# WorldMark Who to vote for, and why?



## Tokapeba (Sep 1, 2007)

I want to vote an owner onto the WorldMark board, who has the best chance? I know a little, but havn't been following for a couple months. I just received my ballot in the mail today and I don't have a lot of time to do research.

Any help would be greatly appriceated.

Andy.


----------



## SleepinIn (Sep 2, 2007)

Andy,

If you have no idea, I can certainly give you one.  I know there are others who read here who _hate _the person I'm going to mention, but I'm going to anyway and I'll tell you why.

My strongest suggestion is that you *assign your proxy to Philip Abdouch*.  You'll see him on the ballot as a candidate.

You may or may not be aware, but Wyndham has done the following in the last 1.5 years, allowed without a whimper from our BoD:


Increased credit allocation for all new resorts, from 30% higher to almost 100% higher.  You can check out the credits required to stay at the Las Vegas Tropicana, West Yellowstone, and San Diego resorts.

Rent units to the public.

"Party Weekends" where Wyndham books units to accommodate up to 52 people during the summer and other peak times at resorts we can't get into with our credits. let alone bonus time.  This is a program for sales.  Owners are required to bring a non-owner couple and they are required to attend a sales presentation.

Give non-owners using the "Experience" program of purchasing non-renewable credits to "try out" being an owner, higher priority on booking popular coastal resorts during holiday and summer periods.

Speaking of bonus time (it's not a "bonus," it's a right in the contract) you may have noticed how much harder it's getting to book bonus time.  All new resorts and even new units at existing resorts (St. George, Bear Lake, even Galena) are now having 50 weeks per year sold instead of the 48 that was customary for "drive-to" locations.  This means that instead of setting aside 1 week for maintenance and 3 weeks for bonus time, they're setting aside 1 week for bonus time.

Have you seen the increase in housekeeping fees?  The fees for most unit types rose more than 30%, with the cost for a 3-bdrm unit going from $ 55 to $ 75, or more than 36%.

They have also introduced a new program called TravelShare.  This program allows new owners with accounts as small as 6,000 credits to book units for cash from 21 to 42 days before check-in.  The current cost is 6 cents per credit, or 1.6 cents higher than the current bonus time fees.  This is a tiered program and excludes the existing owner base unless they wish to buy at least 5,000 more credits from Wyndham.
Philip is a true independent who would not sit idly by and watch Wyndham destroy our club.  He may not be able to change the world, but I believe he can make a difference.

Some will say that he's abrasive.  Well, most would be when the current BoD (who primarily work for Wyndham, as do Peggy Fry and Dave Herrick, or used to work for them or parent company Cendant, Gene Hensley and John Henley) allows Wyndham to pillage the club and steal our value.

Dave Herrick (I guess when wearing his "Wyndham hat") tells us that the developer alone sets credit allocation for new resorts.  The governing documents say:  "Such allocation shall be based on the relative use-value of the new Resort compared to existing Resorts, in Declarant's *reasonable* discretion."  Is it reasonable to believe that the new Las Vegas Tropicana resort should cost 13,000 to 15,000 credits for a 2-bdrm for a week when Las Vegas Spencer Street costs 10,000?  Both are converted apartment complexes, near, but not on the strip.  The units at Spencer Street are larger than even the 2-bdrm deluxe units at Tropicana.

It's time that the owners elect a director that will actually think for himself and has spine enough to stand up to the rest of the BoD.

I have no ax to grind, nothing to gain by supporting Philip and his proxy drive other than to save our club.  And it has come to that, saving it or watching the former Cendant, now Wyndham rape and pillage till there's nothing left.  They'll cut and run the minute it suits them.

If you don't want to "assign your proxy" to Philip, then please vote for him directly. 

For more information on these and other issues, as well as learning how to make the absolute best of your ownership, go to www.wmowners.com.


----------



## mtribe (Sep 2, 2007)

I also am giving my proxy to Phillip.  I have carefully read each of the candidates statements in destinations.  Phillip is not the most antagonistic of the entire pool of candidates but is strong enough to stand up to the existing board.  It is inconceivable to me that our board is so thoroughly tied up in a conflict of interest that the actually do not have a conflict of interest.  There is only one interest and that is profits for Wyndham.  There is so little concern for Worldmark the Club and its existing owners that there may as well not even be a separate legal entity.  

At a minimum read the candidates statements in  Destination magazine and also any additional links or references that they mention to learn some of the basics.  I believe you will find that Phillip has a good grasp of the situation.  The list above is a good beginning of recent problems but this is only the tip of the iceberg.  We need a course correction because I love my WM and do not want to see it sink.


----------



## cotraveller (Sep 2, 2007)

I will not be giving my proxy to anyone.  I will choose who to vote for myself, and which issues to vote for or against.

There is no question that some of the new resorts have higher credit allocations than the older ones.  Las Vegas, Spencer Street, an example quoted earlier in this thread, requires 8,000 credits for a 1 bedroom unit per week.  By comparison, two of the urban resorts, San Francisco and Seattle, require 12,000 credits for a 1 bedroom unit in red season.  There was not much fuss when those two resorts came on line at a 50% increase over some of the older resorts.  It was accepted as a necessity for having the urban locations.  San Diego came on line requiring 15,000 credits for a 1 bedroom unit and some people got all up in arms over the 25% increase over the other two urban resorts.

Based on the bookings at San Diego, the majority of the owners apparently do not seem to be bothered by the higher values.  I have been tracking the San Diego resort booking pattern for some time now.  Near the end of last February, the 1 bedroom units were booked fairly solid through April and the Studio units were well booked through the end of March.  That is far beyond the 14 day bonus time booking window, which means those units were being booked with credits.  In mid May, the 1 bedroom units were booked almost solid through the end of August and the studios were also well booked into the middle of August.  That pattern continued through the summer.

The San Diego resort has developed its own unique booking pattern, much as the Las Vegas resorts have.  In the case of San Diego, the 1 bedroom units fill 2 to 3 months in advance and the studios fill at 1 to 2 months.  That pattern is evident if you look at the availability today.  The 1 bedroom units are well booked through Thanksgiving.  The studios show more spotty booking, with the weekends gone through mid October and the weekdays filling slowly.  Even with the higher credit requirements, the resort has been well accepted by WorldMark owners and is being well utilized using credit bookings.  It is not presenting a drain on the system as some would suggest.   If there is any problem with San Diego is it that there are not enough 1 bedroom units and too many studios.

Some of the candidates and their supporters would have the board reject a new resort by refusing to sign the Declaration for that resort if they felt credit values assigned were too high.  However, the Vacation Program Agreement, which is the top level governing document, states in Section 3.1(u) that WorldMark “<i>. . . hereby agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club). . .</i>”.  There are no “if they like the resort” or other exceptions to that clause in the document.  If WorldMark were to refuse to sign the Declaration for a new resort they would be in violation of the Vacation Program Agreement.  I do not believe that any course of action that would potentially lead to court proceedings is in the best interest of the club or the owners.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 2, 2007)

*I'm voting for the incumbants....*

I’m with Fred on this one – I’m voting for the incumbents and others that I believe can coexist with the developer Wyndham.

My problem with the folks running for the BOD is that they are headed down the wrong path – the half-ass approach and will simply gum things up horribly with the best of intentions.

*WorldMark is a Billion dollar organization with 5,000 condos around the world and not ONE EMPLOYEE!!!*  Yes folks, we don’t have a CEO of WorldMark, we don’t have Vice Presidents to manage a hundred employees who are loyal to us WM owners – we don’t even have a janitor to sweep the floor.  We ain’t got anyone who has any loyalty to us.  Yet we collect annual MFs of about $180 M!

