# Do we have a right to owners' roster?



## rickandcindy23 (Dec 31, 2005)

Do timeshare owners have a right to ask the board/ management company for a list of timeshare owners' names, addresses and phone numbers?  

This has come up at our resort in Colorado.  I say yes, absolutely, and I am a very new board member at the resort.  The other board members are defering to the management company on the issue.  What is your take?

As a Realtor, I know that public records are open to anyone.  The problem is that timeshare records are vague in Grand County and probably everywhere.  Basically, all you get are the names of the owners with some information but not home address.  I guess that is because the resort as a whole pays property taxes and bills the owners individually, so the county doesn't care where you are.

*Moderators, I did not know where to put this thread and hope to get responses here, but if you think another spot is more appropriate, please move this thread.  Thanks!*


----------



## Dave M (Dec 31, 2005)

Yes, you definitely have the right to ask. However, most resorts will refuse to provide owners' lists. 

The CC&Rs (bylaws, master deed, rules & regs, etc.) for some resorts make it clear that such lists are not available to owners. Your best bet is to review your copy of those documents very carefully. They typically spell out what rights you have as an owner.


----------



## RichM (Dec 31, 2005)

The WorldMark bylaws specifically state that we DO have the right to a list of owners but I know of at least two owners who have been refused such a list when they requested it - privacy reasons or some such nonsense even though the bylaws make it clear it cannot be used for commercial purposes, only for club business.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## JeffV (Dec 31, 2005)

I think there is a real privacy issue here.  I would be very unhappy if I found that the resort had given my personal information out to anyone.


----------



## Kal (Dec 31, 2005)

Just put yourself in the shoes of timeshare owner (M. Fatcat).  His wife doesn't know anything about owning a timeshare as Fatcat only shares it with his girlfriend.  Then someone sends a letter mentioning the timeshare to Fatcat's home.  Wifey may have something to say about this while Fatcat will sue anyone he can get his hands on starting with the BOD.


----------



## RichM (Dec 31, 2005)

The fact that bylaws given to you at the time of purchase stating that a list of owners may be made available on request should trump any privacy issues - if you don't agree, you don't purchase.

As for the cheating husband, that's pretty preposterous.  I don't believe there's any tortious act in accidentally revealing adultery of which one isn't aware.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## timeos2 (Dec 31, 2005)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> Do timeshare owners have a right to ask the board/ management company for a list of timeshare owners' names, addresses and phone numbers?
> 
> This has come up at our resort in Colorado.  I say yes, absolutely, and I am a very new board member at the resort.  The other board members are defering to the management company on the issue.  What is your take?
> 
> ...




As you can guess from the other replies "it depends".  In Florida you absolutely DO NOT have a right to it. You can see it but you cannot use it to contact owners - only the Association has that right.  I know that seems to fly in the face of logic but it is done to protect the owners from unsolicited mail, calls etc. Of course the Developers allowed it as it also makes it hard for owners to find each other and to act as a group against them.  I know in one case it took a lot of work to get the news out to owners when the management, who had also been the devleoper, didn't want it to be sent. The owners won but it took a court battle to do so.  The HOA Board had the ultimate say as they alone had the right to use the list for mailing resort information purposes


----------



## RichM (Dec 31, 2005)

timeos2 said:
			
		

> I know in one case it took a lot of work to get the news out to owners when the management, who had also been the devleoper, didn't want it to be sent. The owners won but it took a court battle to do so.



This is exactly the situation WorldMark owners are in and would be in if there were some need to contact owners independent of the developer/management company, especially since the BOD is also controlled by employees (past and/or present) from the developer/management company.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## roadsister (Jan 1, 2006)

Some thoughts:

1. If someone were granted a list, what good would a list of owners' names do with no addresses? And I can't imagine a membership's info would stipulate that phone numbers must be given.

2. Say there was a mass mailing planned to a timeshares 223,000 owners - who would come up with the roughly $82,510.00 for stamps??? And then we would get back to the point of why press for it when ya can't afford to use it - just to say "I made them give it to me"?  

3.  I don't want my privacy issues to be taken lightly.....I gave the timeshare permission to the information, not a few disgruntled timeshare owners, and would be very upset if every Tom, Dick, and Harry were allowed to request, receive, and *review* my personal information.  

4. I am realistic and know that there are some problems with ALL timeshares, and not everyone agrees with everything that takes place with the developers, management, etc.  There are issues that I don't like, and if they bother me enough to where I can't live with them I will sell my timeshare and be done with it.


----------



## Keitht (Jan 1, 2006)

I would also be extremely unhappy if anybody with a connection to the resort could freely access information about my home address and phone number.  It's all very well to state that the information cannot be used for commercial purposes, but once it is in the public domain it is very difficult to control.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jan 1, 2006)

Kal said:
			
		

> Just put yourself in the shoes of timeshare owner (M. Fatcat).  His wife doesn't know anything about owning a timeshare as Fatcat only shares it with his girlfriend.  Then someone sends a letter mentioning the timeshare to Fatcat's home.  Wifey may have something to say about this while Fatcat will sue anyone he can get his hands on starting with the BOD.



Not sure this would be true since the resort needs to send you a maintenance fee and/or tax bill every year.  So, any correspondance could go directly to that same address and it could be related to timeshare business.


----------



## caribbeansun (Jan 1, 2006)

The Board of Directors would have access to the information however, at least in Canada, the Privacy Act would shut down your ability to use that data for anything other than the purpose it was intended for.  I suspect that different states in the US would have similar laws.


----------



## RichM (Jan 1, 2006)

roadsister said:
			
		

> Some thoughts:
> 
> 1. If someone were granted a list, what good would a list of owners' names do with no addresses? And I can't imagine a membership's info would stipulate that phone numbers must be given.



Guess you better read the WorldMark bylaws that you agreed to when you purchased:

7: RECORDS AND REPORTS
7.1 Inspections.
7.l(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.




			
				roadsister said:
			
		

> 2. Say there was a mass mailing planned to a timeshares 223,000 owners - who would come up with the roughly $82,510.00 for stamps??? And then we would get back to the point of why press for it when ya can't afford to use it - just to say "I made them give it to me"?



Since the list, at least in the case of WorldMark, includes phone numbers, there's no reason why it would need to cost that much to contact a large percentage of owners on the list.  With free night/weekend cellphone time and people in various timezones, it wouldn't cost much at all.



			
				roadsister said:
			
		

> 3.  I don't want my privacy issues to be taken lightly.....I gave the timeshare permission to the information, not a few disgruntled timeshare owners, and would be very upset if every Tom, Dick, and Harry were allowed to request, receive, and *review* my personal information.



In the case of WorldMark, you gave the Club permission to release your name, address and telephone # per 7.1(a) of the bylaws.  Besides, with public records available on the internet, most people could find your address and possibly phone # given just your name and city of residence.



			
				roadsister said:
			
		

> 4. I am realistic and know that there are some problems with ALL timeshares, and not everyone agrees with everything that takes place with the developers, management, etc.  There are issues that I don't like, and if they bother me enough to where I can't live with them I will sell my timeshare and be done with it.



This has nothing to do with timeshare problems or any "disgruntled owners" , as you label them.  All it has to do with is what the bylaws state and whether owners should be able to make contact with the other owners if a need arises.  


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## Kal (Jan 1, 2006)

RichM said:
			
		

> ...Since the list, at least in the case of WorldMark, includes phone numbers, there's no reason why it would need to cost that much to contact a large percentage of owners on the list. With free night/weekend cellphone time and people in various timezones, it wouldn't cost much at all....


 
Yeah, cell phoning each member will save tons of postage costs.  Assuming you spend no more than ONE MINUTE per person and you do it 8-hours a day (week days only) *it will take you about TWO YEARS to get it done* .  After that you can get try to find your life again.


----------



## Keitht (Jan 1, 2006)

RichM said:
			
		

> Besides, with public records available on the internet, most people could find your address and possibly phone # given just your name and city of residence.



I find that hard to believe.  You could probably identify those with unusual names in that way, but I am aware of at least 2 other people living within a few hundred yards of my house with the same forename and surname as me.  That won't be particularly unusual for anybody with a comparatively common name.  (No the surname isn't Smith or Jones).

I appreciate that these comments are diverging from the OP, but when such spurious answers and arguments are put forward they need to be challenged.


----------



## roadsister (Jan 1, 2006)

Rich,

I don't have the *original* bylaws from 12 years ago for my particular timeshare so not sure what was in them.  If someone can find me from calling a phone number that far back (have had 3 phone numbers since then) I take my hat off to them. I do have my timeshare bylaws published last year - perhaps that is something that any timeshare board needs to take a look at for updating or change to protect owners personal information. AS Kal points out it would take 2 years as a fulltime job talking less than one minute to accomplish what you are saying.  No one in their right mind would do that or give up their life to do that.    The bylaws of my timeshare *do not* stipulate or demand that owner email addresses be given out.  
We are back to the fact any ordinary member could not use this information as it would be impossible for mass communications to all the timeshare members so it would be pointless to demand it is the point.

"This has nothing to do with timeshare problems or any "disgruntled owners".
*This has everything to do with the quote above.* I think that's why the part of the bylaw reading from my timeshare documents reads:  to use or allow use of Membership information for commercial or other purposes not reasonably related IS part of the bylaw.

Since you brought it up....What was the reason given to both those owners you mentioned for the timeshare management refusing to give them the information? 

I do agree with Keith - once the info is out there to other owners you have no control over what they use it for....be it information about their club, trying to sell them other timehsares, contacts for a new business startup, personal business database, stalking, etc.

I also wanted to note that I do hear what you're saying Rich.


----------



## RichM (Jan 1, 2006)

I do not have firsthand information on the reason for rejecting the list.  I believe various state codes allowing for the holder of the list to provide a "reasonable alternative" method of contact (i.e. mail out information on their behalf and probably at their expense) were mentioned, but this would not be an option if the owner wished to contact other owners by phone, regardless of the logistics.

As for e-mail addresses, you are correct, WorldMark (which you are referring to as "my timeshare" for some reason even though it's listed in your profile   ) does not stipulate e-mail addresses to be available as part of the owners register.  I don't believe I ever suggested differently.

And, of course, any usage of the list would need to be for a reason related to ownership that is non-commercial in nature.  Certainly BOD candidates wishing to contact potential voters independent of the meager means currently available via the WorldMark election "process" would have good cause to make contact with owners as would anyone wishing to provide their own opinions on proposed amendments to the bylaws up for a vote or any other club-related business.  Currently there is no viable way to discuss club issues with other owners except for the developer-sponsored forum, where you'd likely be censored, or other public forums like TUG and wmowners.com which can only garner membership via word of mouth.

As for the internet search viability - go try for yourself and lookup a few friends in various regions.  Try www.zabasearch.com as a good starting point although there are many others out there.  Faye - do you still live on a street named Mockorange? That's the information zaba gives when searching your name - I have no way to know if it's correct or not.  They haven't "caught up" with my move from Jan. 2005 yet but have several previous addresses on file for me - some correct, some slightly off - most with correct phone #'s.

__________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## pedro47 (Jan 1, 2006)

As a owner to a fixed week at the Marriott Manor House in Williamsburg, VA.
Does any agree that I have the right to sell the owner's roster to a company selling timeshare or to any bank?   No! What happen to everyone privacy.


----------



## RichM (Jan 1, 2006)

In the context of WorldMark's bylaws I would say you don't have that right as that would be a commercial use of an owners' list.  You'd have to see what Marriott's bylaws state (and/or state laws) considering membership lists.

Since many HOA's, specifically WorldMark The Club, are not-for-profit corporations, there are also state laws which provide for and restrict the dissemination of and usage of such information.

__________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 2, 2006)

*What if you are an unhappy owner because the board is doing something crazy?*

What if the rest of the owners were upset that the board decided to put in a swimming pool, clubhouse and restaurant and sent you a bill for your portion?  How would they contact one another to band together, if there is no access to names, phone numbers and addresses?

We automatically send in our proxies to board members who can do with our votes what they wish, so what if a majority of the board had an agenda to turn your ordinary, older resort into a GC or 5 Star?  In order to accomplish this, they send a letter stating their intentions of adding pool, clubhouse restaurant, whatever, with a $1,500 assessment.  You are angry, but you have no idea how to contact other owners to band together against this crazy board.  When you ask for a list, the board denies your ability to acquire it.  The management company holds that it is a privacy issue and that no owner is entitled to a list, and it is not in the by-laws that you can get it, (bylaws which can be changed by the board, by the way).

Could the above situation happen?  Absolutely.  A strong personality on a HOA's board could talk others into a plan such as this one.  Is it likely?  Probably rare, but why do the board members get to make decisions for us when we would rather have a person that has OUR BEST INTERESTS at heart, not the board's.  An owner should be able to ask for proxies and overrule the board.  That is just my opinion.

This is not happening, by the way, but I am a newly-elected member on an HOA board, and an owner asked for a membership list and is being denied access by the board and by the management company.  If this owner has a problem with the way things are going, he should be able to contact other owners.  

All of our names and phone numbers are listed in the phone book, unless we choose to be unpublished.  County records are open to anyone, so I can find out what most people paid for their houses, where there mortage is, what percentage they paid and how much they owed during their last refinance, all via public records.  What would a timeshare owner really be afraid of?


----------



## roadsister (Jan 2, 2006)

RichM said:
			
		

> I do not have firsthand information on the reason for rejecting the list.  I believe various state codes allowing for the holder of the list to provide a "reasonable alternative" method of contact.
> In a previous post you mentioned: ..."two owners who have been refused such a list when they requested it - privacy reasons"...I know you are friends with the owners you were referring to - perhaps you could relay that you are discussing them here and ask for the complete information to post so we can comment on facts instead of guessing about what was said and not said.
> *But, it IS a way to contact owners so they weren't being refused totally in that respect, sounds like they didn't want to make contact the way WM was willing to give them.  I also am wondering if each state has laws that supercede timeshare bylaws that deal with privacy - could that be part of the limited way WM was giving them for communication??*
> 
> ...


----------



## RichM (Jan 2, 2006)

rickandcindy23 - you gave an entirely plausible and concrete example that absolutely supports why such a list should be made available.

As for the developer-sponsored "Ask the candidates" forum, it's non-realtime, moderated format made it a joke in my mind.  It did, however, clearly show which candidates had a grasp of the club issues and which candidates were just regurgitating a sales pitch they once heard.  

While it's an extreme longshot, I honestly hope Jim Pappas does win a seat on the WM board as I feel he is a level-headed, honest, moderate owner who truly understands the past, present and future issues.

Sorry to digress from the issue at hand, back to the topic.

As for the WM owners that have been denied the list, I'm sure they read here and will comment if they choose to.  It's not my job to keep them apprised of threads on various forums.  As for the state laws - most that I've read actually SUPPORT the owners' rights to a list.  For example, take the California Corporations Code, specifically section 8330 under "Rights of Inspection" as it relates to non-profic mutual benefit corporations (WorldMark the Club is such a corporation):

8330.  (a) Subject to Sections 8331 and 8332, and unless the
corporation provides a reasonable alternative pursuant to subdivision
(c), a member may do either or both of the following as permitted by
subdivision (b):
   (1) *Inspect and copy the record of all the members' names,
addresses and voting rights*, at reasonable times, upon five business
days' prior written demand upon the corporation which demand shall
state the purpose for which the inspection rights are requested; or
   (2) Obtain from the secretary of the corporation, upon written
demand and tender of a reasonable charge, *a list of the names,
addresses and voting rights* of those members entitled to vote for the
election of directors, as of the most recent record date for which
it has been compiled or as of a date specified by the member
subsequent to the date of demand.  The demand shall state the purpose
for which the list is requested.  The membership list shall be made
available on or before the later of ten business days after the
demand is received or after the date specified therein as the date as
of which the list is to be compiled.

This is where I mentioned the concept of "reasonable alternatives" which is something that would probably need to be decided in a court if the requestor deemed the proposed alternative as unreasonable.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## roadsister (Jan 2, 2006)

"While it's an extreme longshot, I honestly hope Jim Pappas does win a seat on the WM board as I feel he is a level-headed, honest, moderate owner who truly understands the past, present and future issues."

Well we have found something to agree on.  I do think Jim would be an awesome board member - he seemed to be very level-headed who truly understands the club compared to some of the other candidates.  I am afraid, like you, that it is a longshot....maybe appointed is what we need to hope for eh?


----------



## roadsister (Jan 2, 2006)

"I am a newly-elected member on an HOA board, and an owner asked for a membership list and is being denied access by the board and by the management company."

*Cindy,
Could you help us out here and elaborate as to why the owner was denied access by the board/management company?  This may help with others who have had the same problem.*


----------



## roadsister (Jan 2, 2006)

"As for the internet search viability - go try for yourself and lookup a few friends in various regions. Try www.zabasearch.com as a good starting point although there are many others out there. Faye - do you still live on a street named Mockorange? That's the information zaba gives when searching your name - I have no way to know if it's correct or not. 

Rich,
I think you have just proved my point about taking owner information from one source to use for a another reason and that it is impossible to control once someone has the list.
I did a search on zabasearch for _roadsister_ and for_ Faye_ as my first name is the *only * information that is public on this forum and nothing turned up.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 2, 2006)

*I don't think they have a valid reason to deny the roster.*

There is no reason to deny an owner the names, addresses and phone numbers to other members.  They basically do not want to give it, but are using the excuse that it is a privacy issue and the board does not want to be liable.  Of course, I am voting to give the information to any person who asks, but I know that everything in our lives is not private.  Privacy has absolutely nothing to do with it.  

One board member is worried about identity theft.  That is just goofy.  You can't steal anyone's identity with names and phone numbers and addresses.  If you could, the phone book would be a valuable asset to criminals!

I can get some members' information on county records.  County records are free.  I can find the resort and the grantors (owners) by looking at the resort's name as grantee in Grand County. 

This is an example of a board that sets itself above everyone else.  I just joined the board in November for that reason, but I can tell you that being the lone voice on this issue just makes me think I will be frozen out on every issue.  Most of the board has been in place for many years, with one board member on for over twenty years.  Communication has been lacking for that long.  This group will have an annual meeting, gather proxies and never give a count of proxies at the meeting to make sure they have quorum.  They discuss nothing of any importance at the annual meeting, then two months later we will get an assessment for some improvements that were never discussed at the annual meeting.  They withold information to the extent that members feel powerless. 

Gee, I wonder why an owner would want to have a roster.


----------



## RichM (Jan 2, 2006)

Yep, that's the real point - under the guise of "privacy" and concerns of "liability", the lists are denied to help keep a stranglehold on information, control the dissmenation of information to owners, and keep up the attitude that "What they don't know can't hurt them."


----------



## Tia (Jan 2, 2006)

Might try setting up a yahoo egroup, or a website, with the resort name. That is how a group of concerned owners from my one resort started gathering and communicating. They developed a following and were elected to the board, much to the dismay of FF, to get control back in the hands of owners from a developer. It hasn't been easy though even with owners on our board, as our developer continues to fight for control.


----------



## ThaiChef1 (Jan 3, 2006)

*I'm not a disgruntled owner...I love WorldMark!*

I'm one of those WorldMark owners who have requested the owners list.  In compliance with the bylaws, I have requested the list (twice) in writing with a signed and notarized statement agreeing not to use it for commercial purposes, nor for purposes not related to my interests as a WorldMark owner.

