooders...*



ecwinch said:


> ...
> I think it is far more likely that Wyndham would terminate the relationship, if Perry's doomsday scenario would occur i.e. hostile BOD undermining sales efforts and resorts with *gun-toting nudists running around playing beer pong to all hours of the morning*.
> ...



Now that’s the spirit…

Again, someone show me a major timeshare developer where the owners tell the developer what to do, control their profits and punish them if they stray from the owner’s wishes.

I just don’t think this can be done and the loss of 260,000 potential sales is the kind of thing the developer might just put us up for sale again.  In this climate just who would jump into this mess?

None of this occurred to the do-gooders blundering around seeking the eMail list which could cause all kinds of unintended consequences.

But the name of the game is to exploit the rules to our benefit - additionally we now will have the ability to change them to meet our own interests.

This is just great!


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jan 13, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> How would the WM trust benefit from this occurring? We effectively would be saying that we do not want to have any new resorts developed and placed in the WM system. Again, not something I would support.



That is not necessarily the case at all.  Vacation Internationale owners terminated the contract with Sunterra, and they are continuing to add inventory (and sell points at retail) even under owner control.  Why would it be different with Worldmark???

More to the point, Wyndham develops resorts in partnership because they make money doing so.  There isn't any reason that relationship couldn't continue.  For that matter, Worldmark could work with other developers as well.  It could be a situation in which Worldmark takes portions of the inventory in a given building, such as they've done at Cascade in Whistler.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 13, 2009)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> More to the point, Wyndham develops resorts in partnership because they make money doing so.  There isn't any reason that relationship couldn't continue.



It could continue, but I think the gun-toting nudist market is a small one.

And the premise is that an independent board results in everyone buying resale, robbing the developer of the ignorant market that will pay retail.

 I know - it is difficult to keep up with jumps in logic on why the release of the e-mail list will lead to anarchy....


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jan 13, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> I know - it is difficult to keep up with jumps in logic on why the release of the e-mail list will lead to anarchy....



Yes - God forbid that people should have free and unfettered access to information before casting their votes. Can  you imagine what government would be like if we allowed that to occur when we conduct elections for public office? ("Pubic office" for the gun-toting nudist senior citizens lobby.)


----------



## larry_WM (Jan 13, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> It could continue, but I think the gun-toting nudist market is a small one.
> 
> And the premise is that an independent board results in everyone buying resale, robbing the developer of the ignorant market that will pay retail.
> 
> I know - it is difficult to keep up with jumps in logic on why the release of the e-mail list will lead to anarchy....




There is no such "independent board" , I don't consider the clowns at wmowners group are independent! They are just an interested group and thet do the same harm to the average owner as same as Wyndham !


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 13, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> It could continue, but I think the gun-toting nudist market is a small one.
> 
> *And the premise is that an independent board results in everyone buying resale, robbing the developer of the ignorant market that will pay retail.*
> 
> I know - it is difficult to keep up with jumps in logic on why the release of the e-mail list will lead to anarchy....



What will happen is a tightening of the spread between resale prices and developer prices.  All it takes is sufficient diffusion of information.  An owner controlled board will just act as a catalyst toward where the industry is already headed.

I find it dumb that many developers are taking actions to try to preserve the price differential between resales and retail.  The more they try to differentiate the product, the greater the gap they create in the pricing between resale and retail, the more difficult they make it for themselves to survive long term.  What they should be doing is just the opposite.  Resort developers should be doing everything they can to INCREASE the value of resales so that the can create a sustainable resale and retail market.  I'd say the price differential should be no more than 30%.

The one scenario where an independent board and the resort developer can work is when the developer takes actions to maximize resale value by keeping costs down in maintenance fees and in new resorts.  If they don't do that, then they will always be at odds with the owners.  Knowledgable owners will not tolerate willingly policies that devalue current owners.  WMowners is all over that issue.  You can be assured that those policies would be killed by an owner majority board.  However, if the resort developer and management company were seeking to maximize resale value, then a blended board could work.  Given how sales oriented Wyndham is, I don't see that being consistent with how they do business.  They could change, but I doubt they will, therefore their ultimate exit from WorldMark the Club.