All I see are fellow WM owners who want to infuse their belief system upon 250,000 WM owners – I don’t like this one bit.  I want employees who think 24/7 about our needs and wants as WM owners and who will go up against the developer on our behalf.

I don’t see candidates dedicated to fixing this insane situation so why vote for anyone who can’t see the picture better than the opposition – the developer?  I’m hoping the developer leaves the 20 year old rules alone, versus many WM owners who want them changed to suit their belief system.

There is no doubt many things can be improved but WM employees should be doing this and not folks who meet once a quarter and who’s greatest challenge will be “Chicken or beef for lunch?”.


----------



## SleepinIn (Sep 2, 2007)

Ah, and so we have now heard from one of those individuals whom I earlier mentioned.

First the _Vacation Program Agreement_ is not the top level governing document.  The _Articles of Incorporation_, followed by the _Bylaws_ are, in fact, the overarching documents. 

The post from cotraveller quotes section 3.1 from the _Vacation Program Agreement_ but failed to quote the following:  3.1  Declaration.  Club, as the legal owner or ultimate lessee of the Property in the Program and subject to the provisions of *Section 8 of the Declaration*, hereby agrees . . .

This “Section 8 of the Declaration” refers to the _Declaration of Vacation Owner Program_, which states:

8 : ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY. The Property may be enlarged to include an unlimited number of Units, *although neither declarant nor Club is obligated to develop or annex any additional Property*.

That's some pretty clear language.  It is utterly ridiculous to think that WorldMark, or any entity or individual could be forced to accept property without consent.

To provide some “food for thought,” I’m quoting a former WM BoD candidate:

As an engineer... I am trained to look at things "in the limit"... which often helps shed light on the situation. 

Let's assume that the WM BOD was faced with the following situation: 

WYN builds a new resort which consists of putting a single mobile home in a field someplace. They assign the credit value of 1 billion credits per night. Despite any complaints by the WM BOD.... WYN stands firm that they alone get to assign credit values and their decision is firm. 

Would WM, as directed by the BOD, agree to accept this new resort into our inventory? 

If the answer is Yes: That raises the question if they are fulfilling their legal responsibilities of representing the owners 

If the answer is NO: That raises the question of why aren't they stopping the exact same behavior (to a lesser degree) now. 

/Jim​
Can you imagine that if I owned real estate that had has a gas station on it with tanks that leaked and was facing a huge clean-up bill, I could simply deed that property over to you without your consent where you, not I would face the liability?

If, in fact, our governing documents were to allow such a travesty, there are laws on the books which would cover such things as being unconscionable, or would find “lack of consideration.”  

In addition to the opinions stated above, Gene Hensley, President of the WM BoD and currently up for re-election has publicly stated that the BoD rejected some possible resorts.


----------



## SleepinIn (Sep 2, 2007)

Oh, and good ol’ Perry.  Yes, you vote for the current BoD as it sells us down the river.  You certainly don’t care about the other 250,000 owners.  You’ve said often enough that you love to work the system to* your *benefit.  You’ve also said that you’ll sell this “asset” when it no longer suits your needs.  Well, you see, for most of us, our needs are to get great vacations, not making enough money on WM so as to have our airfare and other vacation expenses covered.  Most of us wish to keep our ownership for the long haul.

(Be careful who you side with Perry.  They might even be the very person who was so worried about you renting out the WM units for income.  Think about it.)


----------



## mtribe (Sep 2, 2007)

> Some of the candidates and their supporters would have the board reject a new resort by refusing to sign the Declaration for that resort if they felt credit values assigned were too high. However, the Vacation Program Agreement, which is the top level governing document, states in Section 3.1(u) that WorldMark “<i>. . . hereby agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club). . .</i>”. There are no “if they like the resort” or other exceptions to that clause in the document. If WorldMark were to refuse to sign the Declaration for a new resort they would be in violation of the Vacation Program Agreement. I do not believe that any course of action that would potentially lead to court proceedings is in the best interest of the club or the owners.



Fred that is a huge exaggeration and you know it.  There are years of development involved in the development of a new resort.  The developer and the BOD are supposed to be working together in ADVANCE.  They are obviously working together because they are the same people.  In a healthy situation this is when the board should be REPRESENTING OWNERS saying you may build what ever resort you like so long as you  meet the requirements laid out in the governing documents concerning relative use.  As the Worldmark BOD we do not care what you (WVO) have to charge for new credits but you must meet the relative use requirement.  How can we work together to find opportunities to work together for the mutual good.  New resorts for us and reasonable profits for you.  It would be equally unethical for us to refuse a resort that had been agreed upon.  The problem is that the fox is guarding the hen house. 4 of 5 current BOD members are current of former TW/WVO employees.  How can they not have a conflict of interest.  How can they possibly meet the legal fiduciary responsibilities that they have to both organizations they serve at the same time?

Mike


----------



## PerryM (Sep 2, 2007)

SleepinIn said:


> Oh, and good ol’ Perry.  Yes, you vote for the current BoD as it sells us down the river.  You certainly don’t care about the other 250,000 owners.  You’ve said often enough that you love to work the system to* your *benefit.  You’ve also said that you’ll sell this “asset” when it no longer suits your needs.  Well, you see, for most of us, our needs are to get great vacations, not making enough money on WM so as to have our airfare and other vacation expenses covered.  Most of us wish to keep our ownership for the long haul.
> 
> (Be careful who you side with Perry.  They might even be the very person who was so worried about you renting out the WM units for income.  Think about it.)



I want WM in the hands of WM employees and not for rent as the current crop of candidates seems to want.  That's my objection to all of them.

I want steadfast rules that I can learn and use to my benefit.  Vacillating rules favor the developer since they are the ones promoting these things.

So each WM owner will have to ask themselves who do they trust more to NOT cause rules to be modified - the developer who has stock holders and employees to answer to or WM owners who may or may not be able to attend a meeting to decide on things they really don't have control over anyway.

Show me a candidate that wants a WM management team and one that wants to take 90% of the power from the developer and give it to the WM employees and you will find me supporting this guy.

To summarize:
I don't want a half assed approach - I want candidates that will demand WM employees.  Until then, I'll stick with the developer - he has motives that I understand and can take advantage of.

P.S.
You will find all kinds of tips renting timeshares on this site - rent is not a 4 letter word here guys.

This is exactly the mind set that seems to want to force change among 250,000 WM owners that might see things a bit differently.

To all of you WM owners who do want the ability to rent your timeshare to pay for MFs or airline tickets the developer has no objection for you doing this.  However, don't count on the current crop of candidates to enforce your right to rent.  In fact I'd be very worried.


----------



## SleepinIn (Sep 2, 2007)

I didn't say I had a problem with you renting, but I did say somebody else does.  Just take a look around.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 2, 2007)

*Don't we hear the same promises every 2 years?*



mtribe said:


> Fred that is a huge exaggeration and you know it.  There are years of development involved in the development of a new resort.  The developer and the BOD are supposed to be working together in ADVANCE.  They are obviously working together because they are the same people.  In a healthy situation this is when the board should be REPRESENTING OWNERS saying you may build what ever resort you like so long as you  meet the requirements laid out in the governing documents concerning relative use.  As the Worldmark BOD we do not care what you (WVO) have to charge for new credits but you must meet the relative use requirement.  How can we work together to find opportunities to work together for the mutual good.  New resorts for us and reasonable profits for you.  It would be equally unethical for us to refuse a resort that had been agreed upon.  The problem is that the fox is guarding the hen house. 4 of 5 current BOD members are current of former TW/WVO employees.  How can they not have a conflict of interest.  How can they possibly meet the legal fiduciary responsibilities that they have to both organizations they serve at the same time?
> 
> Mike




As much as I’d like a perfect world only Walgreens seems to be able to deliver that dream.