I have flown to Redmond and have made the request, in person, to both Dave Herrick and to Gene Hensley.  I have made the request by email, etc. etc.

I am not a disgruntled WorldMark owner.  I believe that WorldMark is the best timeshare available today.  I also believe that the WorldMark board of directors should not be controlled by Trendwest.  Given that I have this belief, why should I submit myself to contact owners through the channels of communication provided by Trendwest?  That just doesn't make sense, especially when both state law and the bylaws provide for alternative means.

WorldMark owns property in my state.  WorldMark is a registered foreign corporation in my state and must abide by the laws of my state.  These state laws, and the laws of nearly all the states, require that all non-profit corporations allow owners to have access to the owners list.  While California does provide for a reasonable alternative, a California court has already ruled that a board of directors doing a mailing on behalf of the requesting owner does not constitute a reasonable alternative.

The WorldMark bylaws require that owners be given access to the names, addresses and phone numbers of all WorldMark owners.  It does not provide that an owner my opt out.  It does not provide for privacy concerns.  Whether or not privacy should be an issue, it's not part of the governing bylaws nor state law.

Last month I took this matter to court.  While the court ruled that I had not chosen the proper venue (a ruling that I believe to be flawed), the judge told WorldMark that if he were to rule on the issue, he would be inclined to rule in my favor.  At this point, I have several legal avenues.  I will continue to pursue this.  Whether or not people agree my position, I'm sure that everyone agrees with my right to take these actions.

It has been said that it would take 2 years of a person's time working 8 hours per day.  Of course no reasonable person would take that approach.  Is it so hard to believe that there are a large number of WorldMark owners who desire an independent board of directors?  Is it so hard to believe that sufficient numbers of those owners might be found who would be willing to spend their time and resources to help with this cause?  

Finally, I ask that everyone at least consider the following questions:  Why do the WorldMark bylaws, written by Trendwest, allow owners to obtain the owners list if Trendwest were never willing to provide it?  Why did Trendwest ever write it into the bylaws?  In fact, why did they go beyond what is required by state law and offer that phone numbers be provided?

In the end, I believe that a WorldMark with an independent board of directors would be a better club.  Certainly reasonable people may disagree without deriding those who have differing opinions.


--Jay


----------



## Mel (Jan 3, 2006)

Club type memberships will operate differently, but with some diligent research, you could come up with the names and at least original addresses of owners at any deeded resort - directly from the deeds recorded with the county.  Yes, it would be a great deal of work, but a list ow owners could be compiled.

It is reasonable to expect the resort to give contact information, or to act as a conduit if the request is related to resort business.  There are many sold-out resorts that are still run by the management company, and that is a problem.  Under those circumstances it has to be difficult to break in as a new board member.


----------



## roadsister (Jan 3, 2006)

ThaiChef1 wrote: _I have requested the list (twice) in writing....
I have flown to Redmond and have made the request, in person, .... I have made the request by email, etc. etc...._

Jay,
Thank you for post (and Rich, thanks for contacting your friend Jay).  The one question I have is in regard to the quotes above.  You didn't say what the negative response was or what it said in your post here.  I am asking you to share with us.  Perhaps it will help Cindy who originally posted regarding a different timeshare.  Perhaps it will help other WM owners not understanding the situation.

It is in the bylaws, it should be available.  BUT I *do not* agree that every member should be able to have the information so readily... we can agree to disagree on that issue.

"Why did Trendwest ever write it into the bylaws?"  I am wondering WHEN the bylaw was written and IF JenWeld maybe wrote it?


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 4, 2006)

roadsister said:
			
		

> ThaiChef1 wrote: _I have requested the list (twice) in writing....
> I have flown to Redmond and have made the request, in person, .... I have made the request by email, etc. etc...._
> 
> Jay,
> ...



Hi Faye,

I've been out of the loop lately so I'm glad that I was pointed to this discussion.  Happy New Year!  I hope you've had a great holiday season   

Basically the negative responses from Trendwest indicated that they had never given the list to any member who had requested it.  In fact I've spoken with a former director who requested the list while he was a director and was refused access.  The bylaws and state law give any member the right to the list, but they give an absolute right for a director to obtain the list.  Even if you personally feel that not all members should have access to the list, are you upset that Trendwest refused to give a director access to that list?

The specific reason stated in the first letter of denial was "....because of privacy and other concerns...".  I was verbally told that the list is considered to be a trade secret of Trendwest's.  Think about this...Trendwest and WorldMark are separate companies.  One is a for-profit corporation, the other is a non-profit corporation.  Trendwest, as a for-profit corporation is given access to the list of WorldMark owners.  They use that access for commercial purposes.  I did not purchase any of my credits from Trendwest, yet they are allowed to have, through access to the list, my information as a WorldMark owner.  They use that access to call me and market their products to me....that's simply not right and a clear violation of how the owners list is supposed to be used.  

Allowing any/all members access to the list may seem like a bad thing, but it's the law.  The rights of owners in a non-profit corporation to overcome the will of the management (in this case Trendwest) is considered to outweigh the negative effects of privacy issues.  The law (and bylaws) don't say "you must provide access to the owners list...unless you have concerns about privacy".  Instead, they give the right for an owner, any owner, to have access to the list, so long as the owner will not use the list for improper purposes....and if the owner does use the list for improper purposes, Trendwest can take the issue to court and with the potential of causing financial ruin to a person.  There are remedies in place that can be used against people who misuse the list...in fact there's a California case in which Trendwest sued an ex-employee who was accused of misusing their access to the list.  

JenWeld may have written it in the bylaws, but it is in the bylaws, part of the documents which govern the non-profit corporation.  I'm simply asking that they give me access to the list which is a right given to me in the bylaws of our club....and I promise not to misuse my access to the list  ...I certainly don't want to get sued by a large and powerful corporation   

Moderator, I wonder if this thread would more properly reside somewhere else...like in the points based discussions.

--Jay


----------



## Dave M (Jan 4, 2006)

ThaiChef said:
			
		

> Moderator, I wonder if this thread would more properly reside somewhere else...like in the points based discussions.


This discussion is applicable to all timeshares - points, weeks, floating, fixed, hotel-based, etc. Thus, this forum would seem the appropriate place for the topic. The purpose of this forum is for "discussions that don't fit into the other defined forum areas."


----------



## LLW (Jan 5, 2006)

roadsister said:
			
		

> 3. I don't want my privacy issues to be taken lightly.....I gave the timeshare permission to the information, not a few disgruntled timeshare owners, and would be very upset if every Tom, Dick, and Harry were allowed to request, receive, and review my personal information.





			
				ThaiChef said:
			
		

> Basically the negative responses from Trendwest indicated that they had never given the list to any member who had requested it.  In fact I've spoken with a former director who requested the list while he was a director and was refused access.  The bylaws and state law give any member the right to the list, but they give an absolute right for a director to obtain the list.  Even if you personally feel that not all members should have access to the list, are you upset that Trendwest refused to give a director access to that list?
> 
> The specific reason stated in the first letter of denial was "....because of privacy and other concerns...".  I was verbally told that the list is considered to be a trade secret of Trendwest's.  Think about this...Trendwest and WorldMark are separate companies.  One is a for-profit corporation, the other is a non-profit corporation.  Trendwest, as a for-profit corporation is given access to the list of WorldMark owners.  They use that access for commercial purposes.  I did not purchase any of my credits from Trendwest, yet they are allowed to have, through access to the list, my information as a WorldMark owner.  They use that access to call me and market their products to me....that's simply not right and a clear violation of how the owners list is supposed to be used.
> 
> Allowing any/all members access to the list may seem like a bad thing, but it's the law.  The rights of owners in a non-profit corporation to overcome the will of the management (in this case Trendwest) is considered to outweigh the negative effects of privacy issues.  The law (and bylaws) don't say "you must provide access to the owners list...unless you have concerns about privacy".




Cendant tells Worldmark owners that unless an individual owner explicitly opts out, Cendant may give third party commercial companies (who "may have an interest in providing you with other products and services") Worldmark owner information such as name, address, social security number, account balances, payment histories; credit worthiness or credit history; employment, credit and other relationships; asset, income and debt information. (Privacy Notice, October 2005 club Destinations magazine)

How can they then use the privacy argument against giving WM owners information allowed by the WM bylaws? 
__________________


----------



## PA- (Jan 5, 2006)

roadsister said:
			
		

> Some thoughts:
> 
> 1. If someone were granted a list, what good would a list of owners' names do with no addresses? And I can't imagine a membership's info would stipulate that phone numbers must be given.
> 
> ...



That's all I've got to say on the issue.  I respect your opinion on the matter, and won't further argue my opinion.  Feel free to disagree if you wish.


----------



## PA- (Jan 5, 2006)

Sorry, I just had a couple of other responses.



			
				roadsister said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> 3.  ...I gave the timeshare permission to the information, not a few disgruntled timeshare owners,....
> 
> ...


----------



## Tia (Jan 5, 2006)

They, Cendant, can say whatever they like as they know it's going to take legal action to make them comply, imho, with what is written. Then most Davids are not going to be able to go up against Goliath. Sad reality.



			
				LLW said:
			
		

> Cendant tells.............
> 
> How can they then use the privacy argument against giving WM owners information allowed by the WM bylaws?
> __________________


----------



## roadsister (Jan 5, 2006)

Roadsister wrote:
"....no one running for the WM board was censored as we all witnessed on the WM ask the candidate forum and I was glad to see that..."

PA wrote:
"I ran for the WM board, and I beg to differ with you. I was in a position to know." 

PA -
I am very confused...on another forum I copied this statement you wrote:
 "Gene let me know that they would NOT be censoring my position statement after all."  

You must be the other person besides Thai (Jay) that requested the list of owners from TW.  It is too bad they didn't let you even look at it at the corporate office.


----------



## PA- (Jan 5, 2006)

roadsister said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> PA -
> I am very confused...on another forum I copied this statement you wrote:
> ...



It's true that they changed their tune on censoring my position statement (but only after threatening legal action).  Of course, that's not the only method of censoring they used during the election.  It wouldn't be appropriate, at this time, to go into more detail; perhaps in the next few months, but not now.  I'm guessing the original poster is wondering how this discussion has strayed so far anyway. 

As for whether I'm the other person that requested the owner's list, I can tell you that the list has been requested by a large number of people over the years.  Trendwest would have you believe that "you're the first person who's ever _____"  (fill in the blank with) 

1)  Asked for that
2)  complained about the lack of ____ (access to owners, fairness in the election process, etc, etc, etc)
3)  Brought that up
4)  questioned that
etc.

I can't tell you how many times I heard that in the last few months.  But it isn't true.  The more people I talk to, the more it becomes apparent they like to treat us like mushrooms.  Keep us in the dark, and feed us manure.  By keeping us seperated from each other, they can pretend that we're the oddballs, that all the other owners are happy with their direction and that no other owners have ever brought up similar issues.


----------



## roadsister (Jan 6, 2006)

PA wrote:
"As for whether I'm the other person that requested the owner's list, I can tell you that the list has been requested by a large number of people over the years."

Soooooooo, simply answer, that's a yes!


----------



## cotraveller (Jan 6, 2006)

ThaiChef1 said:
			
		

> I'm one of those WorldMark owners who have requested the owners list.  In compliance with the bylaws, I have requested the list (twice) in writing with a signed and notarized statement agreeing not to use it for commercial purposes, nor for purposes not related to my interests as a WorldMark owner.


Hello Jay, it’s been a while since we last communicated.  After reading your posts on this subject I have one question that I didn’t see answered.  To the best of my knowledge you were not a candidate for the board or for any other position within WorldMark or Trendwest or Cendant.  So my question is, what specifically was your reason for  requesting the owner list?


----------



## normbailey (Jan 6, 2006)

*And I'd also like to ask . . .*



			
				cotraveller said:
			
		

> Hello Jay, it’s been a while since we last communicated.  After reading your posts on this subject I have one question that I didn’t see answered.  To the best of my knowledge you were not a candidate for the board or for any other position within WorldMark or Trendwest or Cendant.  So my question is, what specifically was your reason for  requesting the owner list?



I'm with Fred.  I'd like to know the specific reason for asking the club for MY personal and private information.  I know of NO OTHER reason for someone in that position to ask for all of that information except that they want to exploit that information for their own personal benefit.  They're after either their own personal gain, my money, or my identity.  Or all three.  And if the club were to provide this sort of information to these askers, I'd be one of the first in line at an attorney's office to start civil action against the club for releasing said information.

As for the by-laws, I'm growing quite fatigued at reading people making claims that the by-laws provide for this release of information to owners on request.  However, to date, I still haven't seen ANYONE provide an page number, paragraph number, section title, or subsection title, where the rest of us can see for ourselves just what the wording is.  

And until I see something that points specifically to the verbage they "claim" is there, all I'm seeing is someone blowing smoke and slinging bull[censored].


----------



## RichM (Jan 6, 2006)

First of all, the bylaws clearly state that anyone requesting the information CAN'T use it for personal gain (i.e. commercial purposes).

Oh, and the relevant section from the WM bylaws WAS posted earlier in this thread, but I'll do it again:



> 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


----------



## normbailey (Jan 6, 2006)

RichM said:
			
		

> Oh, and the relevant section from the WM bylaws WAS posted earlier in this thread, but I'll do it again:




Thanks, Rich.  I didn't see that until after I'd posted my previous message.  Thanks for providing it again, though.

On this issue I find it interesting that some are interpreting the words in their favor and in support of their efforts.  On the other hand, I'm reading the words *"reasonably related to his interests as a Member"* and *"reasonably related to the affairs of the Club"* and seeing that these are very subjective phrases that could fit many interpretations.  And, from what I can see, the requestor would have to ask for the list and the determination of whether or not to grant that request clearly rests in the hands of the club and not those who are trying to interpret this bylaw to their benefit.

It reminds me of kids asking one parent for something and getting a no in response.  Then they ask another parent and if they get a positive response, they're happy.  If not, they pout.

For me, though, I perfer to use my real and legal name on forums like this.  There are others who choose to do so as well.  It's easy enough to find my address and phone number online, and all I can say is that if you show up at my doorstep you'll see a "no soliciting" sign which you damn well better honor or you'll be dealing with something very unpleasant.  I also have paid for a service through my phone company that filters callers and warns them that if they are a solicitor they better hang up or face potential loss of ability to sell in my state from our attorney general's office.

And, like I said, if the club were to release my information to those in this thread who have indicated they are asking for it, I'd be one of the first to seek legal action against the club for doing that.  

Maybe someone could start an online poll or setup a "voluntary" information sharing site.  That way those who want to divulge their information to these requestors can do so.


----------



## RichM (Jan 6, 2006)

Obviously you're allowed to take legal action against anyone you choose, but I don't see how the club could be held liable for releasing your information to someone per the bylaws.  If the person using the list were to engage in activitiy outside of the allowable uses of the list, then, perhaps, they could be held liable for their own actions.

For sake of an example, not suggesting this is or was a reason a list has been requested, if a person wishing to run as a candidate fo the WM Board wanted to, at their own cost, contact owners with a more robust statement of position than the 150 words allotted them in Destiations, the bylaws seem to support their right to request the owners register and contact owners for that purpose as it would be directly related to that person's interests as a member and reasonably related to the affairs of the club.

In another example, if someone wanted to propose an amendment to the bylaws or a change to the guidelines and wanted to seek input or support from owners, or they wanted to express their opinions for or against a proposed amendment currently on the ballot for an upcoming election, then that would also seem to be an instance where an owner would be perfectly within their rights as a member of the club to request and use the list to contact other owners.

And, also, again purely as an example, if an owner wanted to send out a letter stating their opinions on any aspect of the club whether it be upkeep, maintenance fees, management, new locations, service concerns, etc. my opinion would be that an owner could choose to do this at their expense and it would be within the spirit of the bylaws.

Any of these examples are valid reasons for wishing to contact the rest of the membership and I can't see how the club could deny the list for any of these purposes.

Obviously, trying to sell anything to owners via the list or using the list as a set of sales leads in any way would be outside the spirit of the bylaws and should be prohibited.  In such a case an owner or even the Club itself could probably sue anyone that used the list in such a fashion.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 6, 2006)

*I would like to point out that owners sometimes need to band together,*

in their own best interests, against a board or developer.

Imagine that a decision is made by the board that is in power that you feel is a total waste of money.  The board is given all power to do anything they wish with your money and assess you accordingly.  Many owners are upset but have no way of pulling together.  Each caller to the management company or developer to express concerns is told, "you are the only one complaining."  

Someone pointed out earlier that you don't have to vote those people in again.  Well, unless you have an opportunity to talk to people about issues, how can you win a board position?  The board has all the proxies.

Common sense should prevail here.  Those of you that are worried you will get a solicitation, it is just another piece of junk mail you can toss or disconnect with a polite, "no, thank you."  

Where do these scammers from Vacation Solutions and several others, I can't remember their names, get our addresses?  I always wonder because I get those mailings all the time.  I toss them.  It is your right to do that, but if you are sitting in your home, wondering whether you should sell your timeshare because the board or developer has become too greedy, you might be glad someone took the time to write to you.

Information is available in county records on any homeowner.  As a Realtor in Colorado, I can look up any person I wish, by name or address, and see what they paid for their home, where they financed, when they refinanced, what second mortgages they took out, etc. * I taught classes for three years at Metrolist in Denver to Realtors and mortgage brokers, telling them how to get homeowners' addresses and phone numbers, and it is LEGAL.*  Metrolist makes $8.00 an hour for their compilation of this information from 15 counties and counting.  I can find various records at our own resort for free online, but compiling a list would be a difficult task that I would rather not take on. 

If you are going to fight against owners at your resort to keep them from getting a phone/address list, that is the least of your worries, take my word for it.  All of those solicitations you get from mortgage companies and Realtors are from county records.  That bothers me a whole lot more than fellow owners, people in the same boat as me, having my information.  

It is just COMMON SENSE to me.     If people are determined they want to find you, they will find you.  Have you seen those sites that you can pay to get information on people?  It costs $40 a day or something, but you can find people based on past addresses and phone numbers, etc.  One of our classmates decided to do that for our 30 year reunion two years ago and found many people that way.  They were happy to hear from the committee, mostly.  We found someone who wanted to remain anonymous and asked that her name not be published on our list, but she was the only person that felt her privacy was being invaded.  

When you have something in common with others, you really don't mind if they have your name, address and phone numbers, generally.  What could it hurt?

It is a good political discussion and all opinions are respected, but privacy has nothing to do with this.


----------



## normbailey (Jan 6, 2006)

*Point and Counterpoint.  It's all a matter of opinion.*

Political debates like this are always interesting to observe.  I hope everyone realizes that we should be doing this with no ill feelings or hostility.  Just voicing our opinions on things we don't necessarily see eye-to-eye on.



			
				RichM said:
			
		

> Obviously you're allowed to take legal action against anyone you choose, but I don't see how the club could be held liable for releasing your information to someone per the bylaws.  If the person using the list were to engage in activitiy outside of the allowable uses of the list, then, perhaps, they could be held liable for their own actions.
> 
> When I bought into the club I agreed to abide by the rules and bylaws of the club.  Those bylaws clearly state that a request can be made by any owner.  They DO NOT, however, state that the response has to be yes from the club.  It implies that the club will decide on a case by case basis whether or not to provide the requested informaiton.  And, I believe that in this case the club's response was in the best interest of the majority of owners.  If the majority of owners want to change this bylaw and give every owner a guaranteed access to the list of owners, then they'll need to revise the bylaws through the established (and agreed upon) procedure for doing that.
> 
> ...