----------



## Bill4728 (Jan 13, 2009)

BocaBum99 said:


> What will happen is a tightening of the spread between resale prices and developer prices.  All it takes is sufficient diffusion of information.  An owner controlled board will just act as a catalyst toward where the industry is already headed.
> 
> I find it dumb that many developers are taking actions to try to preserve the price differential between resales and retail.  The more they try to differentiate the product, the greater the gap they create in the pricing between resale and retail, the more difficult they make it for themselves to survive long term.  What they should be doing is just the opposite.  Resort developers should be doing everything they can to INCREASE the value of resales so that the can create a sustainable resale and retail market.  I'd say the price differential should be no more than 30%.



If the price difference were only 30%, many more poeple would, IMHO, buy from the developer to avoid the "hassle factor" of buying from a current owner. 

But when you can buy 10,000 pts on the resale market for 1/2 of the price of buying 5,000 pts from the developer, most people will risk the hassle of buying resale (IF THEY KNOW/KNEW ABOUT THE RESALE OPTION)


----------



## PerryM (Jan 13, 2009)

Bill4728 said:


> If the price difference were only 30%, many more poeple would, IMHO, buy from the developer to avoid the "hassle factor" of buying from a current owner.
> 
> But when you can buy 10,000 pts on the resale market for 1/2 of the price of buying 5,000 pts from the developer, most people will risk the hassle of buying resale (IF THEY KNOW/KNEW ABOUT THE RESALE OPTION)



Just got this eMail from the largest WM reseller:

*This is 12k annual Worldmark with 0 unused BUT AN APRIL ANNIVERSARY 
WHEN YOU GET ANOTHER 12K......$6000*

Although this is 50 cents a credit the account has no credits till April.  Rent 12,000 credits for 7 cents each and the purchase price is 54 cents.

50 - 55 cents is what a "fully loaded" WM account goes for on the resale market now from the resale brokers.  You can easily do better on eBay without a broker.  Check Craig's List but be careful.

Wyndham sells the same credits for about $2.00 each.


Wyndham is going to have a tough time convincing WM owners to pay 270% more for the same credits if the WM owner knows of RESALES.  Ma and Pa who wandered into the sales gallery in search of the free gift maybe, smart WM owners no way.


----------



## ecwinch (Jan 13, 2009)

larry_WM said:


> There is no such "independent board" , I don't consider the clowns at wmowners group are independent! They are just an interested group and thet do the same harm to the average owner as same as Wyndham !



I agree, there is no perfect world. However a board who is so beholden to the developer clearly a problem.  



BocaBum99 said:


> The more they try to differentiate the product, the greater the gap they create in the pricing between resale and retail, the more difficult they make it for themselves to survive long term....
> 
> Knowledgable owners will not tolerate willingly policies that devalue current owners.



Agreed. But they do have a proven way for differentiating the product - by creating a tiered ownership plan, with developer sold weeks having more rights then resale weeks. And they know how to do that via their experience with Wynhdam FSP.  They clearly are on the same track with WM. We need to make sure we have a BOD that will not tolerate policies that devalue current owners.

I just am not sure that we have that today. And I am not saying that the developer should not be represented on the board. They are our partner, and they clearly should have voting representation on the BOD.


----------



## Pit (Jan 13, 2009)

This issue is black and white, with two mutually exclusive outcomes:

1) Owners in control
2) Developer out of control

There is no reason owners should not have control over what they own. The developer relationship needs to be managed by the owners. This should be great for resale prices with all those newly educated owners. Think of the surge in demand for resales.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 14, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> I agree, there is no perfect world. However a board who is so beholden to the developer clearly a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tiered ownership plans lead to further divergence of retail vs. resale prices.  Wyndham is the master at this concept.  Buy from the developer at $.11/point.  Buy resale for $.005/point.  That is a >95% divergence in retail vs resale.  THIS RELIES ON IGNORANT OWNERS who stay ignorant forever.

If consumer protection laws required disclosure of the resale market, Wyndham sales would grind to a halt.  Or, the spread between resale and retail pricing would converge.  This would create an imperative by Wyndham to implement policies that help to increase the value of resales.  This is where the industry needs to change.


----------