Forget relative use and a hand holding relationship with owners.  Everyone thinks that by placing WM owners on the WM BOD the problems of a Billion dollar company will magically correct themselves.

Until I see WM employees doing this we are just making wishes that will never be fulfilled.

Come on folks – haven’t we seen enough politicians promise the moon and when you elect them they turn out to be worthless.  They are rookies and have no power and nothing happens.  *I’ll stick with the status quo until I see some candidates who actually understand that they are not the solution but WM employees are.*

Until then I'm going to assume that rookie WM owners are just going to screw up things that I understand and use.


----------



## itchyfeet (Sep 2, 2007)

I'm with SleepinIn who gave an excellent recap of what has happened to the club since Wyndham took over. Since I became a WM member about four years ago, I've seen weekend bonus time and inventory specials for Angels Camp & Windsor all but disappear.  This has happened since Wyndham has decided to bleed every dollar they can with party weekends, rentals, and other sales promotions they've dreamed up that take time away from existing members. I'm for an INDEPENDENT Board of Directors that will protect the rights of the members.


----------



## itchyfeet (Sep 2, 2007)

Perry please explain what you mean by this:

Until then I'm going to assume that rookie WM owners are just going to screw up things that I understand and use.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 2, 2007)

*Who wants a useful idiot?*



itchyfeet said:


> I'm with SleepinIn who gave an excellent recap of what has happened to the club since Wyndham took over. Since I became a WM member about four years ago, I've seen weekend bonus time and inventory specials for Angels Camp & Windsor all but disappear.  This has happened since Wyndham has decided to bleed every dollar they can with party weekends, rentals, and other sales promotions they've dreamed up that take time away from existing members. I'm for an INDEPENDENT Board of Directors that will protect the rights of the members.





itchyfeet said:


> Perry please explain what you mean by this:
> 
> Until then I'm going to assume that rookie WM owners are just going to screw up things that I understand and use.



First, I don't need to explain anything to you, but will do so out of curtsey.

Let's assume that PA gets on the WM BOD and the other 4 folks are Wyndham (WN) cronies.

Now what?

PA will be outvoted all the time.  The BOD can be called to an emergency meeting in Washington (the state) and what will PA do?  I think he lives in Texas.

I'd like someone to explain just how a WM owner fights these guys.  I don't want a candidate to answer this since not all may.  Just how is that WM owner going to act on our behalf?

I sure can't think of a way but by a war.

To me the WM owner is going to be reduced to picking fights and if one of those has a round about way for the developer to extend their influence they will use him.

There is a term for such a person - a useful idiot.  (This is not a personal attack on any candidate but I'm explaining what I'm thinking, just as you requested).


I don't want such a person flailing around allowing WN to further its policies.

I want a candidate who is not so full of himself that thinks he is the solution - I want WM employees working for me, the WM owner and not the developer.


----------



## ladycody (Sep 2, 2007)

The following is not an opinion on anything other than my view of the quote below.



> However, the Vacation Program Agreement, which is the top level governing document, states in Section 3.1(u) that WorldMark "<i>. . . hereby agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club). . .</i>". There are no "if they like the resort" or other exceptions to that clause in the document. If WorldMark were to refuse to sign the Declaration for a new resort they would be in violation of the Vacation Program Agreement.



The complete text is not showing and it changes considerably when presented in its entirety.  

Section 3.1(u) that WorldMark "Club. . hereby agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation _imposing upon all of the property in the Club _(including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club) _the mutual and beneficial restrictions, convenants, and conditions of the program. . ."_ 

All this is saying is that the Club agrees to impose the program and it's restrictions, covenants, and conditions on any property in the Club and any conveyed in the future.  In NO way does this clause appear obligate the club to annex (add) a property...only that the club must agree to impose the conditions of the declaration/program on _those that are_. 

You present this clause as though it demands acceptance of new resorts...when in fact, all it demands is that those resorts that _are_ brought into the club be subjected to the declaration and its terms.

The top quoted clause has nothing to do with annexation of properties.  There is, in fact, a section dedicated to just that which was quoted by someone else.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 2, 2007)

*I'm for dirty water, foul air, and developer controlled BODs*



ladycody said:


> The following is not an opinion on anything other than my view of the quote below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This is a great example of WM employees duking it out with the developer.  That WM CEO who would represent us would have lawyers at his disposal to enforce the rules.  Right now a WM owner on the BOD is whistling Dixie.

WM has 60+ resorts world wide and if we had just 5 employees each that's 300 employees that work for US and NOT the developer.  Throw in 100 employees at the HQ then we would have 400+ employees who do NOT answer to the developer but to the CEO who works with the WM BOD.

This is how it's supposed to be done for a $1 B organization.  Candidates who don't think this way are irrelevant to me.


Bumper stickers like "I'm for an independent BOD" are cute and who can argue with this.  The real sticker should be "I want 400 WM employees"!


----------



## Fern Modena (Sep 2, 2007)

How about teleconferencing?  Summer Bay used to use often as a means of having board meetings with members who were in at least four states and two countries.

Fern



PerryM said:


> First, I don't need to explain anything to you, but will do so out of curtsey.
> 
> Let's assume that PA gets on the WM BOD and the other 4 folks are Wyndham (WN) cronies.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Sep 2, 2007)

Fern Modena said:


> How about teleconferencing?  Summer Bay used to use often as a means of having board meetings with members who were in at least four states and two countries.
> 
> Fern




Oh, I agree that technology solves the problem.

However, if this a political battle logic may not be used.

If it isn't that it might be eMails that get lumped into the bulk mail folder by the sender using an address of a spammer.  Or the  phone calls that never seem to make it.  Or the notice sent by mail and the action is needed in 2 days.  etc.  It's political war and the opponent need not play fair.

Hell, I can assure everyone that they won't play fair.  Wyndham has billions on the line here they are not about to listen to 1 or 2 WM owners.  One of the issues is to expand the number of folks on the board from 5 to 7 and that will pass.  So now it will be 4 WM owners that must be elected to control the board.  By that time other tricks will be used.


----------



## SleepinIn (Sep 2, 2007)

Fern Modena said:


> How about teleconferencing?  Summer Bay used to use often as a means of having board meetings with members who were in at least four states and two countries.
> 
> Fern


I know they have used it in the past.  John Henley was in Australia for quite a while and obviously not attend all of the meetings in person.


----------



## cotraveller (Sep 2, 2007)

SleepinIn said:


> Let's assume that the WM BOD was faced with the following situation





mtribe said:


> Fred that is a huge exaggeration and you know it.  There are years of development involved in the development of a new resort.



IF we are going to generate hypothetical situations, I can do that also.

In some cases a new resort opportunity might develop very quickly.  A property becomes available for purchase in an area that the owners have expressed a desire for a new resort, but due to whatever reasons, it is determined that in order to make the deal possible it will be necessary to assign higher credit values to bring the resort into the WorldMark system.  