----------



## RichM (Jan 6, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> Political debates like this are always interesting to observe.  I hope everyone realizes that we should be doing this with no ill feelings or hostility.  Just voicing our opinions on things we don't necessarily see eye-to-eye on.



Agreed.



			
				RichM said:
			
		

> Obviously you're allowed to take legal action against anyone you choose, but I don't see how the club could be held liable for releasing your information to someone per the bylaws. If the person using the list were to engage in activitiy outside of the allowable uses of the list, then, perhaps, they could be held liable for their own actions.





			
				normbailey said:
			
		

> When I bought into the club I agreed to abide by the rules and bylaws of the club. Those bylaws clearly state that a request can be made by any owner. They DO NOT, however, state that the response has to be yes from the club. It implies that the club will decide on a case by case basis whether or not to provide the requested informaiton. And, I believe that in this case the club's response was in the best interest of the majority of owners. If the majority of owners want to change this bylaw and give every owner a guaranteed access to the list of owners, then they'll need to revise the bylaws through the established (and agreed upon) procedure for doing that.



It does not say "a request can be made" it says these records "shall be made available for inspection and copying, upon written demand and reasonable notice".  There is no need for a bylaw change to guarantee access to the list as the bylaw, as currently written, simply says the register will be made available upon request.




			
				RichM said:
			
		

> For sake of an example, not suggesting this is or was a reason a list has been requested, if a person wishing to run as a candidate fo the WM Board wanted to, at their own cost, contact owners with a more robust statement of position than the 150 words allotted them in Destiations, the bylaws seem to support their right to request the owners register and contact owners for that purpose as it would be directly related to that person's interests as a member and reasonably related to the affairs of the club.





			
				normbailey said:
			
		

> That's the subjective part of the bylaws, and personally, I disagree that this is a legitimate reason to grant access to the information. Let's submit a proposed change to the bylaws and see if the majority of owners agrees. And, included in that proposed change, let's recommend that such a granting of information would only be given to those candidates who answered all ten of the online questions posed to them on the forum.
> 
> Oops. That would really narrow the field, wouldn't it? Still, the questions that went unanswered were important to someone. I know which ones were important to me and sure would like to know why some candidates chose to ignore them altogether.



This is probably the single-most relevant usage for the owner list - campaigning for the BOD.  As PA has pointed out before, the incumbents (the former/present TW employees) such as Gene, Peggy and Dave already have broad access to the owners via columns or articles in Destinations.  Others running for the board are given 150 words in one issue, a short 3 min. speech at a low-attendance annual meeting (compared to the total owner base) and, for the first time this year, a moderated, non-real-time q&a forum.

In my opininon, there should be no problem with any owner wishing to campaign for the board being allowed access to the owner list to get whatever level of exposure they want.



			
				RichM said:
			
		

> In another example, if someone wanted to propose an amendment to the bylaws or a change to the guidelines and wanted to seek input or support from owners, or they wanted to express their opinions for or against a proposed amendment currently on the ballot for an upcoming election, then that would also seem to be an instance where an owner would be perfectly within their rights as a member of the club to request and use the list to contact other owners.





			
				normbailey said:
			
		

> And speaking of bylaws and proposed amendments, the bylaws themselves provide for proposing changes in Section 9.6. I don't see where it's required to send out a mass mailing to all members just to get a proposed change into the voting process.



Of course it's not required to send out a mass mailing, but if you were able to get a bylaw change on the ballot, how would you contact owners to explain your reasoning behind the change? How do bylaw changes get on the ballot now? - probably proposed at quarterly board meetings? How would an owner be able to voice their opinion against such a change?  Contacting the owners is how..



			
				RichM said:
			
		

> And, also, again purely as an example, if an owner wanted to send out a letter stating their opinions on any aspect of the club whether it be upkeep, maintenance fees, management, new locations, service concerns, etc. my opinion would be that an owner could choose to do this at their expense and it would be within the spirit of the bylaws.





			
				normbailey said:
			
		

> Lets' see now, if I wanted to send out a personal letter to 150,000 of my closest friends, telling them my feelings and opinions about the club, I think that would probably cost in the neighborhood of $55,000 of first class postage. I have no idea what it would cost for bulk rates, but it's not going to be cheap. Maybe that's why spammers use the internet and not the postal services around the world. And that's precisely what I'd call such a mailing. SPAM. There's a forum at WorldMark, and the WMOWNERS.COM website, and this one here. Those are all free and reach a fairly diverse spectrum of owners. Raising issues and perceived concerns here should produce enough results to give someone the ability to gauge whether or not the masses would agree with a certain issue. In this case, I don't see the masses rallying around the need for sharing the addresses as proposed by this thread. But, until someone puts it into the mill as a formal proposal to change the bylaws, all we're faced with again is simply speculation and a lot of subjective interpretations of what folks "feel" might be true or not.



The cost is irrelevant - if someone wanted to do it they should be able to.  The participation in the forums is by such a low percentage of owners that it really doesn't count for much.  Again, there's no bylaw change needed, the bylaws are clear as to the list.



			
				RichM said:
			
		

> Any of these examples are valid reasons for wishing to contact the rest of the membership and I can't see how the club could deny the list for any of these purposes.





			
				normbailey said:
			
		

> As you said, these are examples you've brought up and not actual results. But to just imply that they could be denied is pretty judgemental. Maybe someone who thinks this is a critically important issue could step forward and volunteer to test these theoretical scenarios out? Then maybe we could have actual facts instead of speculations.



Unless someone steps forward and says that they tried to obtain the list for one of these reasons, or some other reason, there's no way to know.  I know I, personally, have never requested access to the owners list.   The response Jay received for his request (again, I don't know if he gave a reason why he wanted it) did not seem to deny him the list for a specific purpose but, rather, his denial was a "broad" denial "....because of privacy and other concerns...", whatever that means.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## roadsister (Jan 6, 2006)

"it says these records "shall be made available for inspection and copying"

My interpretation of this is *I can look at it* and *IF I have brought a copier * with me I can copy the documents.


----------



## cotraveller (Jan 6, 2006)

RichM said:
			
		

> Any of these examples are valid reasons for wishing to contact the rest of the membership and I can't see how the club could deny the list for any of these purposes.



All of the examples you list as well as others I have seen here and elsewhere are cases of an individual or group believing that they know what is in my best interest better than I do.  That is a concept I do not readily accept.  Contact in that case is treading a very fine line between their perceived interest in promoting their cause and my interest in maintaining my privacy.

The issue of what is right or wrong about WorldMark has been hashed and rehashed many times, on this forum and others.  Each rehash seems to always cover a few new areas along with revisiting the old ones.   I’m open to continuing that discussion if anyone cares to start a new thread in the Points System Discussions area which is where it rightfully belongs since it will delve into some very specific WorldMark issues.

In the meantime, my original question, directed at those who requested the list, still stands.  What was/is their reason for requesting the owner list?


----------



## normbailey (Jan 6, 2006)

cotraveller said:
			
		

> . . . a very fine line between their perceived interest in promoting their cause and my interest in maintaining my privacy . . .



Thank you, Fred.  You succinctly stated what I was trying to express but failed to do so.  I hope an answer eventually emerges from all of this.

The more I read of this topic, here and on the wmowners.com forum, the more I picture Star Wars in my mind.  With Luke Skywalker and the Jedi Knights taking on Darth Vader and the Evil Empire.....


----------



## RichM (Jan 6, 2006)

roadsister said:
			
		

> "it says these records "shall be made available for inspection and copying"
> 
> My interpretation of this is *I can look at it* and *IF I have brought a copier * with me I can copy the documents.



Faye - this is covered as well in the same section:



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



They would just bill the requestor for fees to copy the records.

It's all clearly spelled out.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## RichM (Jan 6, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> Thank you, Fred.  You succinctly stated what I was trying to express but failed to do so.  I hope an answer eventually emerges from all of this.
> 
> The more I read of this topic, here and on the wmowners.com forum, the more I picture Star Wars in my mind.  With Luke Skywalker and the Jedi Knights taking on Darth Vader and the Evil Empire.....



It's not about good vs. evil, it's simply about exercising rights spelled out in the bylaws.  As long as the request is made for a purpose in-line with club business, privacy issues are moot since the bylaws are given to every owner at the time of purchase.  I still contend that various hypothetical purposes proposed in this thread are in-line with the guidelines of usage set forth in the bylaws.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## normbailey (Jan 7, 2006)

RichM said:
			
		

> It's not about good vs. evil, it's simply about exercising rights spelled out in the bylaws.  As long as the request is made for a purpose in-line with club business, privacy issues are moot since the bylaws are given to every owner at the time of purchase.  I still contend that various hypothetical purposes proposed in this thread are in-line with the guidelines of usage set forth in the bylaws.



I believe you corrected me previously for using the word "request" instead of the word "demand", as is written in the bylaws.  Now you've used the word "request" here yourself.  

So, I staunchly hold my position that any owner can solicit the list, in accordance with the bylaws, but I don't believe that it's mandatory that the club comply with every such demand.  I believe the club still has a higher responsibility and that is to assess each such demand/request/solicitation on its own, and make the necessary judgment call as to whether said demand/request/solicitation is indeed within the conditions set forth in those bylaws.

That's their fiduciary responsibility and that's what we elect them to do.  If some of the ownership disagrees with their position they can do a number of things such as petition for a revision to the bylaws, campaign to replace the board, take legal action, and so on.

For me, I think I'm going to save my bits and bites for more meaningful (to me) discussions.  My bits and bytes buckets are running low right now, and the last time I was at Office Depot they were out of the bits and bytes that work in my keyboard, so I've got them on back order.  I'd hate to run out of them in the middle of an important thou.......

Dang.  There they go.


----------



## RichM (Jan 7, 2006)

Actually, I responded to you when you said:



> Those bylaws clearly state that a request can be made by any owner. They DO NOT, however, state that the response has to be yes from the club.



By quoting the bylaws which state:



> these records "shall be made available for inspection and copying, upon written demand and reasonable notice".



The point I was making had nothing to do with the word "request" or "demand", it had to do with the fact that the bylaws don't leave any room for the Club to decide whether or not to release the records if/when they are requested, demanded, whatever.  

The bylaws simply say that the records "shall be made available" when asked for.

The only restriction the Club may place is also spelled out:



> 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.



So, the records "shall be made available", but the requestor may have to sign an agreement promising to use them only for Club purposes.

Seems simple enough.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## normbailey (Jan 7, 2006)

RichM said:
			
		

> The point I was making had nothing to do with the word "request" or "demand", it had to do with the fact that the bylaws don't leave any room for the Club to decide whether or not to release the records if/when they are requested, demanded, whatever.



If the point you were trying to make was what you just stated, why the heck did you feel it necessary to say _It does not say "a request can be made" it says ......."_?

I was just paraphrasing the bylaws, the same as you keep doing in your responses back to me.  Just like your statement _The bylaws simply say that the records "shall be made available" when *asked* for._

Seems to me that using words like ask, request, etc. should be acceptable interpretations and paraphrasing of the quoted bylaw.

So, if I'm reading your statements correctly, you're saying that every single member of the club has a right to ask for and be given a copy of the master list of members, their addresses and phone numbers.  And all they have to do is sign the paper and pay whatever fee is required.

How practical is that?  I don't know the exact number of owners, but if all of them were to do that, and the club was obliged to fulfill that "order" for lists, why not just make them a part of the annual mailing of the voting information?

Why?  Because I don't believe the "spirit" of this bylaw was what is being interpreted by some.  There is a huge difference between some "letters of the law" and the "spirit of those laws".  That's where the legal system really earns their money, sorting out all of that.

I have a feeling that this alleged legal action being pursued by some to get copies of the master list are going to bring out the spirit as well as the letter of the law.  The final decision will be interesting.  I'll make a prediction here and now that the bylaw will be revised as a result, and it will be done according to the process defined by the bylaws themselves - through a vote by the membership.

As for me, I'm done with this thread.  You've got your position and I'm not going to try to change your mind.  It would be futile.  Just as futile as you trying to change my mind.

Next time we're in a resort at the same time, though, let me buy you a beer/cocktail/soft drink/whatever, because I think we're both lucky to be living in such a wonderful country where we can debate/disagree like this and still coexist peacefully.

Cheers,
Norm


----------



## RichM (Jan 7, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> So, if I'm reading your statements correctly, you're saying that every single member of the club has a right to ask for and be given a copy of the master list of members, their addresses and phone numbers.  And all they have to do is sign the paper and pay whatever fee is required.



That's exactly what I'm trying to state.



			
				normbailey said:
			
		

> How practical is that?  I don't know the exact number of owners, but if all of them were to do that, and the club was obliged to fulfill that "order" for lists, why not just make them a part of the annual mailing of the voting information?



Great idea!


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## normbailey (Jan 8, 2006)

RichM said:
			
		

> That's exactly what I'm trying to state.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe a complete information release on all WorldMark levels would be appropriate.  Including those unofficial sites like your wmowners.com website?  How about if all of us who participate on the wmowners.com forum are given the full names and email addresses, matched up to usernames, of all participants on that website?

Seems simple enough to provide, and I certainly can't see any reason why it shouldn't be available.  I know that some of us actually use our real names anyway.

Oh, and on the subject of your wmowners.com website, I encountered a very unusual situation back in December as I was making my final decision on who to cast my votes for.  I went in and did a search on author name and found all of the posts by Jim Pappas.  That was helpful.  Then I tried to find all the posts made by Philip Abdouch.  But the system couldn't find anything for the author search criteria of PA.

So, I then went hopping through various threads until I found a post by him.  I then clicked on his username and it brought up his profile.  But, when I clicked on the link that said _Find all posts by PA_, it gave me the same error message.  Very odd.

I put my name in.  Found them all.  I put roadsister in.  Found them all.

But, it appears that if a username is too short, the system can't find the posts.  All you get is the error message _No topics or posts met your search criteria_.....

Any idea on why that happens?  It sure made it difficult for me to find helpful information in formulating a final voting decision.


----------



## RichM (Jan 8, 2006)

As for the wmowners.com site, it's not mine, I just help administer the forum.  The site is owned and operated by an independent, non-profit corporation founded by a group of WorldMark owners.

Your situation with searching all posts by PA was brought up by someone else and it's a bug in the forum software (phpBB).  Nena uses the username "N" on wmowners.com, so I suspect you'd have the same trouble finding all her posts as well.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 8, 2006)

cotraveller said:
			
		

> Hello Jay, it’s been a while since we last communicated.  After reading your posts on this subject I have one question that I didn’t see answered.  To the best of my knowledge you were not a candidate for the board or for any other position within WorldMark or Trendwest or Cendant.  So my question is, what specifically was your reason for  requesting the owner list?



Hi Fred,

It has been a long time.  I hope all is well with you.

I was not a candidate for the board of directors, although I do expect to run in the future.

My specific reason for requesting the owners list is to create a channel of communication between owners which is outside the (very restrictive) channels provided by management.

Luckily both state law and WorldMark bylaws give me the right to obtain the list of owners (names, addresses and phone numbers).

People who are offended by these bylaws and state laws shouldn't get upset with owners who seek to obtain the list.  They should voice their displeasure with their state legislatures.

While it possible (not likely) to get a bylaws change regarding the owners list, bylaws cannot supercede state law.  Until state laws are changed, non-profit corporations must comply with lawful requests for the owners list.

It is important to remember that I've discussed this, in person, with members of the board of directors.  There was no evaluation done of whether or not my intent was in line with my interests as a member.  I was told that under no conditions have they provided anyone access to the list.  Even directors are denied access to the list.  They also told me that many owners have asked for access to the list, so it's not as though I'm the first owner who has felt it necessary to communicate with owners outside the channels provided by management.

IMO, there is absolutely no condition in which they will voluntarily give access to the list.  The bylaws do allow for some level of access to the list, yet they deny all access to the list.  Whether or not people feel that others should have access ot the list, don't people feel that the board of directors should be bound to abide by the bylaws of our club?  

Good to hear from you again 

--Jay


----------



## normbailey (Jan 8, 2006)

RichM said:
			
		

> As for the wmowners.com site, it's not mine, I just help administer the forum.  The site is owned and operated by an independent, non-profit corporation founded by a group of WorldMark owners.
> 
> Your situation with searching all posts by PA was brought up by someone else and it's a bug in the forum software (phpBB).  Nena uses the username "N" on wmowners.com, so I suspect you'd have the same trouble finding all her posts as well.



You're right.  I tried just the 'N' and got the same results.  So, who do I contact to get a list of the usernames matched up with real names and emails?  I looked for a "Forum Rules" link at the site, but couldn't find anything that resembled that, so I couldn't find out if there were any written restrictions on this sort of request.

Just out of curiosity, what is the name and tax id of the non-profit organization, and who are the WM owners who comprise the founding and funding group.  Seems to me that they did a great service to owners when the other WM forum was suddenly shut down, and being able to appreciate them publicly would be nice.


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 8, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> You're right.  I tried just the 'N' and got the same results.  So, who do I contact to get a list of the usernames matched up with real names and emails?  I looked for a "Forum Rules" link at the site, but couldn't find anything that resembled that, so I couldn't find out if there were any written restrictions on this sort of request.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what is the name and tax id of the non-profit organization, and who are the WM owners who comprise the founding and funding group.  Seems to me that they did a great service to owners when the other WM forum was suddenly shut down, and being able to appreciate them publicly would be nice.



Norm,

I'm also one of the founding members of wmowners.com.  The name of the non-profit corporation is WM OWNERS, Inc.

I'll leave it to others to announce their involvement with our little corporation.

The people involved with WM OWNERS, Inc. have spent hundreds of hours working to make the corporation and the wmowners.com site be successful. The goal of WM OWNERS, Inc. is to be a positive resource to WorldMark owners.  Wmowners.com is a forum provided by WM OWNERS, Inc for WorldMark owners to have a place to openly and freely discuss any aspect of their club.

I love WorldMark.  I love the concept of a club.  I want to be able to contact the owners in my area and invite them to get together and discuss our club.  People have book clubs, and quilt clubs...why not a local WorldMark club where we get together and talk about our club?  That's not possible without me contacting owners who are in my area.

I hope that your holidays were wonderful and that 2006 is the best year ever!


--Jay


----------



## Theresa (Jan 8, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> Seems to me that they did a great service to owners when the other WM forum was suddenly shut down, and being able to appreciate them publicly would be nice.



Hello Norm,

Happy New Year to you!

First let me say, I love our Club!
When that shutdown you referred to happened, I got to thinking that, wow, if we needed a way to contact other members of our Club for Club purposes, we would be helpless. Granted, 4M participation is a very small percentage, but at least it's one way to communicate about our Club. Several other owners thought the same way, and thus....www.wmowners.com was started. 

Nothing sinister, nothing undermining, no evil intent in mind.....just a means of offering a point of contact for owners.

Have a Great Day!
Theresa


----------



## RichM (Jan 8, 2006)

Hi Jay, Theresa   It has been a slow process getting a non-profit corporation created with only volunteer members.  At this point, there's only a small voting membership (12 I believe?) and the first board of directors has not yet been elected.

As far as the WM Owners membership list, Norm, the WM Owners, Inc. bylaws do suggest it to be just as available as the WorldMark the Club bylaws.  However, that availability would be to the membership of WM Owners, Inc. and, at this time, since the corporation is still in its startup process, there are only 12 members.  (Registering for the public discussion forum is unrelated to being part of the corporate membership as it's open to anyone.  In fact, there are even people who have registered multiple accounts in an attempt to disguise their true identities while posting).  In the private membership area of the forum, however, there is already a complete list of voting members and their contact information.  

As far as a Tax ID, I don't think that's been applied for yet as the first board of directors is not yet elected, from which a treasurer would be appointed.  Up to this point, all expenses have been paid for out-of-pocket by the core group of volunteers.  No donations have been solicited and the ones that were offered without solicitation have been refused as there's no way to accept them.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## normbailey (Jan 8, 2006)

Jay, Theresa, Rich,

Thank you for the responses and the information.  I want to go on record here as stating that I totally deplored the sudden and surprise shutdown of the previous WorldMark forum.  I was very enthusiastic when I learned about wmowners.com and the ability to re-establish contact with other owners I'd come to know and appreciate as friends - and who were suddenly out of reach.  Luckily I had already established some strong personal ties and didn't totally lose touch, but still . . . the notion of punishing the masses for the sake of curtailing a few didn't set at all with me.

I plan to continue to participate in the wmowners.com forum as well as here on TUG and the Trendwest forum.  But, I'm trying to get a true grasp on where each one of these is coming from.  I already know the WM side, and am fairly familiar with the TUG side.  It's just the wmowners.com side that I'm still relatively ignorant about.

Rich, your response raised one question in my mind.



			
				RichM said:
			
		

> In the private membership area of the forum, however, there is already a complete list of voting members and their contact information.



Would the private membership side of the forum you mention be only available to the 12 members of the current corporate structure, or is the private membership side open to anyone?  I'm not clear on what constitutes the private membership side.

Norm


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 8, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> Jay, Theresa, Rich,
> 
> Thank you for the responses and the information.  I want to go on record here as stating that I totally deplored the sudden and surprise shutdown of the previous WorldMark forum.  I was very enthusiastic when I learned about wmowners.com and the ability to re-establish contact with other owners I'd come to know and appreciate as friends - and who were suddenly out of reach.  Luckily I had already established some strong personal ties and didn't totally lose touch, but still . . . the notion of punishing the masses for the sake of curtailing a few didn't set at all with me.
> 
> ...



Norm,

There is a forum that is used for collaboration between voting members of WM OWNERS, Inc.  That forum is restricted to the voting members.  

I'm not sure what that has to do with finding out where WM OWNERS, Inc. is coming from.  

I think that the welcome screen of wmowners.com best describes the intent and purpose of WM OWNERS, Inc....here's what it says:

_
  It's finally here! 

Thanks to a lot of work and cooperation from WorldMark owners across the country, the WM Owners website has finally arrived. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your patience and we hope you enjoy this "BY OWNERS, FOR OWNERS" resource.

This organization was created BY OWNERS, FOR OWNERS in order to provide a community where owners and potential owners alike could congregate, share information, learn tips and tricks and foster new friendships.

Our intent is to provide a "community" where owners and potential owners can freely discuss and share topics that are of importance or interest to them, whether vacation-related or not. This community puts the "CLUB" back in the club by creating a virtual gathering place. A country club run by you!

It is our experience that WorldMark owners are the most interesting and enjoyable people in existence. For that reason we have provided a forum where free-flowing discussion can be as diverse and fascinating as the owners themselves.

We now invite you to explore the WM Owners website. This site offers a full range of OWNER-submitted input including resort reviews, photos, a discussion forum, and much more. This community will confirm that belonging to WorldMark is truly one of the most life-altering and enjoyable experiences that a family can have. Please forward the link www.wmowners.com to your friends and invite them to your community!

WMOwners.com is BY OWNERS, FOR OWNERS and in staying true with that concept, we invite you to submit future story ideas, tips, photos and especially those wild and woolly vacation tales! Your participation is encouraged -- use the Contact Us link in the bar to the left. So welcome, dive in, explore and don't be shy; This is truly YOUR community!_


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 8, 2006)

I've just realized how off-topic we've gotten here.  My apologies to RickandCindy and to our hosts here at TUG for my part in going so off topic here.

I'll stop posting about WM OWNERS, Inc. on this thread and suggest that we move this discussion to another location so that this thread might continue to discuss the relevant topic of obtaining the owner's list.

--Jay


----------



## ngray (Jan 8, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> You're right.  I tried just the 'N' and got the same results.    Seems to me that they did a great service to owners when the other WM forum was suddenly shut down, and being able to appreciate them publicly would be nice.


Hi Norm, hope your holidays were great, mine were!
For those who don't know me, I am "N".......sounds rather mysterious coming in on this thread late. I was following along, but got sidetracked.
I recall you search for PA's posts and the result gave me an insight I hadn't realized before. But am not going to change my name there.   

I know you have struggled with understanding the intent of wmowners.com  ; sometimes things are soooo simple they seem the opposite.

As you know, I joined in the very early days of wmowners.com  , before it was that. We were piggy backing on TKS just to keep communication open. At the time many things were happening with TW/CD and I feared we would have no way to keep in contact with other owners. No organized way to keep in touch about the ever changing scope of our club. No where to complain, No where to share our memories freely.
It has been a long and ardous 2 + years. It has, for me, been a labor of love, hoping to keep in contact with friends from the old WM4M, making new friends and memories. At times I take it too seriously, and other times I don't devote enough time to the details to make it a stronger forum. And sometimes I am OT!   
There has absolutely never been a sinister or evil agenda associated with the project. 
To preserve our goal, keeping in contact with owners, we doggedly kept working with a very small crew of 12-14 over time. Most of the original bunch are still around, tired and worn, but still around with differing commitment levels.  Likely, not all will continue and others will commit. 
The true goal is/was to get it up and running and that more owners would want to become more involved over the passage of time. 
Simply put, to make sure we have a continued communication venue for wmowners.
We still invite people to volunteer in a number of ways. I believe I may have even mentioned it to you, since I mention it to everyone it seems. 
There isn't much to know.......what you see is pretty much what you get. I think you/others get a lot for their 0 buck, but that's just my own opinion. 
Ever need another way to pass time........join us!


----------



## normbailey (Jan 8, 2006)

ThaiChef said:
			
		

> There is a forum that is used for collaboration between voting members of WM OWNERS, Inc.  That forum is restricted to the voting members.
> 
> I'm not sure what that has to do with finding out where WM OWNERS, Inc. is coming from.



Jay,

Thanks for the answer.  Your first sentence pretty much answered my question.  As to finding out where wmowners.com is coming from, I know the names and faces of the folks on the WM BOD, and I know a lot of the names and faces for the various folks behind the scenes at TW and WM.

I also know that Bill Rogers founded TUG and his About TUG page tells a good story about who he is and how they got started and where they're headed.

When I was trying to learn more about wmowners.com, I couldn't find anything about the background of the organization.  When it first started to emerge, I heard about it the same way a lot of other folks probably heard about it.....from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend.

It's never really been clear to me as to who the folks behind the scenes are, who started the organization, etc.  It just seems to me that if the site is "By WM owners and for WM owners", it shouldn't be much of a problem to state who's running the operation and maybe have some photos and profiles available.  Backgrounds and such.

Of course, if someone is in the witness protection program, I certainly wouldn't want them to blow their cover......(that was said in jest, by the way).


----------



## ngray (Jan 8, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> It just seems to me that if the site is "By WM owners and for WM owners", it shouldn't be much of a problem to state who's running the operation and maybe have some photos and profiles available.  Backgrounds and such.
> 
> Of course, if someone is in the witness protection program, I certainly wouldn't want them to blow their cover......(that was said in jest, by the way).


OK you blew my cover.....I really am in a witness program and all the mug shots of me and comments to my connection to the operation of the forum are a trick to trick you into thinking I am N instead of ngray aka Nema, I mean Nena! I forget sometimes who I am.
Now I am OT N, Nena, ngray! Shoot someone will come after me now, that is my most famous M.O.
Bye! Gotta find a new name!


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 8, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> Of course, if someone is in the witness protection program, I certainly wouldn't want them to blow their cover......(that was said in jest, by the way).



 Norm, I can't wait to meet you one of these days...that was funny.




--Jay


----------



## roadsister (Jan 8, 2006)

Norm wrote: "It's never really been clear to me as to who the folks behind the scenes are, who started the organization, etc. It just seems to me that if the site is "By WM owners and for WM owners", it shouldn't be much of a problem to state who's running the operation..."

Norm,
At one point I requested who the owners were that started the site and who ultimately post as "Modsquad" (the monitors) but the information was not given, just that 'they' take care of the forum.  It made me feel like an outsider/a lesser owner on the site.  I couldn't understand why the secrecy.

I guess 'lists' are a taboo subject no matter where you ask, eh?


----------



## normbailey (Jan 8, 2006)

ngray said:
			
		

> OK you blew my cover.....I really am in a witness program and all the mug shots of me and comments to my connection to the operation of the forum are a trick to trick you into thinking I am N instead of ngray aka Nema, I mean Nena! I forget sometimes who I am.
> Now I am OT N, Nena, ngray! Shoot someone will come after me now, that is my most famous M.O.
> Bye! Gotta find a new name!



Hey, Nena....excuse me "N"....when you lay down are you "Z"?


----------



## normbailey (Jan 8, 2006)

roadsister said:
			
		

> Norm wrote: "It's never really been clear to me as to who the folks behind the scenes are, who started the organization, etc. It just seems to me that if the site is "By WM owners and for WM owners", it shouldn't be much of a problem to state who's running the operation..."
> 
> Norm,
> At one point I requested who the owners were that started the site and who ultimately post as "Modsquad" (the monitors) but the information was not given, just that 'they' take care of the forum.  It made me feel like an outsider/a lesser owner on the site.  I couldn't understand why the secrecy.
> ...



Faye,

Sometimes a non-answer is one of the loudest and most unmistakable answers you can receive.  Either that, or some people have a really bad case of short-term memory deficit.


----------



## RichM (Jan 8, 2006)

roadsister said:
			
		

> I guess 'lists' are a taboo subject no matter where you ask, eh?




Nope, both should be available to the voting membership of each, per the bylaws of both.  One is, one isn't.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## roadsister (Jan 8, 2006)

ThaiChef said:
			
		

> I've just realized how off-topic we've gotten here.  My apologies to RickandCindy and to our hosts here at TUG for my part in going so off topic here.
> 
> I'll stop posting about WM OWNERS, Inc. on this thread and suggest that we move this discussion to another location so that this thread might continue to discuss the relevant topic of obtaining the owner's list.
> 
> --Jay


Jay,
Awhile back DaveM, the moderator, posted regarding this.  I think we are still talking about listing who is who and how to gather information for communication with others:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaiChef
Moderator, I wonder if this thread would more properly reside somewhere else...like in the points based discussions. 

This discussion is applicable to all timeshares - points, weeks, floating, fixed, hotel-based, etc. Thus, this forum would seem the appropriate place for the topic. The purpose of this forum is for "discussions that don't fit into the other defined forum areas."


----------



## RichM (Jan 8, 2006)

That was back when the thread was actually about obtaining an owners list from a timeshare company, per their bylaws and most state laws.  

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## PA- (Jan 9, 2006)

roadsister said:
			
		

> Norm wrote: "It's never really been clear to me as to who the folks behind the scenes are, who started the organization, etc. It just seems to me that if the site is "By WM owners and for WM owners", it shouldn't be much of a problem to state who's running the operation..."
> 
> Norm,
> At one point I requested who the owners were that started the site and who ultimately post as "Modsquad" (the monitors) but the information was not given, just that 'they' take care of the forum.  It made me feel like an outsider/a lesser owner on the site.  I couldn't understand why the secrecy.
> ...



It's not that you are a "lesser owner" of wmowners.com inc.  It's just you are a non-owner of wmowner.com inc  I'm a non-owner of Marriott timeshare, and wouldn't expect that they would share the list of owners.  However, I AM an owner of worldmark, and expect them to abide by the bylaws.  It's illegal not to.

If you were a member of wmowners.com inc, you would be able to get a complete list of owners.  As a worldmark member, you are, by law, entitled to the same.

Norm, based on your posts, I'm fairly certain that you are also not a member of wmowners.com inc, and if that's true, you are also not entitled to a list of the members of that organization.  Agreed?


----------



## PA- (Jan 9, 2006)

BTW, Norm, would you care to share your opinion of why the WM board is refusing to abide by the bylaws?  Do you suppose that it's:

1)  TO protect your privacy
2)  To not risk losing their domination of the BOD
3)  TO protect their bottom line
4)  Some other reason (please elaborate)


----------



## taffy19 (Jan 9, 2006)

This is a very interesting thread for all timeshare owners to read. If your HOA is fair, like they should be, and have a quarterly or yearly bulletin or any type of communication with the timeshare owners, they should post when board members are up again for re-election. Timeshare owners at your resort should be able to offer their services, if they want to serve. With our HOA, we are requested to write a little biography about ourselves and all timeshare owners can vote for the person they think is most qualified. This has been going on for many years and I like it. We also get notified where the annual meetings are held so all of us can attend.

Guess what, our timeshare resort is run by people, who own timeshares there and decisions are made for the *benefit* of the timeshare owners and not for the developer which we no longer have, in our case. I doubt if this will happen with the big developers who keep adding more resorts or more points continually but owners should demand it once all their units are sold at their particular resort so timeshare owners at your resort can take over. JMHO.

I would write your developer and demand that they include your message in their next bulletin to all the owners of your resort or post it in the official web page of your resort if they are not willing to give you a list of members where you can contact them yourself.

We used to be able to get the owner's list of another timeshare resort where we own but no longer either as the HOA is supposedly scared that they may be sued for invasion of privacy but if I want to share a message with my fellow timeshare owners, I would ask them to include my message in the next quarterly bulletin since they changed the rules from the date I bought there. I have no intention to run for the HOA board as I am very happy with what they do. In our case, timeshare owners vote if they want to pay for an additional furniture piece in the unit or not. It cannot be fairer. Our small independent timeshares are all run very well by a HOA, who has pride in what they do. We are very thankful as we just enjoy our vacation and go home and not worry about it anymore.


----------



## PA- (Jan 9, 2006)

RichM said:
			
		

> ...Nena uses the username "N" on wmowners.com, so I suspect you'd have the same trouble finding all her posts as well.
> 
> 
> ...[/URL]



That might actually be a blessing. 

Hey, I was just kidding, Nena.  OW!


----------



## normbailey (Jan 9, 2006)

PA- said:
			
		

> BTW, Norm, would you care to share your opinion of why the WM board is refusing to abide by the bylaws?  Do you suppose that it's:
> 
> 1)  TO protect your privacy
> 2)  To not risk losing their domination of the BOD
> ...




Sorry, but I don't share that opinion.


----------



## ngray (Jan 9, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> Faye,
> 
> Sometimes a non-answer is one of the loudest and most unmistakable answers you can receive.  Either that, or some *people have a really bad case of short-term memory deficit. *


Yeah, well that certainly could apply to me, I don't claim to have a good memory since age came along and aged me.
I have to admit that there were/are times I didn't want to say what my role(s) are/were....not for any sinister reason, just didn't want to seem like I was being blatant (bragging, whining, looking for trouble, being a target)....it's a role that you can get accolades for and one you can get you know what for.
Anyone who was around when the TKS started hosting an owners forum and later the wmowners.com knew who most of us were. All three or four   
People who have been involved in tasks have a right to stay behind the scenes if they want........doesn't make them "founders", corporate identities future voting members or any such thing.....just a volunteer. 
You gotta admit being "out" runs one of several risks for someone who wants to say something to them.
What is the big deal  
On another note, and maybe by the same token, Why would people sign into wmowners.com under false names; but that would be their right, right?


----------



## normbailey (Jan 9, 2006)

PA- said:
			
		

> It's not that you are a "lesser owner" of wmowners.com inc.  It's just you are a non-owner of wmowner.com inc  I'm a non-owner of Marriott timeshare, and wouldn't expect that they would share the list of owners.  However, I AM an owner of worldmark, and expect them to abide by the bylaws.  It's illegal not to.
> 
> If you were a member of wmowners.com inc, you would be able to get a complete list of owners.  As a worldmark member, you are, by law, entitled to the same.
> 
> Norm, based on your posts, I'm fairly certain that you are also not a member of wmowners.com inc, and if that's true, you are also not entitled to a list of the members of that organization.  Agreed?



It was only today that I found out that wmowners.com was founded by a 12-person organization.  I thought that since anyone in the world, even non-owners in WorldMark, could browse the WorldMark website and see who the Board of Directors are, that a similar structure would be possible in the wmowners.com website.  And that maybe the founding members might care to make themselves known.

It's obvious that such is not the case.  I hereby withdraw my request for that information.

Yes, Regis, that's my final answer.


----------



## rnsnake (Jan 9, 2006)

[_Edited to delete post that could be viewed as a personal attack._ Dave M, BBS Administrator]


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 9, 2006)

roadsister said:
			
		

> Jay,
> Awhile back DaveM, the moderator, posted regarding this.  I think we are still talking about listing who is who and how to gather information for communication with others:
> 
> Quote:
> ...



Faye,


In the words someone famous (I don't know who)...I come in peace 

I wasn't trying to be controversial.  This is a great place to have a conversation regarding an owner's right to obtain the owners list...I was simply suggesting that we should start a new thread if we want to have a discussion on the merits of WM OWNERS.  


--Jay


----------



## normbailey (Jan 9, 2006)

[_Edited to delete response to a now-deleted post that could be viewed as a personal attack._ Dave M, BBS Administrator]


----------



## cotraveller (Jan 9, 2006)

ngray said:
			
		

> You gotta admit being "out" runs one of several risks for someone who wants to say something to them.


I can definitely concur with that statement.


> Originally Posted by *ngray*
> On another note, and maybe by the same token, Why would people sign into wmowners.com under false names; but that would be their right, right?


As one of those who is registered with wmowners using a different name than I use here, I would only say that perhaps it for the same or similar reasons that a number of those who have participated in this discusssion are registered with different names on the WorldMark forum than they use here or on wmowners.


----------



## PA- (Jan 9, 2006)

The rumors I've heard are that Peggy Fry plans to shut down the TW4M again, this time for good.  I have no idea if it's true or not, but if so, Worldmark owners that want to continue discussions with their friends in the future may be limited in their choices of where to do so.  The wmowners.com site would be a natural, but some people just seem to be dead set on making enemies instead of friends there.  Hopefully, they'll come around and realize that we all are on the same team, even if we may disagree on the best strategy.