That is the point at which a decision must be made.  What is the overriding factor?  Is it a desire to maintain all resorts at a fixed credit level or is it to provide the owners with a new resort in an area in which there has been indicated demand?  What if the owners had previously indicated that they would be willing to accept new resorts at a higher credit value in order to gain access to those desirable areas?  Perhaps not as high as was being anticipated for the new resort, but higher than the existing norm.  So the decision is made to provide the owners the opportunity to have a new resort in a new area.  Some owners are delighted with the new development; some are appalled at the higher credit values.  You can never please everyone.

Is that the scenario for the acquisition and development of the San Diego resort?  It seems to be as likely a scenario as any other, and does not require any sinister actions on the part of anyone involved.  And it would appear that the decision was the right one even though some are grumbling about it.  The resort is being booked, the resort is being utilized.  It is hard to argue with that success.



ladycody said:


> Section 3.1(u) that WorldMark "Club. . hereby agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club) the mutual and beneficial restrictions, convenants, and conditions of the program. . ."



You can add all the extras you wish, but the overriding fact is that the Vacation Program Agreement, a binding legal document signed by both WorldMark and Wyndham (or their predecessors), states that WorldMark “agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program” for each new unit or resort that is conveyed to the club by Wyndham.



SleepinIn said:


> If, in fact, our governing documents were to allow such a travesty, there are laws on the books which would cover such things as being unconscionable, or would find “lack of consideration.”



I realize I am repeating myself, but as I stated in my first post, I do not believe that any course of action that would potentially lead to court proceedings is in the best interest of the club or the owners.  I do not condone such actions and I do not support such actions.


----------



## SleepinIn (Sep 3, 2007)

cotraveller said:


> You can add all the extras you wish, but the overriding fact is that the Vacation Program Agreement, a binding legal document signed by both WorldMark and Wyndham (or their predecessors), states that WorldMark “agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program” for each new unit or resort that is conveyed to the club by Wyndham.


Adding _*extras*_?????  Are you kidding.  What she added was what *you *left out.

Andy, if you think all is well, vote for the status quo.  If you think something needs to be fixed, then don't.

There seems to be a huge disagreement here on whether or not credit dilution exists.

Here's how I see it:  I bought my house 10 years ago for, let's say, $ 300,000.  My neighbor bought his 10 days ago for $ 900,000.  Let's imagine that while slightly different, they are essentially the same value and in fact, that's what the appraiser says.  So, the question is, is his house worth more because he paid more?  If we were both selling, do you think his would sell for much more because he paid much more?

No, you say?  Then why will it cost more to stay in the Tropicana resort than the Spencer Street resort.  Yes, Spencer Street is somewhat older, but the units are larger.  We could compare other things, but Las Vegas is the easiest way to compare apples to apples.

If Wyndham needs to make more money, they need to increase the price of the credits to those buying NOW, just like if somebody wants to buy a house in my neighborhood, they have to pay more than I did because them came later.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Sep 3, 2007)

sounds to me as if ladycody could equally say that "cotraveller can remove all of the stuff he wants, there is still a legally binding document that says the Club is not required to accept whatever Wyndham decides to add".


----------



## PA- (Sep 3, 2007)

Tokapeba said:


> I want to vote an owner onto the WorldMark board, who has the best chance? I know a little, but havn't been following for a couple months. I just received my ballot in the mail today and I don't have a lot of time to do research.
> 
> Any help would be greatly appriceated.
> 
> Andy.



Andy,

The only way that an owner would be voted onto the board is if many (or most) owners "pooled" their votes together, rather than splitting them among the many independent candidates.  There has NEVER been a challenger voted onto the board by a popular vote.  All previous board members were either appointed by the board themselves, or else the board used their proxies to change the results of the owner's votes.  

In the last election, the independent candidates got more votes combined than the incumbents did, for the first time in history.  However, the incumbents were elected, due to votes being split among many candidates, and the Board's use of their proxies.  

The only way to "pool" the votes of those owners that are wishing independent candidates is to assign proxies not to the board, but to an independent owner who will use them to elect qualified candidates.  I've been trying to get owners to assign me their proxies for the last 2 years.  I've been asking the board to change the way proxies are assigned for 3 years, to allow owners to do so electronically.  This year, for the first time, they have agreed to that change in voting procedures, so you will be able to assign me (or any other owner) your proxy online.  Or of course, you can do so by mail (and I assume by phone).

Last year, I assigned 100% of my proxies to the one independent who I felt had the best chance of election; Jim Pappas.  I also felt he was a highly qualified candidate.  Unfortunately, many owners either misunderstood my request for their proxies(rather than their votes), or else simply wanted to vote for me.  Because despite my casting my proxies for Jim, I still got more votes than any other independent candidate.  Combined, Jim & I got about the same number of votes as one of the incumbents (Jack McConnell), and close to the same as the other (John Hensley).  I point this out to say we're getting closer than we've ever been to being able to actually elect independent board members.

The debate over whether you should vote independent or not is a valid debate.  However, your original post, as I read it, indicates you've already decided to vote independent, and simply wanted an idea of the best way to make sure your vote will count.  I know of no better way to have an impact than to assign me your proxy.  Let me tell you some reasons why.

If owners voted for their choice of candidates, the votes would be split.

If enough people voted for me to get me elected, we'd be in the same boat next year, splitting our votes among the independents.  However, if I got elected AND had lots of proxies, I could use those proxies to concentrate our votes next year on another independent candidate.  Eventually, we would have an independent board.

Philip Abdouch


----------



## PerryM (Sep 3, 2007)

*Spitting in the wind....*

On this site and WMowners.com I’ve described in detail how Wyndham (WN) is:

1)	Diluting the existing WM credits resulting in inflation (I coined the phrase “Corn field condos”)

2)	Bulldozing new resorts upon us without the WM owners input

3)	The existing way to add new resorts is NOT based upon sound accounting principles (No yearly appraisals of existing WM resorts to establish a “Current worth” per credit that must be matched by new resorts- I called for yearly appraisals)

4)	We need the current 400+ employees who now work for WN to work for WM (I’m the one calling for this, I don’t know of anyone else)


These and many more topics are the purview of the CEO of WM and his legal team.  To place this burden on the 5 folks who meet a few times a year is lunacy.

*We are fighting the correct war but with the wrong army*, 1 or 2 WM owners on the WM BOD.  Our fight must be to take those 400 folks, who now work for WN and bring that army to WM to run this organization the way it should be run.

So vote for 1 person to the WM BOD all you want – you guys are spitting in the wind.


Me, I'll spend the time out foxing, out playing, and out lasting all you guys consumed with taking over the world.

P.S.
I encourage every WM owner to vote anyway they want.  However, you must make a decision if you want to exploit the existing rules to your advantage or get involved with mobs wanting to tear down those rules and substitute their own.  Me, I just want a management team for a Billion dollar organization that runs the place like a business and not an obsession.

Unless you've kept up with all the whacky ideas bantered about by these fanatical folks do what I'm doing and keep the status quo until some candidates come along who want 400 WM employees doing this.  Management teams I trust, fanatical folks I fear.


----------



## PA- (Sep 3, 2007)

There are thousands of people working for Wyndham managing our resorts, not 400.  What you're proposing will cost Worldmark millions, some of it redundant with charges we're already paying.

There are 3 functions that serve Worldmark;

1)  Company that BUILDS resorts

2)  Company that manages the resorts

3)  Board of Directors that oversees both # 1 & 2 above.

Worldmark needn't necessarily be self-managed to get a quality product.  However, it would be desirable to make sure that all 3 functions are independent of each other.  Currently, all 3 functions are handled by Wyndham execs (or retired execs who may be on the payroll still, to some extent).  This is not healthy.