----------



## ngray (Jan 9, 2006)

*Norm*

I am not, I repeat not a "founding father"! A mother........maybe! 
All joking aside....I am not quoting Rich on this but his post about the aforementioned does not constitute a small group of precisely "12", as I mentioned before. Many have come and gone. 
In the beginning, anyone, I mean anyone who wanted to assist Theresa with the day to day functions of keeping an eye on things was welcome. I was among the first to offer when she needed to be out of town with her Mom. I didn't do much but read, and answer questions if there were any. Others became involved primarily based on their own interest, interests and their abilities. At first, most didn't want to be outted but Theresa and I (by default).....why? for the exact same reason that exist until this moment.....didn't want the flack that comes with the territory. Certainly, again to this day, no one comes out and brags about the great jobs they do....why? a quick re read of this thread says why. And I think that is sad.
It soon became no secret who was doing our basic tech work....and doing it was practically 24/7 out of the goodness of their heart. Others contributed in ways that would continue to be helpful for wm owners, e.g. the resort info. exchange info. etc.; anyone reading for info there can soon tell who answers questions about these things; and some who answer are NOT involved in any organized way other than by being helpful owners.
Surely, (or Sam) astute folks like you Faye and Fred have figured out who the most active and participative folks are; now place those speculations into time frames and I know you have had a notion of who is doing what and when.
The whole movement to a owner based website was to eliminate the perception that TKS was making a profit somehow by hosting the forum. Surely you can relate to that. You know how much it costs to host a website, it's not rocket science and a few dollars from a very few people can accomplish that, right? It was simply a grass roots movement to keep owners in contact  to communcate info.
There has never been an overwhelming need to formalize the wmowner.com site other than to appease the "doubting Thomas's" who surface now and then and make accusations about the evil intent of the forum and it's participants.
I can assure you that if you ask others who prefer not to post on the wmowners.com site they will tell you who they think has been behind the scenes trying to make the site a better place, or worse from their perspectives.
I also think seizing on Rich's words about how many people make up the backbone of the site is like the pot calling the kettle black; neither you or Faye like it when someone picks out words out of context and uses them literally. 
I personally think when all the "i's" are dotted and the "t's" crossed that you, Faye and Fred will have no surprise when seeing who's doing what. 
What you won't see (yet) are all the names of dedicated people who have willing donated hours and hours of their time to make it a fun, informative and predictable WM owner meeting place. I have long wished I could thank them openly without "outting" them, but I respect them too much for that to happen. 
I guess I should clarify, that I am assuming that you three read there and therefore are aware of many happenings, even maybe registered so as to read the closed forums.........I could be wrong. 
Of course, I can only speak for myself and my own perception of things with regard to those of you that I mention; if I am mistaken, I will own that. 
I enjoy healthy discourse as much as you, so I know that this will be read in the spirit I write it.
This thread has taken far too much energy from me tho'! I don't know about anyone else, but to quote a number of people on the TW forum, aren't we "beating a dead horse"? (Geez I wonder who thought that addage up.  
Until then, we still need volunteers.........especially for a WM FAQ section, where people can ask questions and get accurate answers, how about putting all this energy into helping out with that?


----------



## normbailey (Jan 9, 2006)

PA- said:
			
		

> The rumors I've heard are that Peggy Fry plans to shut down the TW4M again, this time for good.  I have no idea if it's true or not, but if so, Worldmark owners that want to continue discussions with their friends in the future may be limited in their choices of where to do so.  The wmowners.com site would be a natural, but some people just seem to be dead set on making enemies instead of friends there.  Hopefully, they'll come around and realize that we all are on the same team, even if we may disagree on the best strategy.



From the outset of wmowners.com I was encouraged that we owners would have an unbiased, free-speaking venue for continuing to stay in touch with each other.  It would be wonderful, indeed, if that were the case and owners could feel like they had freedom to express their opinions without being ridiculed, insulted or berated.

Unforutnately, I've heard from quite a few of the "missing posters" who don't feel that the free and open environment that welcomes all opinions, as you suggest, truly exists there.  And based on this particular thread, I'm inclined to agree.  The people I know who don't want to participate in that site are definitely NOT ones who are "deadset on making enemies instead of friends", they are caring, honest, sincere people who have been involved in trying to be as helpful and share as much information as they've managed to acquire.

And, fortunately for me, I've now got a mechanism for keeping in touch with them no matter what happens to any of the forums.  Even if the TW forum, TUG, AND wmowners.com all went away, I'd still have a means for keeping in touch with them.

Because, in the end, it's not important HOW we keep in touch, but with WHOM we keep in touch.


----------



## ngray (Jan 9, 2006)

Aren't you getting a little touchy feely now?


----------



## ngray (Jan 9, 2006)

cotraveller said:
			
		

> I can definitely concur with that statement.


I know you are probably referring to me, and I have apologized for my quick tongue on that one! I def. wasn't thinking.



			
				cotraveller said:
			
		

> As one of those who is registered with wmowners using a different name than I use here, I would only say that perhaps it for the same or similar reasons that a number of those who have participated in this discusssion are registered with different names on the WorldMark forum than they use here or on wmowners.


I hadn't thought of it that way.......I am so out there all the time it didn't occur to me. I know all the people who have posted here, I think......well not dave, but I know he is Dave, at least I think he is Dave.  Anyhow, I guess not all would know who they are by there forum name even tho' I recognize them.


----------



## RichM (Jan 9, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> Unforutnately, I've heard from quite a few of the "missing posters" who don't feel that the free and open environment that welcomes all opinions, as you suggest, truly exists there.




I've heard this about wmowners.com and I still maintain that not a single post has even been removed because someone disagreed with the opinions of the poster.  In fact, other than when people sometimes accidentally post the same thing twice in a row, I can't think of any deleting of threads or replies or any censorship that has ever taken place at wmowners.com.  Anyone who chooses to not post there anymore has done so of their own free will.

There's been a lot of back-and-forth debating in this thread, completely unrelated to the original intent of the thread, and I don't think anyone has decided not to post on TUG anymore because of it....

As for using different names on the WM4M vs. wmowners.com - I don't do it out of choice.  My original account is no longer allowed to post messages (something that hasn't happened to ANY user accounts on wmowners.com, ever) so I must use a different nickname there.  

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## PA- (Jan 9, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> ....And, fortunately for me, I've now got a mechanism for keeping in touch with them no matter what happens to any of the forums.  Even if the TW forum, TUG, AND wmowners.com all went away, I'd still have a means for keeping in touch with them.
> 
> Because, in the end, it's not important HOW we keep in touch, but with WHOM we keep in touch.



That's great for you.  But what about all the NEW friends you could have made, and what about all the others who don't have that mechanism?  Wouldn't it be nice if everybody had the opportunity to communicate with other owners if they wish to?  Yes, wmowners.com's forum is open to everybody, but without a means to communicate that to all the owners, it does little good.  All owners have the right to know about the existance of an owner's forum.  The TW dominated BOD of worldmark won't allow that information to be relayed to the owners.  It's up to us to let them know, in my opinion.

And back on the original topic, that should be true at all HOAs, not just worldmark.


----------



## PA- (Jan 9, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> ...
> Unforutnately, I've heard from quite a few of the "missing posters" who don't feel that the free and open environment that welcomes all opinions, as you suggest, truly exists there.  .....




I suspect there are more people put off by the TW4M than there are by the wmowners.com forum, but it doesn't really matter anyway.  There is no forum that will ever be able to please all the people all the time.  One thing I will say about the wmowners forum is that all are free to post any opinion they wish to.  That doesn't mean that they will be agreed with; you have to have a bit of a thick skin to post on ANY internet chat site.  There will always be some misunderstandings of intent and there will always be some ruffled feathers.  The less censorship there is, the greater chance of that happening.  So you have to decide for yourself if it's worth having less censorship that results in more varying viewpoints.  I've yet to see an example of an owner being piled on because of the views they express.  Of course, the management of the forum isn't responsible for the opinions, or the reactions of the posters.


----------



## KenK (Jan 9, 2006)

Most of us on TUG have a touch (or more) of ADD +H or - H.  Did this thread go a little off track?   I can't attend to so many pages ago. The OP knows for sure.... but the info (roster or not) seems to continue the ongoing struggles between management/developer, the owners, and the sandwiched HOA (if not management controlled).   

And stamps are now 39 cents....contact via e mail sure might be cheaper  



			
				RichM said:
			
		

> There's been a lot of back-and-forth debating in this thread, completely unrelated to the original intent of the thread, and I don't think anyone has decided not to post on TUG anymore because of it....


----------



## normbailey (Jan 9, 2006)

[_I have deleted this message, as it does not comply with my suggestion in the following post._ Dave M, BBS Administrator]


----------



## Dave M (Jan 9, 2006)

*In my capacity as a BBS administrator,*

Please be very careful to adhere to the BBS "Be Courteous" rule. This admonition applies not to any single poster, but to all who might post in this reasonably contentious thread.

Being courteous, as defined in the Site Rules (link on the above blue bar), means refraining from behavior lectures, personal attacks, boorish behavior and bad manners. It means referring to others as you would like to be treated. It means that when you express disagreement with another's post, you do so courteously and respectfully.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 9, 2006)

*Breaking News from my resort, of which I am a board member, supposedly...*

We are not going to give the owners' names and addresses/phone numbers to any member because a state legislator talked with the head attorney for the state legislature's legal staff, and he said that giving out owners' information could put us at risk due to divorce, child custody, etc. 

How ridiculous is that?  Why did this little matter go to the head attorney for the state legislature's legal staff, you ask?  Because one of the board members knows somebody. 

So I guess all of you that want to be kept private in Colorado will have the head attorney for the state legislature's legal staff behind you.  The only problem is that someday, you might be disgusted with something the board has done that in your opinion is not in your best interest, and many others might be feeling the same way as you, but you will be a lone voice because you cannot have an owners' list to contact others.

My husband and I have felt just that way this past year.  It isn't a good feeling.  I will not be able to affect much change in my short stint as a board member.  I disagree with this decision and will let that be known in some mild way, but I will not put myself in a position that will keep them from sending me information or inviting me to meetings.  They could do that, I am sure.  If I am not re-elected in two years, Rick and I will sell our weeks at this resort.  That is enough said, I guess.


----------



## Gadabout (Jan 9, 2006)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> We are not going to give the owners' names and addresses/phone numbers to any member because a state legislator talked with the head attorney for the state legislature's legal staff, and he said that giving out owners' information could put us at risk due to divorce, child custody, etc.
> 
> How ridiculous is that?  Why did this little matter go to the head attorney for the state legislature's legal staff, you ask?  Because one of the board members knows somebody.
> 
> ...



I find it interesting to see the mention of "divorce and child custody" specifically, don't you? I wonder what some of the divorce/child support groups (and their lawyers) would make of that....

Hate to say this, but this kind of issue (not being able to contact other owners) might well discourage TS ownership altogether in the future. I don't suppose you could interest a local (as in, where the TS is) reporter in such a story, could you? Freedom of information, and all....


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 9, 2006)

*Maybe a reporter will jump all over this story, but I am not reporting it to anyone*

I am on the board.   

I am at a loss as to what should be done next.  I really am not going to make waves.  It just seems like common sense to me, but the majority rules and the law is supposed to be the utmost authority over common sense.  You would think the law would support common sense.    

I did read all of the Worldmark posts on this thread and thought it interesting that some timeshare owners really do not want others to have their information.  (I never thought anyone was hi-jacking the thread) What would be the worst a person could do?  I would really like to know your thoughts because the board member/ owner at my resort that really opposed this was worried about identity theft.  You cannot steal identity with a phone number and address.  

This refusal to release this information reminded my husband of a company keeping employees from unionizing.  At least employees know each other from work.  How do we organize a large group of owners without names?  I guess you could go to the resort every week and post notes on the timeshare owners' doors with your name and phone number.  I actually thought of doing that last year.

I am on the board and still have no say.


----------



## RichM (Jan 10, 2006)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> I did read all of the Worldmark posts on this thread and thought it interesting that some timeshare owners really do not want others to have their information.  (I never thought anyone was hi-jacking the thread) What would be the worst a person could do?  I would really like to know your thoughts because the board member/ owner at my resort that really opposed this was worried about identity theft.  You cannot steal identity with a phone number and address.



Yes, sorry our petty stuff had to invade your important thread.  As someone pointed out earlier, here, if that's all you needed for identity theft (name, address, phone #), phone books would have been outlawed.



			
				rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> This refusal to release this information reminded my husband of a company keeping employees from unionizing.



Very good analogy, it is most definitely a similar issue especially in the case of the vacation "club" type timeshares as the developer wants to maintain complete control of the club, by all means necessary.  In the case of a fractional/deeded timeshare, it seems it would be easier to obtain such information through public records.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 10, 2006)

Another analogy for you:  Going to "the head attorney for the state legislature's legal staff" for a timeshare owner issue is like going to a surgeon for a broken fingernail.    That just shows how ridiculous this board has become over a simple request.

I thought the Worldmark discussion was fascinating.  I guess some people really are concerned over privacy.  I am not.  I buy things with my CC's on the internet and do my banking on the web.  I do not lose sleep over the thought that someone may be seeing my information.  Some people will never use the internet that way and it is their loss because it is so much more convenient than buying stamps.  Paranoia is the only word for it.


----------



## Gadabout (Jan 10, 2006)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> I guess some people really are concerned over privacy.  I am not.  I buy things with my CC's on the internet and do my banking on the web.  I do not lose sleep over the thought that someone may be seeing my information.  Some people will never use the internet that way and it is their loss because it is so much more convenient than buying stamps.  Paranoia is the only word for it.



I wouldn't call it paranoia, necessarily. A lot of people resist banking online because computers are an "out of sight, out of mind" person's nightmare. They want to have that paper statement. I know people who can go weeks without answering emails and think nothing of it, because they don't turn on their computers. In a power outage, your computer doesn't work, either. And, perhaps the banks do save money with online banking, but if they're not passing the savings on to me, why should I do them any favors?

As for buying stamps, you can buy them at the grocery stores now (sometimes even at a discount--the store is paying full price to the USPS). I don't see the internet as necessarily more convenient--anything other than books or similar items, and I'd rather talk to a live person who can answer questions--email support is very questionable at times (although when you call an 800 number, your number is given to that party). I am not that fond of internet banking--the promise was that it is instantaneous, so in theory you should be able to wait until 11:59 pm of the very last day to email/authorize your payment, and yet the banks/CC companies STILL want it 5 days in advance when you look at the fine print, so how is this "better" than mailing it off?  

But, to bring this back to the supposed privacy issues, if you were an ex-spouse (of either sex here) with primary custody of the children, you and those children would be entitled to know what and where all those assets are, and especially if you live in a community property state (regardless of what state the assets are in).  It would be very interesting to see a case where "so and so heard that spouse had a TS in wherever" and a resort was  named in a lawsuit for not complying with a simple request to verify ownership.... What is the resort's policy in that type of case, by the way?


----------



## normbailey (Jan 10, 2006)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> Paranoia is the only word for it.



Cindy,

True - paranoia is definitely one word for it, but another word I think of is misinformed.  Our media likes to go overboard on subjects if they think it will help sell their broadcasts, newspapers, magazines, or whatever media they're in.  It's all about ratings and circulation.

Unfortunately, there is a HUGE number of individuals (usually in older age brackets) who read or see a report about identity theft and they buy it hook line and sinker, even if the reporting isn't exactly 100% accurate.  A good example of this media over-hype is the Norovirus reports that flooded the airwaves in the past few years if a cruise ship encountered an outbreak during a cruise.  Even the CDC website states that you're more likely to catch it on land than on a cruise ship, but the media just loves to have their "breaking news" and nothing stops them from misinforming their viewers.

Same goes for right to privacy issues.  Some of those who are misinformed about identity theft are also being extremely insistent on having their privacy protected.  And organizations with much at stake are erring on the side of caution when they set up restrictions on releasing information.  And it doesn't seem to matter whether it's right or wrong, it seems to me to be based on who the squeakies wheel is and who is most likely to take legal action.

In this wonderfully sue-happy country, it's not always the majority in the driver's seat.  (Note:  Don't even get me started on the issues surrounding "political correctness".)


----------



## ngray (Jan 10, 2006)

*OT blush*

Oh POOH! Are you sure I can't get you started on the issues surrounding "pc"? rolf

Remember that email etiquette thing I sent you a couple of years ago? I wish I still had it, it sums up the probs of internet communication so well.


----------



## normbailey (Jan 10, 2006)

ngray said:
			
		

> Remember that email etiquette thing I sent you a couple of years ago?



You really don't expect me to remember something mailed to me more than 5 minutes ago, do you?

And, do you REALLY expect me to pay any attention to internet etiquette?  Come on, get real.

 

Okay, stay focused on the thread.  Repeat after me:

Stay in the thread, Grasshopper.  Stay in the thread, Grasshopper.......


----------



## ngray (Jan 10, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> Okay, stay focused on the thread.  Repeat after me:
> 
> Stay in the thread, Grasshopper.  Stay in the thread, Grasshopper.......


Yes yes, I have it now........the Grasshopper, the Grasshopper, stay focussed on the Grasshopper.
Yeah it works!


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 11, 2006)

*I am still not ready to watch this thread go away.*

So I am going to bump it to the top.  

What I dislike about HOA boards is that they sit above the rest, all high and mighty, and keep information from the peons.  Now I am on the board at the timeshare that I have the most issues with (we own at five different resorts now), and I am still unable to affect change.  

They looked just a little too hard to find an attorney that would say not to give an owners' roster to anyone.  It is just common sense that owners should be able to have contact.


----------



## ngray (Jan 11, 2006)

*OT again, I found it grasshopper!*



			
				normbailey said:
			
		

> You really don't expect me to remember something mailed to me more than 5 minutes ago, do you?
> 
> And, do you REALLY expect me to pay any attention to internet etiquette?  Come on, get real.
> 
> ...


Hee hee I found it........


----------



## ngray (Jan 11, 2006)

*Cindy*



			
				rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> So I am going to bump it to the top.
> 
> What I dislike about HOA boards is that they sit above the rest, all high and mighty, and keep information from the peons.  Now I am on the board at the timeshare that I have the most issues with (we own at five different resorts now), and I am still unable to affect change.
> 
> They looked just a little too hard to find an attorney that would say not to give an owners' roster to anyone.  It is just common sense that owners should be able to have contact.


I certainly agree with you in principle; that we should be able to have contact. 
What happens is it causes those who want to contact other owners to feel like there is a sinister plot. In the case of WorldMark owners and TW, it seems there is no way!
Someone asked about putting a flyer or a blurb in the Destinations, the club magazine, paid for in part by the owners and the RC owners and it would still cost a lot and of course it would be subject to editing. 
Seems like to reach the owners with election issues is a dead end everywhere we turn, except to legal action.  Then as you say, they have the better lawyers.
It is very frustrating. I can't see the harm in notifying owners, one way or another.........that they can have greater participation in the club. As it stands it appears that TW does not want us to.


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 12, 2006)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> So I am going to bump it to the top.
> 
> What I dislike about HOA boards is that they sit above the rest, all high and mighty, and keep information from the peons.  Now I am on the board at the timeshare that I have the most issues with (we own at five different resorts now), and I am still unable to affect change.
> 
> They looked just a little too hard to find an attorney that would say not to give an owners' roster to anyone.  It is just common sense that owners should be able to have contact.



RickandCindy,

I have a math and engineering background.  I love to go straight to the source.  

Disclaimer: Keep in mind that I have no legal training and am not qualified to make any legal direction...but I can read .  These statutes are not rocket science.

The following Colorado law is found under the Colorado non-profit Title 7 (Corporations and Associations) Non-Profit Corporations Article 136.  

Here's a URL for those who may think that I've made this up  Colorado Statutes


```
7-136-102. Inspection of corporate records by members.
Statute text
(1) A member is entitled to inspect and copy, during regular business hours
at the nonprofit corporation's principal office, any of the records of the
nonprofit corporation described in section 7-136-101 (5) if the member gives
the nonprofit corporation written demand at least five business days before
the date on which the member wishes to inspect and copy such records.

(2) Pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, a member is entitled to
inspect and copy, during regular business hours at a reasonable location
stated by the nonprofit corporation, any of the other records of the nonprofit
corporation if the member meets the requirements of subsection (3) of this
section and gives the nonprofit corporation written demand at least five
business days before the date on which the member wishes to inspect and
copy such records.

(3) A member may inspect and copy the records described in subsection (2)
of this section only if:

(a) The member has been a member for at least three months immediately
preceding the demand to inspect or copy or is a member holding at least five
percent of the voting power as of the date the demand is made;

(b) The demand is made in good faith and for a proper purpose;

(c) The member describes with reasonable particularity the purpose and the
records the member desires to inspect; and

(d) The records are directly connected with the described purpose.

(4) For purposes of this section:

(a) "Member" includes a beneficial owner whose membership interest is held in
a voting trust and any other beneficial owner of a membership interest who
establishes beneficial ownership.

(b) "Proper purpose" means a purpose reasonably related to the demanding
member's interest as a member.

(5) The right of inspection granted by this section may not be abolished or
limited by the articles of incorporation or bylaws.
```

Since this references 7-136-101 I've copied it below:


```
7-136-101. Corporate records.
Statute text
(1) A nonprofit corporation shall keep as permanent records minutes of all
meetings of its members and board of directors, a record of all actions taken
by the members or board of directors without a meeting, a record of all
actions taken by a committee of the board of directors in place of the board
of directors on behalf of the nonprofit corporation, and a record of all waivers
of notices of meetings of members and of the board of directors or any
committee of the board of directors.

(2) A nonprofit corporation shall maintain appropriate accounting records.

(3) A nonprofit corporation or its agent shall maintain a record of its members
in a form that permits preparation of a list of the name and address of all
members in alphabetical order, by class, showing the number of votes each
member is entitled to vote.

(4) A nonprofit corporation shall maintain its records in written form or in
another form capable of conversion into written form within a reasonable time.

(5) A nonprofit corporation shall keep a copy of each of the following records
at its principal office:

(a) Its articles of incorporation;

(b) Its bylaws;

(c) Resolutions adopted by its board of directors relating to the
characteristics, qualifications, rights, limitations, and obligations of members
or any class or category of members;

(d) The minutes of all members' meetings, and records of all action taken by
members without a meeting, for the past three years;

(e) All written communications within the past three years to members
generally as members;

(f) A list of the names and business or home addresses of its current
directors and officers;

(g) A copy of its most recent annual report pursuant to part 5 of article 90 of
this title; and

(h) All financial statements prepared for periods ending during the last three
years that a member could have requested under section 7-136-106.
```

If you notice, 7-136-102 (1) provides a member the right to obtain the records described by 7-136-101 (5).  While it's true that the member list is not contained within 7-136-101 (5), 7-136-102 (2) provides a member access to *any* of the other records described in the entire section of 7-136-101, if they meet the requirements of 7-136-102 (3).  

7-136-102 (3) simply says that the member must have been a member for at least 3 months;the demand is in good faith for a proper purpose;the member describes the reason for inspection; and finally that the records are directly connected to the purpose described by the member.

Most people who carefully read these statues would come to the conclusion that the corporation is *supposed to* provide the member list to a requesting member who meets the criteria.  The statute doesn't suggest that if a corporation is concerned with privacy they can withhold the member list.

Also, notice that the statute specifically states that the corporation may not limit or abolish these rights in their bylaws...in other words, even if this right isn't contained in the bylaws, the corporation must abide by the state statutes.  

I am personally going to continue to pursue this matter.  It's my right as a member of a non-profit corporation.

If you feel strongly about this, perhaps you should ask for your own legal advice.


--Jay


----------



## Dave M (Jan 12, 2006)

Jay -

I am not an attorney, so take the following for what it's worth, perhaps nothing more than my personal experience.

Most states have laws that are similar to the ones you quote. The laws seem clear, but they aren't. One apparent sticking point in most states, including Colorado, is the requirement that "The demand [be] made in good faith and for a proper purpose". 

Those who would like to copy membership (owner) lists believe it is obvious that making a copy to enable the member to communicate with other members is for a "proper purpose". However, those (e.g., the BOD or the management company, supported by legal counsel) who would prefer to keep membership lists private have a number of legal arguments on their side that might sway a court. 

It's not a slam-dunk for either side. A court must hear arguments from both sides and those arguments, especially from the BOD/Management company side, may differ in every case. 

I have been through this issue twice - once on each side of the issue. Once, practicing as a CPA, I was a financial advisor to a member. The other time I was on a BOD. 

I can assure you that the legal waters are so muddy that pursuing this can be an expensive venture, with no assurance of victory. You could be forced to pay many thousands of dollars to attorneys for research, filings, responses, depositions, motions, responses to motions, pre-trial conferences, court time, etc. If you don't spend that money, you'll have no chance, because the other side will, knowing that it doesn't cost them anything, since their costs will ultimately be borne by all owners through higher maintenance fees. Whether attorneys’ fees would be awarded if you win probably depends on state law and/or whether the court determines they should be awarded.

Thus, your best bet might well be to ask your attorney whether efforts should be geared toward an arbitration hearing, rather than a trial. It might still be expensive. Note that the other side might not agree to arbitration if they believe they can win by forcing you to spend more money that you don't have for legal help.

Again, I am not an attorney. Thus, you should start with a visit with an attorney, outlining the issue and what you want. Ask about costs and the likelihood of victory. Take a copy of my post and ask about some of my comments, especially any that might seem to you to be off the wall.

Only then can you really decide whether this is worth pursuing.


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 12, 2006)

Dave,

The law is pretty clear.  Whether or not rulings follow the law is another matter.

There are only four requirements that I must meet in order to, by law, obtain the member list.  These criteria are not contested by WorldMark.  Here's how I have met the criteria:


 I am a member of WorldMark, and had been for more than 3 months prior to my request.  WorldMark makes no argument against this.
 Part 1: Good faith = honesty without deception.  There is no argument against good faith being made by WorldMark.  
      Part 2: Proper purpose : I am seeking to open channels of communication that are outside of those provided by management.  It is obvious why this would potentially be desirable to a large number of owners.  While WorldMark could make the argument that mine is not a proper purpose, they have not made such an argument.  
  I have specified the specific purpose for which I desire the records and the method that I intend to use to accomplish the specific purpose.
 The records that I have requested are required to accomplish the purpose that I have outlined.

WorldMark has not made any argument which the statute would consider as valid reasons to deny my request.  Instead they claim the right to withhold the list based upon the need for privacy of owners.  Privacy is not considered in the statute regarding the obligation of the non-profit corporation to provide access to these records.  If privacy superceded the member's rights to obtain the records, then no member would ever have the right to inspect and/or copy these records and there would be no reason for the statute or the bylaw. 

In fact they specifically said that they have never provided the list to requesting members and that there have been a large number of such requests.  Apparently, in the case of WorldMark management, they don't consider that there is any reason which would compel them to provide access to the list.  


JMO

--Jay


----------



## Dave M (Jan 12, 2006)

I'm not going to debate the issue, Jay. I'm a neutral party.

However, I do suggest that you visit with an attorney to learn why the law is not as clearly in your favor as you seem to believe.


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 12, 2006)

Dave M said:
			
		

> I'm not going to debate the issue, Jay. I'm a neutral party.
> 
> However, I do suggest that you visit with an attorney to learn why the law is not as clearly in your favor as you seem to believe.



Sorry Dave,  it sounded like you were debating the issue with me 

I have already posted on this thread that I have an ongoing legal action against WorldMark.  I am actively working with a very experienced attorney who also feels that I have a clear right to obtain the owner's list.  

--Jay


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 12, 2006)

*Is there a class-action lawsuit concerning this issue, Jay?*

It seems that many Worldmark owners are unhappy with the developer and want a list of owners.  What would you do with the list, anyway?

In the case of our resort, the owner that is requesting this list probably wants to contact specific owners to buy units, or something along those lines.  I don't think the owner has any evil intent to sell anything.  Even if this owner chooses to mail to all of the owners, there would be less than 1,000 total, which would only be $390.00 in postage maximum.


----------



## Gadabout (Jan 12, 2006)

Dave M said:
			
		

> Jay -
> 
> Those who would like to copy membership (owner) lists believe it is obvious that making a copy to enable the member to communicate with other members is for a "proper purpose". However, those (e.g., the BOD or the management company, supported by legal counsel) who would prefer to keep membership lists private have a number of legal arguments on their side that might sway a court.
> 
> ...



But wouldn't the HOA have to put this sort of issue (whether to fight the list or not in court) to the owners to vote on? This is the sort of thing that causes hard feelings in other PUDs. For example, someone paints their house a different color than what is *approved*, and someone else demands that the CC&Rs be enforced by the HOA. But when it comes down to it, the BOD finds out that most people really don't care all that much (perhaps they are second or third owners down the line), certainly not enough to go to court over it, so it doesn't get done.

I mean, I would not want to be paying legal fees as part of an assessment, special or otherwise, without knowing exactly why. Don't notices of lawsuits have to be communicated to all owners, and a course of action voted on?


----------



## Dave M (Jan 12, 2006)

Gadabout said:
			
		

> But wouldn't the HOA have to put this sort of issue (whether to fight the list or not in court) to the owners to vote on?


Generally not. Take a look at the bylaws and other legal documents for your timeshares. You'll see that the BOD is given broad authority to make decisions for the owners. There are very few situations outlined in most such documents that require the BOD to obtain a vote of the owners.

The types of actions that require a vote are very often only those that are specified in state law. As an example, suppose you own a timeshare in a 20-story Massachusetts oceanfront tower. Assume the timeshare owners all pay the same annual maintenance fee, based on a table or specific wording in those documents. Now assume that the BOD proposes changing the fee ratio to a sliding scale so that penthouse level owners pay the highest fees and ground floor owners pay the lowest fees. Such a change would typically require an owner vote that, depending on the documents and state law, might require 2/3, 3/4 or 100% of owners approving the measure. In Massachusetts, such ratio could not be changed without a 100% favorable vote of those voting, with at least 80% of the owners actually casting a vote. Thus, effectively, such a ratio could never be changed, because those who would pay higher fees would vote against the proposal.


----------



## normbailey (Jan 12, 2006)

Dave M said:
			
		

> Such a change would typically require an owner vote that, depending on the documents and state law, might require 2/3, 3/4 or 100% of owners approving the measure. In Massachusetts, such ratio could not be changed without a 100% favorable vote of those voting, with at least 80% of the owners actually casting a vote. Thus, effectively, such a ratio could never be changed, because those who would pay higher fees would vote against the proposal.



In Washington State we have a tendency to keep counting until the votes result in a win for the stronger party.  That's how our governor got elected.

 

Okay, kidding aside, what's your take on the sentence preceding the one you answered - where Gadabout mentioned something about an assessment being levied to cover the legal costs incurred.

*"I mean, I would not want to be paying legal fees as part of an assessment, special or otherwise, without knowing exactly why."*

Is this something that could happen, or is likely to happen, as a result of a lawsuit against a timeshare company or club?


----------



## Dave M (Jan 12, 2006)

Absolutely.

As a comparable example, I am on the BOD of my 150-unit condo association. We routinely – but fortunately, not very often - have to decide how to defend, pursue, negotiate or otherwise handle various legal matters, ranging from collection of delinquent assessments to defending a suit for damage that an owner believes the HOA should cover to (etc.). And, yes, an action similar to the one discussed in this thread has come before the BOD for handling. 

We discuss in general terms at our annual owners' meeting significant legal matters, but that's it. Any decisions as to how to handle such matters are decided by the BOD, in accordance with our authority, which is common for timeshares and other HOAs. We, as owners, don’t want to pay unnecessary costs any more than other owners do. We have to make tough decisions and we do so to the best of our ability.

Some legal costs, such as for collection matters, are passed on to the specific affected owner. But other costs are part of the routine expenses that are covered by the annual assessment. Keep in mind that in a sold-out resort, the developer may not be involved at all and certainly doesn’t subsidize any expenses. Thus, the only source of funds to pay legal expenses is the maintenance fees that we pay.

Although it might appear to be a simple matter to get a vote from the owners on how to handle legal matters, it's not. In order to vote intelligently, an owner would need info from the BOD as to not only the reasons for the BOD's recommendation, but also the strengths and weaknesses of the case. Those arguments, especially the perceived weaknesses, would quickly find their way from the memo to owners into the hands of the opposing side in the legal matter, potentially destroying any chance at winning. 

Although, there are often posts on these forums suggesting that the BOD “must” get a vote from the owners on a particular matter, the resort's legal documents are almost always written in such a manner that such a vote is rarely required. Keep in mind that developers and their legal advisors are the people that drafted such documents. The developer doesn't want interference in management while still selling units and, if the developer were retained as the management company after the resort is sold out, such interference would still be unwelcome. Thus, it's pretty easy to see why a resort's legal documents are written as they are.

*Edited* to add that occasionally the language of HOA legal documents is determined to be in conflict with state law or public policy. But don't get your hopes up if you see a provision you don't like and that you believe to be unfair. Such rulings - against the HOA on the wording of such documents - don't happen very often.


----------



## cotraveller (Jan 12, 2006)

In the case of WorldMark, the bylaws specifically state that club can recover the costs associated with lawsuits by means of a special assessment.  A special assessment for lawsuit costs would be the first special assessment in the history of WorldMark.  I suspect that would get the attention of the owners, although probably not in the most favorable light.


----------



## normbailey (Jan 12, 2006)

cotraveller said:
			
		

> I suspect that would get the attention of the owners, although probably not in the most favorable light.



Until now I had only been mildly attentive to this thread, thinking that if anything happens it wouldn't be at my expense other than my loss of privacy against my will.

But, now that we're talking about the potential for an across-the-board assessment applied to all owners, for the sake of recovering costs incurred by a few other owners, now you've got my attention.

Of course, with our legal system, we can have multiple attorneys, all with differing opinions on the final ruling(s).  Depending on the number of appeals, that can vary.  But the final ruling(s) are never done by attorneys - except for settlements and dropped suits.  When no settlement is reached and a suit isn't dropped, then the final determination is by judge and jury.

So, no matter what one claimant's attorney says, there will always be another attorney willing to take the opposite side of the argument.

For those who might be interested in the ACLU's position on privacy issues, check out a humorous, if not totally frightening, webpage they put together.

Ordering a pizza, by the ACLU

​


----------



## Gadabout (Jan 12, 2006)

Well, this issue with access to owners' info seems to be in conflict with state laws (especially in the case of deeded ownerships, as opposed to RTU, either it is real estate or it is not).  

But wouldn't an HOA board still at least notify the owners before proceeding with this type of case, or would they wait until it was won or lost and then stick everyone with a special assessment?

This is the type of issue that when publicized (and worse, allowed to continue)can discourage people from owning TS.  

Oh well, it's almost sweeps month on TV, might be good for one of those "consumer reporter segments". Can you imagine someone giving that excuse about "divorce and child custody" on TV with a straight face? If nothing else, whomever did make a request through the media like that would get a lot of 
owner interest generated....


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 12, 2006)

*The Association is YOU*



			
				normbailey said:
			
		

> Until now I had only been mildly attentive to this thread, thinking that if anything happens it wouldn't be at my expense other than my loss of privacy against my will.
> 
> But, now that we're talking about the potential for an across-the-board assessment applied to all owners, for the sake of recovering costs incurred by a few other owners, now you've got my attention.



Everytime I hear an owner talk about suing the resort for percieved problems or a trip and fall I have to wonder if they understand who pays.  The Association isn't some big company with independent income and rich investors - it's them! The income comes only from the owners themselves. When someone sues the owners pay for any attorneys fees, settlement or award. We suffered through that when our resort Association was sued by the Developer and before we were done over $235,000, that had to be raised in part through a Special Assessment,  was spent to fight the suit with much more spent by the Developer. What would all that money have bought for the resort instead of lining lawyers pockets?  

When you own a condo or timeshare you are "them" so think carefully before suing yourself.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 12, 2006)

*I doubt that any news program would take interest in this subject.*

You will rarely see anything about timeshare on the news because we are a fairly small number of people, and those of us that own timeshare are looked upon by many as easily duped or culpable because we fell for the developer lies.  Most people don't have any clue that there is a resale market out there.

That is their opinions of timeshare.  I know that Tom Martino, consumer advocate on KHOW radio, thinks any person who buys timeshare is a moron and will have to pay those maintenance fees forever.  He says you can stay in a hotel cheaper and challenged anyone to call in, this was two months ago.  I did call in, was put on the air, and he would not listen to a thing I was saying.  He just kept asking how much I paid originally, how much are my maintenance fees, then he would come up with a wacky figure on my per-night expense.  I told him that a two-bedroom timeshare was the same as two hotel rooms or a suite.  He wouldn't listen to any of it.  

Of course, he is correct that there are deals on hotels out there, RCI isn't helping by renting out units on snaptravel.com and other sites, which devalues our weeks.  Costco always has timeshare units for rent with a package.  But mostly, timeshare is a good deal.  I don't like people thinking we are fools for buying, especially now that we own 10 weeks.    We are either stupid or smart, I don't know for sure.


----------



## PA- (Jan 12, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> Until now I had only been mildly attentive to this thread, thinking that if anything happens it wouldn't be at my expense other than my loss of privacy against my will.
> 
> But, now that we're talking about the potential for an across-the-board assessment applied to all owners, for the sake of recovering costs incurred by a few other owners, now you've got my attention.
> ....



You honestly believe that Trendwest/Cendant would bill the owners in a special assessment in that case? 

1)  They would never allow a special assessment to hinder their reputation and sales efforts, 

2)  Especially for such small peanuts.  The legal fees will probably be a few thou or so.  Even if a couple mil, that's not a big enough deal to put up with the bad relations an assessment would cause. 

3)  Even if they tried, they probably wouldn't get away with it.  The BOD is breaking the law, and violating the by-laws.  As representatives of Trendwest/Cendant, they are in too precarioius a position to bill us for trying to extend their stranglehold on the board.  There's no way that would fly.


----------



## normbailey (Jan 12, 2006)

Gadabout said:
			
		

> Oh well, it's almost sweeps month on TV, might be good for one of those "consumer reporter segments".



Oh, my, not the media.

 

I can just see it now......

A. Harry Nuzeanker reporting.....welcome to the 6 o'clock news.  Tonight's Breaking News is about the latest hot gossip involving timeshares.  We were the first to break this story earlier this hour, and we now have five of our crappiest (I mean, crack) reporters in the field.......

Around here every time the word 'snow' is even lightly mentioned in the forecast, we'll have 3 to 5 bundled reporters in the field to cover the events as they unfold.  And these breaking news stories are always accompanied by their own custom-designed logos and graphics.

What's funniest is that even when there isn't any snow falling, they still report in and have the camera pan down to the roadway to show you that nothing is falling yet.

Maybe that's how this issue will be presented in the media.  We'll have reporters strategically positioned at timeshares across the country.  Each reporter will be saying something to the effect of 

"Blondish Curlytop, live at the WorldMark Victoria resort, although we really have nothing to report yet.  As you can see, the timeshare resorts are still standing and owners are seemingly going about their normal routines of enjoying their relaxing vacations.  Maybe they just aren't aware of the breaking news they're about to be engulfed in.  Or, ......"

Dang.  Why did you have to mention the media?


----------



## normbailey (Jan 12, 2006)

PA- said:
			
		

> You honestly believe that Trendwest/Cendant would bill the owners in a special assessment in that case?
> 
> 1)  They would never allow a special assessment to hinder their reputation and sales efforts,
> 
> ...