I don't know that I would support self management, but I would strongly support the 3 functions be independent.  You aren't the first to call for this, I've done so for years.  

Wyndham won't easily divest # 1, that's their main source of revenue.  

The Board has complete authority to award the management contract to anyone they want.  I don't believe they've ever considered it, or gotten competitive bids from anyone else.  While I'm generally satisfied with Wyndham's management (as opposed to their development) arm, I would support requiring Wyndham to divest either # 1 or 2 above.  Whoever manages Worldmark MUST be free to report on any abuses by the developer (such as trying to book outside the 45 day window that Wyndham has, which they are violating with their "Party weekends").  They must be free to give the Board an honest assessment of construction flaws, help the Board set guidelines for unit size (square footage) and finish-out quality, and generally act as the Board's advisor in relations with the developer.  They must be free to help the board determine the proper credit valuation per unit and resort, based on their knowledge of the areas and seasons.  In short, they should be working for the club, not the developer.

# 3 should absolutely be independent of Wyndham.  Wyndham's own corporate position on conflict of interest would prohibit a similar situation on the Wyndham Board of Directors.  So why should Worldmark be different?

I'm not aware of the radical ideas you believe "some" candidates have for Worldmark.  If transparency, independent arm's length transactions, and elimination of inside dealings are radical, count me in.  If rule changes are, count me out.  I'm satisfied with the current rules; I just want to see them enforced.


----------



## mtribe (Sep 3, 2007)

Welcome back to the old Perry.  That is the best post of yours I have read in months.  You really want a CEO and a bunch of worldmark employees.  How is that going to happen?  The status Quo BOD  will NEVER do anything like that.  However, a single member can, at a minimum help to inform ownership and people can see an occasional opposing vote.  Also, with the proxies maybe we could get another vote independent next year.  Heck maybe you could run for the BOD with you campaign centered on employees and internal management.  NOTHING will change until owners get a foot in the door and a seat at the table.    We may barely even get scraps but we will have a voice.

Assign your Proxy to Phillip Abdouch


----------



## PerryM (Sep 3, 2007)

*Points Dilution – big deal!*

I’m going to give you guys an example of how obsession can cloud what you should be doing:


Many involved WM owners are all bent out of shape about “Cornfield condos” and “Bloated  credit values for new resorts”  they think that WM credits are getting diluted.  They are but so what?  (I used to be worried, then sat back and found a great work around)

WN gave us owners the biggest gift any developer has EVER given ANY owner – *we don’t need to buy WM credits, we can rent unlimited WM credits from other owners*.

So instead of paying $1.90 a WM credit from WN or buying the credits resale for 70¢ you can rent them for just 5¢ to 7¢ as you need them.

Good grief, those of you so consumed with dilution of credits should just rent the credits and enjoy the fantastic set of rules WN has left us.  Instead, some WM owners consumed with changing the rules have pleaded with WN to change those wonderful rules to prevent “Commercial Use” of those credits(That would be renting to the rest of us).  

Well while WN was begged to change the existing 20 year old rules they decided to screw around with reservations more than 14 days long.  One of the fantastic abilities of WM is that you could plan 30 – 360 days in advance and spend a month or so by booking back to back WM reservations.  

Let’s say that you wanted to spend a month traveling from just south of the US boarder to just north of it.  WM has resorts all along the way – stay 3 days here, 4 days there, 2 days there, 12 days somewhere else.  You get the idea.

Well the busybody owners who stuck their collective noses into preventing “Commercial use” allowed WN to kill the practice I just described.

Thanks a lot busybodies.


This is just one example of how some WM owners want to stick their nose in areas that they deem “Unfair” and cause WN to make unintended consequences.

WN seems to be happy with the ability to rent unlimited WM credits from fellow owners and not force you to be limited to what you own (it used to be 2x the amount, but their new program couldn't handle it so it went to unlimited credits).  Have WN screw around with the rules more and they will yank that great rule; then you will have a points dilution problem caused by busybodies.


Each WM owner will have to decide if these are the kinds of things you want happening on a more frequent basis.  I sure don’t want this intrusion.

The simple answer to many of these things that cause some WM owners to go bonkers are just common sense and a willingness to work around “problems” and not throw out 20 year old rules that give the sharp WM owner such latitude.

Be careful what you wish for - you might actually get it.

Why did you buy those WM credits?  To fight wars?

P.S.
All those WN employees in our 60+ resorts are paid for by our dues - and to top it off we throw in a profit for WN to pay their salaries instead of WN - get rid of that profit and let those WN employees become WM employees


----------



## PA- (Sep 3, 2007)

Just for clarification, those "busybodies" that Perry is speaking of are not candidates for the board.  No candidates that I am aware of agreed with the changes in the guidelines.  One that I'm aware of, Jim Pappas, attended several Board meetings and argued against those changes.  

The way your post is written could leave some to think that voting independent will cause rules to be changed, while the opposite is more likely true.  The incumbents are changing the rules and allowing our rights to be eroded.  It's the job of the board to enforce the bylaws, not provide workarounds or changes to force owners to buy more credits to get the same usage they had before.

Your position, to simply adapt to the abuses and not fight them, is certainly valid.  Most owners will choose your method, and simply vote with their feet or their pocketbook.  It doesn't make the alternative wrong.  Look at it this way; it costs little to vote.  You might as well vote for the side that will represent the owner's interests exclusively.


----------



## ladycody (Sep 3, 2007)

> We need the current 400+ employees who now work for WN to work for WM (I’m the one calling for this, I don’t know of anyone else)





> All those WN employees in our 60+ resorts are paid for by our dues - and to top it off we throw in a profit for WN to pay their salaries instead of WN - get rid of that profit and let those WN employees become WM employees


Good Lord... 
What you are recommending is financially insane. It would cost millions and is not anywhere near as easy as you present it. (that's why they have companies that _specialize_ in hospitality management...and they mostly rescue the poor oafs that try to jump into a pre-existing multi property companies and try to do it themselves...with disastrous results).  

You go on and on about others wanting to make changes and yet your "lets get WM employees" idea is far more frightening in my book.  (although not really.... because you may talk alot but, to my knowledge, have never actually made an effort to affect a real change through any action on your own part.)   The board could change the mgt company...but those employees _still_ wouldnt work for WM.   Personally, there are things I would see our mgt company change/improve...but I've been satisfied for the most part.  



> Let’s say that you wanted to spend a month traveling from just south of the US boarder to just north of it. WM has resorts all along the way – stay 3 days here, 4 days there, 2 days there, 12 days somewhere else. You get the idea.
> 
> Well the busybody owners who stuck their collective noses into preventing “Commercial use” allowed WN to kill the practice I just described.


  The ability for owners to take those trips is still there and you know it.   It simply requires an extra step (or two...depending on the length of your trip).  I've heard only one or two owners who were upset/unhappy about this change...and those were people who did commercial renting.  (go figure)  The rest of us know that we can still take those trips and can plan them over a year in advance.


----------



## ladycody (Sep 3, 2007)

> One that I'm aware of, Jim Pappas, attended several Board meetings and argued against those changes.


 I'm not sure that's true Philip...we'd have to ask Jim.  I know he fought to make the rule 14 days instead of 7...but I'm not sure he argued making the change itself...


----------



## PA- (Sep 3, 2007)

ladycody said:


> I'm not sure that's true Philip...we'd have to ask Jim.  I know he fought to make the rule 14 days instead of 7...but I'm not sure he argued making the change itself...