I never said they would.  All I said was that it could  happen, that there is a potential.  Huge difference between potential and stating that one believes it WILL happen.

I don't make predictions or claim that things will happen based on speculation.  All I said was that there is a potential for it to happen based on the fact that the bylaws provide for the contingency.

And we all have our own individual assessments of what is small peanuts and what is outrageous.  If you think a few thou or so or even a couple mil is small peanuts, fine.  On this side of the debate, I think even a few hundred is repugnant.


----------



## normbailey (Jan 12, 2006)

timeos2 said:
			
		

> Everytime I hear an owner talk about suing the resort for percieved problems or a trip and fall I have to wonder if they understand who pays.  The Association isn't some big company with independent income and rich investors - it's them! The income comes only from the owners themselves. When someone sues the owners pay for any attorneys fees, settlement or award. We suffered through that when our resort Association was sued by the Developer and before we were done over $235,000, that had to be raised in part through a Special Assessment,  was spent to fight the suit with much more spent by the Developer. What would all that money have bought for the resort instead of lining lawyers pockets?
> 
> When you own a condo or timeshare you are "them" so think carefully before suing yourself.



John, thank you.  Too bad your organization had to suffer as you've stated here.  Makes one wonder, based on all of the in-house discussions my timeshare owners group has, about improvements and upgrades they want . . . how much more would we have in our resorts if we didn't lose a "few thou" here, a "couple mil" there, or even a real number like $235,000.

Granted, not all of it lines the lawyers' pockets.  Some of it goes to the costs of running our legal system beyond the attorneys, but one thing is unmistakably and inarguably true - all of the costs come OUT of the pockets of those involved in the suits.


----------



## RichM (Jan 12, 2006)

I agree with PA - the legal fees would probably be under $50,000.  I can't imagine Jay or anyone wanting to spend that much or anywhere near that much in such an effort.  Let's assume a round 250,000 WM owners at this point - that'd be a whopping 20 cents each; not even worth the price of the stamp or paper to mail out the bill to each owner.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## Gadabout (Jan 12, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> Oh, my, not the media.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I only mention the media because it doesn't cost anything, and yet can have an immense impact, if the story is handled correctly by the right reporter.  

And as to mentioning a potential lawsuit, it would probably be like many of these types of lawsuits--not necessarily for money, but just to get them to comply with the law. And in this case, maybe putting it to the owners first, when they buy a unit, as to exactly how they want to be contacted by other owners and for what purpose, might actually stave off this type of lawsuit. But this is the problem, right?

For example, I would want to know if there were others who felt that MFs were too high and would want to see about cutting expenses here and there, in other words, issues that directly affect running the TS. 

On the other hand, I would NOT want people (even other owners) constantly contacting me to find out if I'm tired of my TS and want to sell it to them cheap--that could be handled with some small announcement in the newsletter (i.e. "Don't call us, we'll call you).

If you can't contact other owners, you can't effect change when you need to, and at that point you're essentially staying in a hotel, where they can raise rates at whim, and you're stuck paying them.


----------



## PA- (Jan 12, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> I never said they would.  All I said was that it could  happen, that there is a potential.  Huge difference between potential and stating that one believes it WILL happen.
> 
> I don't make predictions or claim that things will happen based on speculation.  All I said was that there is a potential for it to happen based on the fact that the bylaws provide for the contingency.
> 
> And we all have our own individual assessments of what is small peanuts and what is outrageous.  If you think a few thou or so or even a couple mil is small peanuts, fine.  On this side of the debate, I think even a few hundred is repugnant.



Small peanuts to you is differerent than Cendant.  They're a $19Billion company, they aren't going to make you pay their inappropriate legal fees.  Sheez.  I don't understand what point you're trying to make, or whether you're agreeing or arguing, and with whom.  Yes, it's possible that they COULD try to charge all owners $5 to raise $1million for their illegal refusal to comply with the bylaws and state law.  For that matter, they COULD try to assess you $1million so they can refurbish the boardroom, but no reasonable person expects them to ever try it, or get away with it.


----------



## normbailey (Jan 12, 2006)

PA- said:
			
		

> Small peanuts to you is differerent than Cendant.  They're a $19Billion company, they aren't going to make you pay their inappropriate legal fees.  Sheez.  I don't understand what point you're trying to make, or whether you're agreeing or arguing, and with whom.  Yes, it's possible that they COULD try to charge all owners $5 to raise $1million for their illegal refusal to comply with the bylaws and state law.  For that matter, they COULD try to assess you $1million so they can refurbish the boardroom, but no reasonable person expects them to ever try it, or get away with it.



The point I'm making, and the position I'm taking, seems crystal clear to others on this board, but I'll give it another shot anyway.


This thread was started on the question of legality regarding release of owner lists to other members.

At one point recently it focused in on one person's (or a group's) claim that WorldMark was acting illegally and that on-going legal action was occurring.

Another respondent then stated that those same bylaws that the list seekers are rallying around also have a provision for the club to recover costs by invoking an assessment to the entire membership.  We've seen proof that one side of the argument has chosen to invoke the bylaws for their benefit.  Who can say with absolute certainty  that the club won't invoke their right to recoup those costs?

Yet another poster in this thread cited a situation where their timeshare had to fork over more than $200,000 in legal costs and stated the they wondered what they could have had as far as improvements for their resort.

Those are the facts.  I'm on the side of the debate that favors NOT releasing the list.  I'm on the side of the debate that does not want to find myself assessed additional monies to recover the incurred costs of said legal action.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but as of today there hasn't been any legal findings through a court of law, has there?  Is so, this discussion wouldn't be occurring.  Either the list would have been released or the list request would have been ruled invalid by a proper ward of the court.  

I am NOT saying it or anything else WILL happen, since I don't have a window into the future and any speculations on the future are guesswork at best.  I am only saying what I do NOT WANT to happen.

And, regardless of whether a company is a 19 Billion dollar enterprise or a 19-dollar lemonade stand, I wouldn't want EITHER of them to take money out of my pocket to recover costs incurred by legal action of this sort.

That's my position, and it's not budge-able.


----------



## PA- (Jan 12, 2006)

You're on the side of not releasing the list...

Yet, you don't want even a .000001% chance of Worldmark using your money to defend that position in court.

So..why wouldn't you then be on the side of....   

To date, I know of no rulings on the issue, I don't believe any case has gone through the discovery process in a court of law.  It seems unlikely the Worldmark BOD would prevail, caselaw precedent would indicate otherwise.  But as Dave points out, ya never know.


----------



## mtngal (Jan 12, 2006)

PA- said:
			
		

> Small peanuts to you is different than Cendant.  They're a $19Billion company, they aren't going to make you pay their inappropriate legal fees.  Sheez.  I don't understand what point you're trying to make, or whether you're agreeing or arguing, and with whom.  Yes, it's possible that they COULD try to charge all owners $5 to raise $1million for their illegal refusal to comply with the bylaws and state law.


Now I'm really confused with all the talk of lawsuits.  Just who is being sued?  Is it the WorldMark Board of Directors, WorldMark the Club, or Trendwest/Cendant?  From what I understand they are not the same thing, and their funding/sources of income are very different.  If the suit is against Cendant, then you could be right - they have other ways of earning money.  If the suit is against Trendwest, you might be right or might not (would this be an excuse to spin off Trendwest and letting it go into bankruptcy, thereby protecting the rest of Cendant's assets?).  If the suit is against WorldMark or the WM Board of Directors, then I would say that a special assessment would be almost guaranteed if it ends up in court, since WorldMark the Club is solely owned by the owners, NOT by Trendwest, and is NOT a multi-million corporation.  While the board may have a majority of members who are associated with Trendwest, their finances are separate.  Am I concerned now?  You bet I am!


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 12, 2006)

I have a sincere belief that it is my right as a WorldMark owner to obtain the member list.  I do not take my actions lightly.  Obviously there are people on both sides of this issue.  

Yes, my actions will cost Trendwest (and possibly WorldMark) some money.  

The fact that it will cost money isn't the measure of whether my actions are right or wrong.  

Some of the comments on this thread remind me of something that the Trendwest attorney said in court...something to this effect:

Your honor, if all WorldMark owners sought the member list we'd be in court forever...(of course they wouldn't need to go to court if they simply complied with the bylaw)

While it's true that my actions are costing Trendwest money, it's also true that Trendwest's refusal to my request is costing them money.


JMO

--Jay


----------



## roadsister (Jan 12, 2006)

mtngal said:
			
		

> Now I'm really confused with all the talk of lawsuits.  Just who is being sued?  Is it the WorldMark Board of Directors, WorldMark the Club, or Trendwest/Cendant?  From what I understand they are not the same thing, and their funding/sources of income are very different.  If the suit is against Cendant, then you could be right - they have other ways of earning money.  If the suit is against Trendwest, you might be right or might not (would this be an excuse to spin off Trendwest and letting it go into bankruptcy, thereby protecting the rest of Cendant's assets?).  If the suit is against WorldMark or the WM Board of Directors, then I would say that a special assessment would be almost guaranteed if it ends up in court, since WorldMark the Club is solely owned by the owners, NOT by Trendwest, and is NOT a multi-million corporation.  While the board may have a majority of members who are associated with Trendwest, their finances are separate.  Am I concerned now?  You bet I am!


Mtngal,
This is the issue that a few dozen people do not understand and they either don't see-or refuse to see another view- that there IS a difference.....*you better believe "we" WM owners would be paying through an assessment as stated in the bylaws*, NOT TW or Cendent....and THAT is a concern as I see it to more than 200,000 owners. Whether you agree or disagree about the owner list, THAT is the issue for pro and con.


----------



## RichM (Jan 12, 2006)

That's the key - any assessment, even if there were one, would be divided amongst over 200,000 owners, some of which own multiples of a "basic" membership (I assume the assessment shares are proportional to points owned?), so that assessment would be divvied up even further.  

Jay, how much are you willing to spend in legal fees? Multiply that by 5 or 10 and assume that's what WM would spend (higher-priced, higher-quantity of lawyers).  How many credits are owned by owners? 2 billion now? (it was 1.63 in the 2003 report).  So, divide that dollar value by 2 billion, then multiply by the number of credits you own.  For me (12,000 credits), $50,000 in WM legal costs = 30 cents.  $100,000 = 60 cents.  As an owner, I'd find that acceptable regardless of the outcome (win or lose on either side) because then there'd be a precedent and the Club could use it, either way, to deal with any future requests.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 12, 2006)

roadsister said:
			
		

> Mtngal,
> This is the issue that a few dozen people do not understand and they either don't see-or refuse to see another view- that there IS a difference.....*you better believe "we" WM owners would be paying through an assessment as stated in the bylaws*, NOT TW or Cendent....and THAT is a concern as I see it to more than 200,000 owners.



Faye,

I'm certainly capable and willing to examine alternate viewpoints.  If I take a position that is different from yours does that make my position wrong?  I think that it only shows that we have different viewpoints.

At this point, my actions have cost each WorldMark owner far less than a single dollar.  My personal out of pocket costs are around $2,000.

Let's not blow this too far out of proportion.

--Jay


----------



## normbailey (Jan 13, 2006)

PA- said:
			
		

> So..why wouldn't you then be on the side of....
> 
> To date, I know of no rulings on the issue, I don't believe any case has gone through the discovery process in a court of law.  It seems unlikely the Worldmark BOD would prevail, caselaw precedent would indicate otherwise.  But as Dave points out, ya never know.



That is assuming there are only two sides to the issue.  I don't share that assumption.  I believe there are both objective and subjective sides to every issue.  Especially when dealing with matters involving personal privacy, legal rulings, corporations, individuals, and so on.

I have chosen to base my position, and the side I support, not solely based on the facts, but also on some very strong inner core beliefs and values.  I'm also convinced that on a lot of other issues you and I could and would probably agree.  If we weren't in agreement on anything, one of us wouldn't be a WorldMark owner in the first place.

Jay said it quite nicely when he said _"If I take a position that is different from yours does that make my position wrong? I don't think so...it only shows that we have different viewpoints."_  I couldn't have said it better.

That's what this free society is all about.  He's within his rights to take the course of action he's taking.  I'm within my rights to take the position of opposing it.  Have I said anything otherwise?  I don't like his action, but I am grateful that we're lucky to be living in a country where he has the right to take such an action.  And I will never suggest otherwise.

Nor will I ever back down from opposing him, or you for that matter, on this issue.

I'm impressed that he is willing to reimburse any owner who asks for it.  If it comes to that, I'll be happy to save him postage by using PayPal.  But only if he agrees that I don't have to submit my reimbursement request via registered mail.

Would I ask for the nickel?  Darn tootin' I would.  It's a matter of principle.  One of those subjective values I use to help determine the positions I take.  And keeping one's word is one of the highest principles I use as a metric.  So, if you're still confused as to why I've taken the position I've taken, just consider the high probability that we may have differing principles and values.  

The caveat being that mine are not open for discussion here.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jan 13, 2006)

*Just My Little Way Of Sticking It To "The Man"*



			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> When you own a condo or timeshare you are "them" so think carefully before suing yourself.


But wait! 

I am _The Man_. 

Does that mean I'm sticking it to myself? 

Whoa! 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 13, 2006)

normbailey said:
			
		

> Jay said it quite nicely when he said _"If I take a position that is different from yours does that make my position wrong? I don't think so...it only shows that we have different viewpoints."_  I couldn't have said it better.
> 
> That's what this free society is all about.  He's within his rights to take the course of action he's taking.  I'm within my rights to take the position of opposing it.  Have I said anything otherwise?  I don't like his action, but I am grateful that we're lucky to be living in a country where he has the right to take such an action.  And I will never suggest otherwise.
> 
> Nor will I ever back down from opposing him, or you for that matter, on this issue.




Norm,

PayPal works fine for me   

Thanks for your friendly and very reasonable opposition   I like your style.  

I'm a bit like you.  I consider myself a principle-based person who is willing to take tough stands.

--Jay


----------



## cotraveller (Jan 13, 2006)

ThaiChef said:
			
		

> Let's not blow this too far out of proportion.



Well put Jay.  We are not talking about a rundown derelict timeshare in some obscure corner of the world.  We are talking about one of the most well thought of, well respected, and well run timeshare organizations in existence.

All of the underlying issues, taxes, locations, etc., etc., behind the actions that are being discussed in this thread are subjective issues.  They have been discussed over and over on this forum and others ad infinitum.  Even among this small group there is no consensus as to who is right or wrong.    

I watch in a somewhat amazed state at the lengths some are willing to go in an attempt to further their causes.  The steps they think are necessary to gain I’m not sure what.   I don’t understand the motives.  Perhaps it’s a power, control, money, ego, or some similar issue.  I wonder why they think they know better than I what is in my best interest.  I shake my head while visualizing just how much good could be done if all that time and effort, not to mention the money, were expended working within the system rather than attacking it.  Working to build the system up to make it even better.

So as you said, let’s not blow this out of proportion.


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 13, 2006)

cotraveller said:
			
		

> Well put Jay.  We are not talking about a rundown derelict timeshare in some obscure corner of the world.  We are talking about one of the most well thought of, well respected, and well run timeshare organizations in existence.
> 
> So as you said, let’s not blow this out of proportion.



Thanks, Fred.

I love it when people can share opposing points within the confines of a polite and civil discourse.

I'm the Republican precinct chair in my area.  My next door neighbor is the Democratic precinct chair.  We enjoy many over-the-fence discussions.  I find those over-the-fence discussions similar to some of our exchanges.  

In spite our vastly opposing views of the political world, my neighbor and I remain good friends and are able to find many points of common interest and agreement.  I suspect it would be the same way if you and I were neighbors.

I share your feelings regarding the greatness of WorldMark.  I'm happy to be an owner in such an awesome club.

--Jay


----------



## Dave M (Jan 13, 2006)

*In my capacity as a BBS Administrator*....

I have just deleted three messages from this thread. Challenging the motives of others in this thread, telling them how they should or shouldn't act and other discourteous approaches to discussing *people* who post here rather than courteously discussing the *content* of other posts is not permitted. 

As I stated in post #99 in this thread





> Being courteous, as defined in the Site Rules (link on the above blue bar), means refraining from behavior lectures, personal attacks, boorish behavior and bad manners. It means referring to others as you would like to be treated. It means that when you express disagreement with another's post, you do so courteously and respectfully.


Please post nicely or not at all.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 13, 2006)

*I am not a Worldmark owner, but my problem is similar.*

I just got on the board at the timeshare that was my very first purchase, our first purchase, almost 25 years ago.  The developer left our resort with huge debt and went bankrupt, so all the owners had to step up and take care of the debt, which raised our maintenance fees substantially at the time, which was over twenty years ago, but I cannot tell you exactly how long ago it actually was.

The timeshare was great for many years, we used it, traded it and even received a free ski week 1 at our resort when other owners let their weeks go.  The board was just happy to have people paying MF's on these weeks.  

Then four years ago, we got a huge assessment to pay for decks for all of the units, even the whole-owned units because it was in the timeshare owners' best interest to do so. * We were opposed and voiced our opinions to the management company and were told that we were the only ones opposed.  *  How could we prove otherwise?  We went to an owners' meeting ten months after the assessment (we go to all of them because they are in Denver), and about twenty couples were present, so we asked at the meeting why we are paying for the decks are were treated as if we were unreasonable.  A few of the older folks defended the purchase of the decks because they were deteriorating.   Of course, it turned out that we had no choice but to replace the decks because they were old and the whole owners refused to pay.  What gave them that right to refused to pay?  That was the real issue.

Now we get further assessments for five years, totalling $950 with almost no explanation as to why we are paying it.  The newsletter read, "due to the deteriorating shells....."  Why can't an owner get a list of other owners?  Where is our freedom to stand up to people who laud these decisions over us?  

No, we have no voice and cannot do a thing about it because most of the owners are old, much older than we are, and they accept that which they cannot change because the fight is out of them.  They give their weeks up.  There is no rebellion at the meetings that we attend every year, just complacency.  

1) We cannot band together because our resort's site already has a BBS and not one person ever posts there.
2) We can't vote board members off because they get all the proxies.
3) We are not allowed to have members' numbers to ask for proxies and explain why we are unhappy.
4) We can't put anything in the newsletter opposing the all-powerful board.

Basically, the board thinks they are looking out for everybody so why should they get to band together?  How is that for freedom?  All of you who are posting against members being allowed to have your phone number, put yourself in the place of an owner with the frustrations I have felt.  *How can you oust the board that has all the proxies and all the votes????*

*Yes, I got on the board because there was actually a vacancy, but replacing other board members that have been in place for many years, most have been on for over 10 years, will be impossible unless they relinquish their positions.*  Board members who like being in charge and feel that they are looking out for the best interests of all owners, are not going to retire.   

Actually, I would say that the management company has far more to say than the board on most issues, anyway.  I have a battle ahead against the board and the management company.


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 14, 2006)

Cindy,

You may have already addressed this...as a member of the BOD of your HOA, aren't you able to get a member list?  The WorldMark bylaws state that a member of the board has an absolute right to all the records.  What do your bylaws state regarding a directors rights to the HOA records?

What stops you from building a coalition of owners and getting rid of the management company?

--Jay


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 14, 2006)

Jay, the by-laws don't say anything about the board having records, if I am reading them correctly.  I went over some of the bylaws a few months ago, when I found out that our resort has a ten-year exclusive contract with II that the former president signed.  We are not allowed to use any exchange company except II.  I thought the bylaws might give me some clue as to how the president has enough power to keep 1300 people from using DAE or any other company that would give us more options. There was nothing about the president's power in the bylaws.  

At that time, I asked for a copy of the signed contract with II to look over myself. The management company said they could get that to me but it would take some time.  I was trying to get on the board at the time and had several exchange companies willing to give free weeks for a drawing at our annual meeting.  The management company stopped me because of the contract with II.  I really want to see this contract, but two months later, no contract.  I haven't forgotten and will ask to see it at our next meeting, whenever that will be.  

The board members are nice people, they really are.  But they do love their positions, making decisions for everyone and giving no say to anyone.  My real problem has been with the communications between the board and the owners.  Aside from less than a page of minutes from the annual meeting, all information, all year long, comes from the management company.  Most of that is generic information:  "The weather has been great here, the summer warmer than usual......."   Lah dee dah!


----------



## ThaiChef (Jan 14, 2006)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> Jay, the by-laws don't say anything about the board having records, if I am reading them correctly.  I went over some of the bylaws a few months ago, when I found out that our resort has a ten-year exclusive contract with II that the former president signed.  We are not allowed to use any exchange company except II.  I thought the bylaws might give me some clue as to how the president has enough power to keep 1300 people from using DAE or any other company that would give us more options. There was nothing about the president's power in the bylaws.
> 
> At that time, I asked for a copy of the signed contract with II to look over myself. The management company said they could get that to me but it would take some time.  I was trying to get on the board at the time and had several exchange companies willing to give free weeks for a drawing at our annual meeting.  The management company stopped me because of the contract with II.  I really want to see this contract, but two months later, no contract.  I haven't forgotten and will ask to see it at our next meeting, whenever that will be.
> 
> The board members are nice people, they really are.  But they do love their positions, making decisions for everyone and giving no say to anyone.  My real problem has been with the communications between the board and the owners.  Aside from less than a page of minutes from the annual meeting, all information, all year long, comes from the management company.  Most of that is generic information:  "The weather has been great here, the summer warmer than usual......."   Lah dee dah!



Cindy,

I've scanned through the Colorado state statutes and I don't see anything which would suggest that a director has any special rights where corporate records are concerned.  In my case, the WorldMark bylaws not only give the right of members to access the member list, they give their directors what they characterize as an absolute right....although as I've written before, I know of at least one director who was refused access to the list.

Good luck in your quest 

--Jay


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 14, 2006)

*The duties of a Board member would require access*



			
				ThaiChef said:
			
		

> Cindy,
> 
> I've scanned through the Colorado state statutes and I don't see anything which would suggest that a director has any special rights where corporate records are concerned.  In my case, the WorldMark bylaws not only give the right of members to access the member list, they give their directors what they characterize as an absolute right....although as I've written before, I know of at least one director who was refused access to the list.
> 
> ...



You don't need anything in the statutes. The very nature of being on a Board means that the member has a fudicary duty to all owners they represent. That would include the knowledge of any contract the Association has entered into. You may not be able to change it - you also might be able to - but there would certainly be an absolute right for any Board member that requests to see any contract to do so.  The Board IS the manager of the Association and the ultimate responsible entity NOT the management company that they pay to run things.  

Cindy - do not let them bully you. Don't wait until the meeting. Tell them you want to see the contract now and put the request in writing.  Give them 7 business days to deliver by mail, fax or email image. They must give you that information and if they refuse there is something really underhanded going on that you need to get out in the open.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 14, 2006)

I am getting confused.      So many are telling me not to make waves, that I am new, or not to be a thorn in the side of the board, but now you are saying that I shouldn't let them bully me.  I don't know what to do.   

I really do want to make a change but the job I want is secretary, and I am now in a generic position they call "director."  I want to communicate news to the owners.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 14, 2006)

*Treat it like it you have a right because you do*



			
				rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> I am getting confused.      So many are telling me not to make waves, that I am new, or not to be a thorn in the side of the board, but now you are saying that I shouldn't let them bully me.  I don't know what to do.
> 
> I really do want to make a change but the job I want is secretary, and I am now in a generic position they call "director."  I want to communicate news to the owners.


Cindy - No waves, no Board title needed. Just a simple and valid request from a sitting Board member for information you are clearly entitled to have. The only reason it would become a battle is if the management makes it one and then you would have every reason to get as nasty as it takes. Remember the Board of which you are 1 member runs the Association. Even the other Board members do not have any right to keep information out of your hands. Be nice but be very very firm in your request. Put it in writing and give them a reasonable deadline to produce.  Let them know you are very serious.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 18, 2006)

*The owner that wants the list just contacted me*

I guess our management company is choosing to put this owner off rather than giving an answer.  My understanding was that the HOA's lawyer believes that we must allow any owner to review all records, which he believed included an owner roster.  

I then understood that we were taking some "state legislature" lawyer's advice not to show the list to anyone due to divorce and child custody issues.  

The guy deserves an answer, one way or another.  I think we will be breaking the law if we do not provide the list.


----------



## Tia (Jan 18, 2006)

So you HOA lawyer said yes to giving a list of owners, but a boardmember didn't like that one, so sought another answer which has something to do with divorce and child custody? How odd is that. When ts owners are not interested you have managment companies ruling the roost to their own benefit no doubt.





			
				rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> I guess our management company is choosing to put this owner off rather than giving an answer.  My understanding was that the HOA's lawyer believes that we must allow any owner to review all records, which he believed included an owner roster.
> 
> I then understood that we were taking some "state legislature" lawyer's advice not to show the list to anyone due to divorce and child custody issues.
> 
> The guy deserves an answer, one way or another.  I think we will be breaking the law if we do not provide the list.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 18, 2006)

*This situation just gets more complicated*

But the board members are making it that way.  This is a simple matter of giving an owner what the law requires and what our bylaws say to be true.


----------



## Tia (Jan 19, 2006)

Nothing with timeshare managment and the boards is simple as it should be in certain situations. Our one association was suppose to have an annual audit, made available to all, but it seems they apparently weren't done come to find out. Or if they were the current developer/management company says they weren't and are fighting release of records. It's got to make a person wonder.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Feb 11, 2006)

*An update for those of you who are watching:*

The owner (that wants the roster) had his lawyer send his request to the management company.  The management company called it a threatening letter, which was forwarded to me.  It did not look threatening to me and quoted Colorado law, but the management company has taken the position that the owner can come to the resort, 1 1/2 hours away from his home (I know because he lives near me) and look at the records but cannot copy or take them from the premises.  That will not be sufficient for the owner, nor do I agree, but I am one vote against four *and* the management company.

I think it is wise to choose our battles carefully and not wage a war over something this insignificant, especially if we are the ones breaking the laws, which clearly give him the right to such information.  

How ridiculous is this anyway?  I would like to hear your opinions because this situation is making me crazy.


----------



## Keitht (Feb 11, 2006)

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> I think it is wise to choose our battles carefully and not wage a war over something this insignificant, especially if we are the ones breaking the laws, which clearly give him the right to such information.



If, as you say, what the management want to do is against state law you need to say so at the next meeting and suggest that they consult with their own lawyers.  That way at least it should be on record that you were opposed to their action if it does get dragged into court.
The statement you make above is simple and clear.  Make that point to them as well - some of them may come over to your way of thinking if they see that what you are actually trying to do is protect the resort from potentially expensive law suits.


----------



## Mel (Feb 11, 2006)

I
m with Keith on this one.  Make sure it is in the minutes of your next meeting that you think the resort is in the wrong.  If the owner takes this to court, as a member of the board, you could be a party to that lawsuit, and judgement could be made against you.  At least if you go on the record as disagreeing, you may be able to insulate yourself.

I don't know if your resort has liability insurance on the board (directors & officers or D&O insurance) but if not, you could be held liable for any "damages" the court awards.  Also, if not, you as an owner will be paying in the form of increased maintenance fees if damages are awarded, to cover anything paid by the HOA.


----------



## Petunia (Feb 14, 2006)

*Owners List*

People are afraid to give out any information now since 9/11, however, one can usually find other owners by researching the property records at the county courthouse.


----------



## Dave M (Feb 14, 2006)

Mel said:
			
		

> ...you could be held liable for any "damages" the court awards.


Probably not. Most state statutes protect members of a non-profit organization who act in their capacity as officers or directors from liability for negligence and other inappropriate acts, as long as they do so based on their judgment, rather than out of vindictiveness or some other nefarious reason. Certainly, if the board has received some legal advice supporting their position, that would further insulate them from liability.

The Colorado law on this issue is embodied in Section 7-30-106 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.


----------



## Tia (Feb 15, 2006)

Are all timeshares considered non-profit? Aren't the developers who originally sit on a board, before it's sold out, in this for a profit?

We have a board that is being sued by an owner for the last election process right now, as I just found out. So until the court decides your going to have to defend yourself right?   




			
				Dave M said:
			
		

> Probably not. Most state statutes protect members of a non-profit organization who act in their capacity as officers or directors from liability for negligence and other inappropriate acts, as long as they do so based on their judgment, rather than out of vindictiveness or some other nefarious reason. Certainly, if the board has received some legal advice supporting their position, that would further insulate them from liability.
> 
> The Colorado law on this issue is embodied in Section 7-30-106 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Feb 17, 2006)

*Timeos and Dave M warned me, but did I listen?  No, so now I am the bad guy.*

The management company has decided to send a full roster of owners to this guy, but I had to stand my ground.  I may have been a little rude.    I am kind of ashamed of myself, frankly.  I was angry.  I am one of those people who never, ever stands up to people in person, but I can sure write an angry email.  I feel just terrible.  

I may have used a few defamatory words: ridiculous, idiocy, asinine (though I never use profanities) while defending my opinion against the excuses one board member had for denying the request.  They definitely took offense, at least three of the four other board members who have had these positions for 3 years, 10 years and 24 years.  I think the oldest two should step down, personally, but I didn't say that, which is the only thing I didn't say to offend these people.  

My frustrations were building up after huge assessments that have never been explained completely to most members, plus there is a total lack of communication between the board and the owners.  Basically, there is no communication.  They allow the management to answer all questions, even though they are supposed to represent the owners.  

Anyway, it will be difficult for me to even go to a board meeting, I was so "in their faces", though I have not been invited to one yet and have been a member of the board for four months.  Maybe they do everything via email and everything will be okay.    Or maybe they don't want me at their meetings and have chosen not to extend an invitation my way.  

They had to be prepared for me. From the supposed exclusive contract with II that I have never seen and asked for in November; my emails complaining about huge assessments with no explanation; then this issue over an owners' roster, all of them knew where I stood on all things "exclusive."  

*I still would ask any people who are opposed to a fellow owner getting your name and phone number: *  If the current board is running your timeshare resort into the ground, wouldn't you want to have the right to contact other owners to band against those with whom you disagree?  Would you want someone to take a stand against a board that is out of control with your money?  

It would not be in the best interests of any resort and its owners to have a board that gets all of the proxies, guaranteeing themselves board positions for 24 years.  Wouldn't you agree with that?  How old are their ideas, anyway?  How comfortable do you have to be in a position to want to keep it that long?  The original president just stepped down one year ago and chose his replacement, a person that he knows from his place of employment, a person he knew would continue his legacy.  I think that is wrong, but this board can choose who they take.  Unfortunately for them, I guess, they took me for this open position.  I didn't want them to regret their decision, but I know they are wishing someone else, anyone else, would have volunteered.  Believe me, they would not have taken me.


----------



## royalholidayclubbed (Feb 18, 2006)

*You did what you could and thought was right!*

I actually am in a timeshare group with which I am disatisfied and I would DEARLY like to be able to communicate with each and every member to express my level of disatisfaction!

However, apart from the fact that were I to ask for a roster the company would surely not provide it - I think they would probably guess its purpose !   - I personally would be unhappy to think that my personal information had been given out to someone else without my authorization or knowledge.

So hopefully everything turns out OK for you in the end.

Best regards,


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Feb 20, 2006)

*Names and phone numbers are not personal information.*

Personal information is not going to be divulged.  No one will see a credit card or social security number, or your kids names or your birthdays.  That is personal information.  If a salesperson calls, you can hang up.  Our phone numbers, addresses and names are everywhere out there.  Ours is in the phone book. 

If a timeshare salesperson got your name from an owners' list at his home resort that he got legally, you can "just say no."  The real problem is not being able to get a list.  That is where your rights are really being violated.  I think it is time more owners start asking for a list of fellow owners.  I would like to see this become a trend, not because I want sales calls (we have a no-call list in Colorado, so if you solicit, by phone, someone that is on the no-call list, you can get huge fines), but because if an owner is more in touch with what is going on at any of my resorts and wants to get my proxy, I am going to give that person my vote over a board member that may be causing the problem. 

At our resort, the board members have just become too complacent.  They allow the management to do anything and everything.  That is what comes with being a board member for one or more decades.  The people are very nice, they really are, but I wanted to be a part of a board that thinks outside the box.  They're stuck in the box, headfirst.    

Our assessments have totaled $1,532 in recent years, with some of that still being paid with the regular MF's for the next four years.  When the meeting minutes were sent to the owners, the secretary explained: "a week of dues is less than one night's stay in Hawaii."   That was all the explanation we got from our own board.  What is that supposed to mean to the owners on fixed incomes?  The management company's owner added: "The average dues for a two bedroom in the western region is $583 per year based on 188 resorts tracked by Timeshare Today."  I emailed Timesharing Today, since I have written many articles for them, and was told that no such survey or report was ever published.  So I asked our resort manager what he was talking about.  He said he did it himself by looking at the classifieds.  That's not a valid poll/survey.    

This is the garbage they sent out to justify a huge assessment.  If they would have said tiles and kitchen cabinets are falling apart, windows no longer close, siding is deteriorated, shingles need replaced, etc., chimneys are crumbling, parking lot needs retarred, with a cost of each item, divided by the number of weeks per unit, then people would have understood better.  As it was, I had people who were reading my tirades on the resort's BBS contacting me, asking me what was up with the maintenance fees.  

I had lots of proxies for the last annual meeting in October, to help me with my election to the board.  I didn't need them.  The board didn't announce the number of proxies they had and just started the meeting.  That is against our bylaws.  They are supposed to check to see if there are enough proxies to do business, and announce the results, but they always skip that.  What we need to write into the bylaws are term limits.  All we need to say is: a decade or more on the board is not allowed.  They're just a little too comfy.  

I have no idea why the guy wanted the list.  He never told the board what he would do with the names and numbers, but I think he was just testing us to see if we would obey the law, which is clear.  He is going to get the list.  He has to pay for the expenses of copying and mailing it, but he is getting what he wanted.  I may have to resign from the board because I lost my temper.  That is probably my next move, even my husband thinks so.  The board has already decided that I am probably in cahoots with the owner that wanted the list.  They think he and I are planning to "stack the board."  As though that is the worst thing that could happen--new board members with crazy ideas.       Those words, "stack the board," are directly from an email I got from the board member that has been on for ten years.  He thought I was too passionate and must have a reason.  Well, I was fighting for the guy's rights, which made me feel some passion, but I had no intentions of stacking the board or in getting rid of anyone.  Now if volunteers step forward for this next year's meeting, I would like to replace two of the board members with some new faces, but I have no power to do it.  

Anyway, I wanted to know if anyone really thinks it would be horrible for a fellow owner to have their name, address and phone number.  You need to give a valid reason.  What is the worst that can happen?  If he/she is willing to pay 39 cents to mail you a letter, I would bet you would be interested in what is in that letter.


----------



## sachy (Aug 24, 2006)

*Do we have a right to owner's roster??*

We have asked for the owners list as well and we're told the State of Florida statutes say that it is a privacy issue, and that is why they can't give it to us.
Our purpose for the list is to be able to communicate with the other owners.
We are having alot of problems questions and financial issues with our timeshare and some of the other owners need to know these things.
We also are very close to some of the older owners and like keeping in touch.
What are they so afraid of?
They want to keep us disconnected so we don't share information about them and what they are not doing!!
So I believe it is an owners right to the information.
There are realtors that send stuff in the mail all the time to try to sell or list our timeshares, where did they get the information, it is public information, but very difficult and time consuming to get it at the county office or online.
The less the owners talk to each other, the better off the management company is.
Our manager has every member of his staff in his office, one of his family members, very curious and scary.
The board members with the exception of one (who replaced a member who died), have been there for many years.
We have had very little maintenance done in the last 3 or 4 years (this management co. took over in 1999 and was voted in by one of the oldest board members) and all of a sudden after alot of us complained about the deterioration of our resort, he has put out a special assessment of $200.00 per unit, (for me that is $1,200.00 as I own 6 weeks) and I wouldn't mind that if we were getting new furniture and finally maintaining our resort the way that it should have been maintained, but my question is, where is the last 3 or 4 years maintenance fees reserved for these things??
This is $397,800.00
We have 39 units in our resort and 1989 owners.
we have to pay the assessment in 30 days or it is delinquent in 60 days, and then in dec. of course our regular maintenance fees are due.
Plus when questioning an audit that was done only by information provided by the management company, nothing added up and we were told by an attorney who actually represented the management company but paid by the association, not to contact ANY of the companies that was hired by the management company to do work at our resort.
Any suggestions by anyone??
Anyone know an attorney who knows timeshare law in Florida???
I am running for the board, but have NO chance of getting in because this manager counts ALL the votes on everything and until I requested it, never even shared the amount of votes on any matter.
Could I write up my resume and ask for peoples votes or proxies, give the letters to the management company all stamped and sealed and ask them to send them out to the owners (since we don't have the list) and then have the proxies sent directly to me?  and then take them to the annual meeting when the votes are counted?
As you can see, I think we have some real problems here and need any and all the help we can get.
Thanks in advance,
Sachy


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 24, 2006)

*Quick answer - no you are not.*

Despite your detailed post I will answer in an abbreviated form. 

While you do have a right to contact other owners at your resort you do not have a right to the actual owners listing.  Access to that is strictly controlled as it is a goldmine for someone who wanted to pitch services or a personal agenda - think a resale group or a developer of a new resort for examples.  So if you want to send a mailing to all owners you need to pay to have the resort do it. That usually means working through the Association and proving there is a legitimate need to contact all owners. And the cost would most likely be quite high. 

My consumer advocate side says this isn't right but experience says free access even limited to owners to the list would be abused. The State of Florida apparently agrees that it isn't desirable as they have placed strict regulations on access and use of those lists.

On the other hand your problems sound serious and you are right to attempt to address them. In the past the use of web sites, chat groups and even BBS sites like TUG have helped owners (including me) expose and correct that type of management abuse. Use every tool you have but, unless you plan to work through the resort, the owners list will not be one of them.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Aug 24, 2006)

*Can You Look Up Everybody In The County Deed Books?*




			
				timeos2 said:
			
		

> Use every tool you have but, unless you plan to work through the resort, the owners list will not be one of them.


Labor-intensive as it surely would be, maybe you could create your own list of owners by researching all the publicly recorded ownership deeds down at the county courthouse.  With a little luck, the deeds would be searchable on-line, so you'd be spending time at the terminal rather than time with the physical deed books.  Either way, it would be a daunting task. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Miss Marty (Dec 5, 2006)

*Q:*

*
Do we have a right to owners' roster?*
See thread regarding this subject in the Tug Lounge 

Owners' Right to Inspect and Copy Association Records


----------