Yes, it's true.  He was opposed to the change, as it definately affected him personally.  But he did argue that, if they needed to make the change, to at least allow for 2 week vacations instead of 9 or whatever they eventually decided on.  There are many owners who take 14 day trips, and want to plan far in advance to take these "once in a lifetime" trips.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 3, 2007)

*He/she who controls the purse strings...*



ladycody said:


> Good Lord...
> What you are recommending is financially insane. It would cost millions and is not anywhere near as easy as you present it. (that's why they have companies that _specialize_ in hospitality management...and they mostly rescue the poor oafs that try to jump into a pre-existing multi property companies and try to do it themselves...with disastrous results).
> 
> You go on and on about others wanting to make changes and yet your "lets get WM employees" idea is far more frightening in my book.  (although not really.... because you may talk alot but, to my knowledge, have never actually made an effort to affect a real change through any action on your own part.)   The board could change the mgt company...but those employees _still_ wouldnt work for WM.   Personally, there are things I would see our mgt company change/improve...but I've been satisfied for the most part.
> ...



It's fine for a single timeshare resort to have a HOA and management company who does the bookings and arranges for the cleaning staff.

However, with 60+ resorts worldwide, 5,000 condos owned, this is insanity.  WM is a Billion Dollar entity but acts like a little independent timeshare resort in North Dakota.

That $190 M annual operating budget pays for ALL the employees that wear the WN uniforms.  That same money should NOT be turned over to WN but to WM's operations.

This is the problem I have with the current crop of candidates - they are heading down the wrong path.  I want a WM CEO and hundreds of employees that work for us.

Right now every penny of the annual MF's, all $190 M, is turned over to WN and they control those purse strings.

Until I see a candidate who understands this fundamental difference I'll stick with the status quo - I don't think they add anything but monkey business to the situation.


I'm guessing that 90% - 95% of the WM owners just don't think of renting WM credits to overcome these obstacles - that's fine with me.  Don't lump me into those folks who haven't a clue how this works.


----------



## melschey (Sep 3, 2007)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> sounds to me as if ladycody could equally say that "cotraveller can remove all of the stuff he wants, there is still a legally binding document that says the Club is not required to accept whatever Wyndham decides to add".




I my opinion the problem is that 4 of the 5 BOD members either are now getting their paycheck from Wyndham or have in the past, and no doubt have a large chunk of Wyndham stock. It is in their best interest to put the interests of Wyndham stock holder ahead of WM owners.

I see this as a serious conflict of interests. 

I am not anti Wyndham but feel we need an independiant BOD to look out for our interets first.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 3, 2007)

*Cronies are important - get the right ones...*



melschey said:


> I my opinion the problem is that 4 of the 5 BOD members either are now getting their paycheck from Wyndham or have in the past, and no doubt have a large chunk of Wyndham stock. It is in their best interest to put the interests of Wyndham stock holder ahead of WM owners.
> 
> I see this as a serious conflict of interests.
> 
> I am not anti Wyndham but feel we need an independiant BOD to look out for our interets first.




I don't think it matters one bit; who those 5 folks are - they are ALL WM owners.

This is like worrying about who is on the BOD of GM - they are all cronies of the management team.  You as a stockholder never deal with these guys you deal with the management team of GM who reports to the CEO who reports to the BOD.

That's the problem, we have the wrong cronies - they are cronies of the developer Wyndham instead of cronies of WorldMark's management team.

These folks should not be the folks we bow down and pray to on a daily basis.

You should be able to pick up that phone and talk to a member of the management team of WorldMark and NOT Wyndham.


Let's get it right here folks - we want OUR cronies running the WM BOD; OUR CEO should be answering to them and NOT another companies.


----------



## cotraveller (Sep 3, 2007)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> sounds to me as if ladycody could equally say that "cotraveller can remove all of the stuff he wants, there is still a legally binding document that says the Club is not required to accept whatever Wyndham decides to add".



She might say that, and to a certain extent the part about removing all the stuff I want has some validity.  We all phrase our comments in a manner designed to emphasize the point we are trying to make.

However, the quote I listed from the Vacation Program Agreement does state that WorldMark “_agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program”_ for new resorts added to the system by Wyndham.  I have not yet found a statement anywhere in the governing documents, or in any other legally binding document, that says the _“Club is not required to accept whatever Wyndham decides to add”_.  The most often referenced qualifier is the _“Subject to Section 8”_ qualifier that I did not include in my original quote.  That is a reference to the Declaration of Vacation Owner Program.  Of particular note is the statement in that section, in Paragraph 8.1 referring to the Declaration for additional units or resorts, that states:  _”Any such Declaration may contain such additions and modifications of the Restrictions herein as may be necessary to reflect the different character, if any, of the property;”_  (Another incomplete quote, the entire section is over a full page long.)  That provides a fairly wide latitude for differences in the Declarations for individual properties.

It is often said that the governing documents provide protections for the owners.  What is not mentioned, either intentionally or unintentionally, is that those same documents also provide some very solid protections for the developer.  Like it or not, it is WorldMark by Wyndham.  The normal response is that those developer protections would not hold up in a court of law.  That brings us full circle to the questions of lawsuits.  I do not feel it is necessary to repeat my opinions of those for a third time within this thread.


----------



## PA- (Sep 3, 2007)

After I pressed the point about Worldmark having the right to refuse resorts for years, the Board finally agreed to get a legal opinion on the issue.  While they haven't released that opinion to anyone, as far as I know, I've been told by a good source that I was right.  About the time the Board received that legal opinion, Gene Hensley did a complete 180 degree on the issue, and started saying, "Of course we have the right to refuse resorts, in fact we've done so".  After years of him saying exactly the opposite, do you think that might indicate my source was correct?


----------



## drguy (Sep 4, 2007)

Perry-
I asked Stephaine Aardal and Peggy Fry when the last bid for management was reviewed by the BOD.  I was told that no one had ever asked for a bid.  
I agree that it is odd that WM has no employees.  It would be a simple task to employ people.  We could even hire all of the current WYN managers and staff to start and then move to replacing those people over time.  Not ideal, but doable.
One independent owner WILL be elected this year.  The 2 incumbants will also be re-elected most likely.  The question is really:  Who is the most qualified owner to present a rational argument to the BOD, not simply argue with the BOD.  Simply saying "you're wrong" is not effective.  Understanding the issues and providing constructive criticism is effective.  Not all candidates want to tear the system down and replace it.
Guy


----------



## PerryM (Sep 4, 2007)

*Numbers, numbers, where are the numbers...*



drguy said:


> Perry-
> I asked Stephaine Aardal and Peggy Fry when the last bid for management was reviewed by the BOD.  *I was told that no one had ever asked for a bid*.
> 
> *I agree that it is odd that WM has no employees.*  It would be a simple task to employ people.  We could even hire all of the current WYN managers and staff to start and then move to replacing those people over time.  Not ideal, but doable.
> ...




Well, how many WN employees work 100% of the time for WM?

I don’t ever remember seeing that number.  Could be 400, could be 1,000; who knows?  Well the WM BOD should know this stat and see if we are spending the hard earned MFs of the members correctly.

There are a lot of simple numbers that the WM BOD should have at it’s finger tips to decide if the current, NO BIDDER, maintenance company is doing a great job or not.

I just don’t see any candidate asking for these numbers in a very public forum.

If candidates care so little about the fundamental numbers why should they be assumed to do a better job than the existing cronies or new cronies of WN?

All I hear about is an “Independent WM BOD”, that’s kind of like Independent Suspension on a car – whoop-d-do; all going different directions as the same time.

Another fundamental number that is needed to run WM correctly is a current real estate appreciation of all 5,000 condos – what are they worth?  

I guess I’m looking for an MBA who knows how to get a handle on the numbers and hold the BOD accountable – I see no such candidate.  But, I must admit, I gave up looking months ago and *have decided to vote incumbents and those that I don’t think will cause me any harm*.


Just because a candidate utters the mantra "Vote for an independent WM BOD" does not mean anything unless they want to apply some business principles like all those employees work for WM.

In the past 5 years poor old WM has had 3 management companies and all those folks get their check from a new company - they should get it from WM and no one else.

So tell me you want WM employees manning our 60+ resorts, 5,000 condos, and in charge of the $190,000,000 yearly operating budget and you have my vote.



P.S.
It’s so easy to get used to big numbers - $190,000,000 in $1 bills would be a stack 68,083 feet high or *12.9 miles high*.  This is no small amount of money to just give to a company who never submitted a bid.

Those same dollar bills, laid end to end, would circle the earth at Washington state's latitude.  Not one of those dollars was ever put up for bid.


----------



## FLYNZ4 (Sep 4, 2007)

ladycody said:


> I'm not sure that's true Philip...we'd have to ask Jim.  I know he fought to make the rule 14 days instead of 7...but I'm not sure he argued making the change itself...



When I got involved... the existing BOD had ALREADY made changes to the regulations that limited an owners right to make grouped reservations beyond seven days... I.E.  the final segment had to start within 7 days of the initial segment.

The BOD had failed to realize that this put an extreme hardship on the owner base.   This is especially true since the vast majority of working folks take a full week off of work, and then combine it with 2 weekends giving 9 days of total vacation time (10 if combined with a long weekend).  Hence... if someone from Seattle (for example) wanted to take the following 9-day driving vacation during red season they would be unable:

1) 2 days in Vancouver
2) 5 days in Whister
3) 2 days at the beach in Birch Bay

The obvious issue is that the 3rd and final segment could not be added to the reservation since the 7 day limit had already been reached.  Also... since it is red season... it could never be made until within 60 days (at the time)... and of course the resort would likely be fully booked by then... not to mention that reasonable vacation planning would be impossible.

When I presented this flaw to the BOD, they quickly realized the error... and modified their existing restriction to allow grouped reservations to be made up to 14 days.   The number "14" is significant because it means that any arbitrary length reservation could be broken up into 7 day segments and booked (weekly).  This fixes the problem listed in the example above which would essentially disqualify "normal 9 day vacations" from the vast majority of owners.   My goal was especially important to protect the rights of small account size owners who could not afford wasteful throw-away days.

I also worked hard to turn around another restriction that the BOD had already imposed on owners ability to rent credits.   This rule would affect all owners... and even though I personally do not like having owners like Perry using his large account to rent prime weeks to sell on Ebay or whatever... I made sure that his rights were protected for every single credit that he personally owns.   Once again... the BOD followed my advice and reversed their previously voted, and approved restrictions... which increased his rights... rather than take away rights as he is insinuating.

/Jim


----------



## PerryM (Sep 4, 2007)

*I wish WM owners would stop poking that hornet's nest*



FLYNZ4 said:


> When I got involved... the existing BOD had ALREADY made changes to the regulations that limited an owers right to make grouped reservations beyond seven days... I.E.  the final segment had to start within 7 days of the intitial segment.
> 
> The BOD had failed to realize that this put an extreme hardship on the owner base.   This is especially true since the vast majority of working americans take a full week off of work, and then combine it with 2 weekends giving 9 days of total vacation time (10 if combined with a long weekend).  Hence... if someone from Seattle (for example) wanted to take the following vacation during red season they would be unable:
> 
> ...




And all of this tinkering started when a number of WM owners went bellyaching to WN over 1 or 2 owners.  This is what scares the hell out of me with the independent WM owner.  The door has already been opened for willy-nilly changes to 20 year old rules thanks to those same folks chanting "Intendant WM BOD".

*I am hoping that with WN cronies ensconced back in the WM BOD they will leave us alone.*  Poke a hornet's nest and you will get stung.  If an independent WM owner gets in we can look for more retaliation.  If one does get in I want one to fight for the right principles - make WM autonomous.  It will take years of work and much research.

Giving more power to the WM BOD is NOT the correct answer, it is the wrong answer.  We need to bleed it from them with our own CEO and management team.


----------



## SleepinIn (Sep 4, 2007)

Perry, you make *no* sense at all.  The *current* directors had made decisions that you don't like, not the candidates.  Wake up and smell the coffee.  They want owners to buy more credits, plain and simple.  And as long as Wyndham _is _the board, they will do whatever then can to accomplish that goal.  I, for one, am thankful that Jim got involved and helped to mitigate the harm.

Your idea of having WM have its own employees may be a very good idea, but the *current *board will *never *consider it.  It's beyond their imagination to even _think _about it.  Why would they?  They are Wyndham.  It would not be profitable to Wyndham.

Your idea about having the properties appraised and establishing a value on credits and requiring that all new resorts conform to that value is a great idea.  Nobody in their right mind thinks that the current directors would ever consider that.  Again, why would they?  They are Wyndham.  It would not be profitable to Wyndham.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 4, 2007)

SleepinIn said:


> Perry, you make *no* sense at all.  The *current* directors had made decisions that you don't like, not the candidates.  Wake up and smell the coffee.  They want owners to buy more credits, plain and simple.  And as long as Wyndham _is _the board, they will do whatever then can to accomplish that goal.  I, for one, am thankful that Jim got involved and helped to mitigate the harm.
> 
> Your idea of having WM have its own employees may be a very good idea, but the *current *board will *never *consider it.  It's beyond their imagination to even _think _about it.  Why would they?  They are Wyndham.  It would not be profitable to Wyndham.
> 
> Your idea about having the properties appraised and establishing a value on credits and requiring that all new resorts conform to that value is a great idea.  Nobody in their right mind thinks that the current directors would ever consider that.  Again, why would they?  They are Wyndham.  It would not be profitable to Wyndham.




Sadly, I am the one who first proposed all these ideas and none of the candidates running have ever mentioned that this is the correct avenue to pursue.  I'd rather stick with the current crop of board members and have them fall back into a stupor and leave the members alone.

That's what I am proposing - stop beating the wasp nest with sticks and leave what we have had for 20 years alone.  If I thought for a second that any of the candidates was on the right course I'd endorse them.


----------



## LLW (Sep 5, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Sadly, I am the one who first proposed all these ideas and none of the candidates running have ever mentioned that this is the correct avenue to pursue.  I'd rather stick with the current crop of board members and have them fall back into a stupor and leave the members alone.
> 
> That's what I am proposing - stop beating the wasp nest with sticks and leave what we have had for 20 years alone.  If I thought for a second that any of the candidates was on the right course I'd endorse them.



Firstly, I just wanted to point out that since John Walker, our lone independent on the board, is NOT running for re-election, a NEW independent WILL get elected into the third position, even if you give all of your votes for the 3 positions to Hensley and Fry, the 2 Wyndham directors who are running as incumbents. You CANNOT "stick with the current crop." Changes are coming.

Secondly, if the "current crop of board members" has changed Worldmark for the worse in your opinion, what makes you think that they will not continue to do so in the future? Isn't it illogical to think that they will suddenly "fall back into a stupor"  ?

Thirdly, with or without your approval, Hensley and Fry are going to be re-elected, simply because the majority of owners who do vote (which is a low %) think status quo (like you do), stupor or not.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 5, 2007)

*Benign is better for now...*



LLW said:


> Firstly, I just wanted to point out that since John Walker, our lone independent on the board, is NOT running for re-election, a NEW independent WILL get elected into the third position, even if you give all of your votes for the 3 positions to Hensley and Fry, the 2 Wyndham directors who are running as incumbents. You CANNOT "stick with the current crop." Changes are coming.
> 
> Secondly, if the "current crop of board members" has changed Worldmark for the worse in your opinion, what makes you think that they will not continue to do so in the future? Isn't it illogical to think that they will suddenly "fall back into a stupor"  ?
> 
> Thirdly, with or without your approval, Hensley and Fry are going to be re-elected, simply because the majority of owners who do vote (which is a low %) think status quo (like you do), stupor or not.




Then all I need to do is find a benign WM owner who wants to keep a low profile and not whack the hornet's nest and stir up things.

If the folks running for the WM BOD haven't a clue how WM should be run I'd rather have them be the person who takes the lunch orders and while out the rest of the members vote for what's best for Wyndham and not rabble rousers who want to take over the world.

This is just my way of insuring that WM owners, who ever they are, keep their busybody nose out of grown up business.  None of the candidates seem to understand what needs to be done in what order.

This is just the opinion of one WM owner who has already been stung by those hornets twice now.


----------



## mtribe (Sep 5, 2007)

*Hornets in the treehouse?*

Yes, Perry, if you mess with a hornet's nest you might get stung.  But if there is a hornet's nest in my children's treehouse, you bet I'm going to get rid of it.  I am going to very carefully, with proper preparation and knowledge, remove that nest.  I realize that the chance of getting stung during the process is high.  But I am more than willing to take the risk of getting a sting or two myself in order to protect my children, my grandchildren, and their guests from getting stung over and over, and having to give up their treehouse entirely.

-Marci (Mike also uses this username; the posts earlier in this thread are his)


----------



## mtribe (Sep 6, 2007)

> And all of this tinkering started when a number of* WM owners *went bellyaching to WN over 1 or 2 owners. This is what scares the hell out of me with the independent WM owner. The door has already been opened for willy-nilly changes to 20 year old rules thanks to those same folks chanting "Intendant WM BOD".
> 
> I am hoping that with WN cronies ensconced back in the WM BOD they will leave us alone. Poke a hornet's nest and you will get stung. If an independent WM owner gets in we can look for more retaliation. If one does get in I want one to fight for the right principles - make WM autonomous. It will take years of work and much research.
> 
> Giving more power to the WM BOD is NOT the correct answer, it is the wrong answer. We need to bleed it from them with our own CEO and management team.



Just to be clear here Perry (Which I am fairly certain that you are intentionally trying NOT TO BE).  The people who raised this complaint are not only not actively affiliated with WMOWNERS.COM but they are pretty hostile toward that site and those associated with it.  It was WMOWNERS who found out about the rule change and with Jim's help and others lobbied hard to try and salvage a bad situation.  

Any time anyone anywhere does something you do not like you say WM Owners are trying to mess with the system.   Instead of simply saying some ill advised owners or mis informed owners and belly aching to the BOD. You intentionally try to associate and incriminate WMOWNERS.COM.  Regardless of  whether they agree with the complaint or fight against the proposals recommended.  You have mentioned many many times that wmowners has instigated rules changes because of our complaining and I have challenged you to mention one single instance where something brought up by that site initiated a negative impact on the club.  I have mentioned many many specific positives but I have yet to hear one specific negative.

Mike


----------



## PerryM (Sep 6, 2007)

*Just a replacement for the old developer site...*



mtribe said:


> Just to be clear here Perry (Which I am fairly certain that you are intentionally trying NOT TO BE).  The people who raised this complaint are not only not actively affiliated with WMOWNERS.COM but they are pretty hostile toward that site and those associated with it.  It was WMOWNERS who found out about the rule change and with Jim's help and others lobbied hard to try and salvage a bad situation.
> 
> Any time anyone anywhere does something you do not like you say WM Owners are trying to mess with the system.   Instead of simply saying some ill advised owners or mis informed owners and belly aching to the BOD. You intentionally try to associate and incriminate WMOWNERS.COM.  Regardless of  whether they agree with the complaint or fight against the proposals recommended.  You have mentioned many many times that wmowners has instigated rules changes because of our complaining and I have challenged you to mention one single instance where something brought up by that site initiated a negative impact on the club.  I have mentioned many many specific positives but I have yet to hear one specific negative.
> 
> Mike




WMowners.com has morphed from a benign chat room into a raging site of folks hell bent on taking over the WM BOD.  Good grief in just the past 2 weeks all kinds of squirrely ideas have been bantered about on how to react to yet another WM owner and his kind efforts to improve their lot over there.

I’m talking about one owner who wrote a program to alert WM owners when Bonus Time was available and alert them via eMail.  This kind offer was then met with they typical lynch mob mentality on how to punish this one WM owner by suggesting to Wyndham, via their web site, how to defeat his program.

This is but one example where their chat room has singled out individual WM owners for shoddy treatment – its kind of a sport over there.  They used to bitch and moan how the official developer site would do the same – they have just replaced it.

They have all kinds of political wars raging all the time with various camps lobbing insults and innuendos at each other all the time.  They have lost their way.

P.S.
I remember when my posts would be edited by administrates and things I never said and animations I never use were routinely added - I would have to go back and delete them.  This is not some little helpless innocent chat room - it is a bare knuckle political witch brew of folks who delight in name calling, innuendos, and character assassination  - use it at your own risk.

P.P.S.
It helps to have a real thick skin if you plan to visit WMowners.com - a real thick skin.


----------



## ladycody (Sep 6, 2007)

Oh fer cryin' out loud....:hysterical: 

For those reading:

Most of the innuendos and insults I've ever seen in any discussion involving Perry were lobbed by and/or instigated by Perry.  They can be uncomfortable threads to read...but mostly because of references to owners as being ignorant, blind, foolish, stupid, pathetic, etc (all terms used by Perry).  Honestly... I generally find the folks at wmowners to be very nice...but many dont respond well to name-calling...even if it's just directed at a group and not pointing at a specific individual.  There are many who believe there are other ways to communicate without being insulting and verbally abusive and some simply dont respond well when confronted with rude disrespect....   

_Nobody_ at WMowners instigated the rule changes that Perry has been referencing.  They were _already_ being discussed by the BOD when wmowners first heard about the changes... 

_Nobody _ from wmowners contacted Wyndham regarding Alertie either...matter of fact, _my_ first inkling that it was against the WorldMark website use restrictions was because of a post made by _Perry_ who recommended that the Joajay(i think that's the name...anyway...the developer of Alertie) _Perry_ recommended that he/she go to Wyndham and ask for permission to use it because it seemed to be firmly against the rules.  WMowners didnt even need to worry about notifying WVO about alertie...Perry had it covered.  :rofl: 

As for wmowners being full of radicals who are always trying to change things instead of leaving 20 year old rules alone...the following quote was by Perry himself in June of 06 and is _far _more radical than ANYTHING else I've_ ever _heard on that site...so go figure... 


> The name of the game is using every day at every WM resort. To me, there seems to be 2 types of vacations involved here:
> 
> 7-day Red season vacations (Or more)
> This is our 13 month out one that we all fight for and even place phony reservations in front of to get. From my watching of the inventory, this is immediately snapped up within a few days of the 13 months. After that, the same inventory languishes around until 60 days.
> ...


 (and Perry pleease dont yell at me for giving WVO ideas with this...cause these were already publically posted and were all _yours.)_  For  those who have no idea what he's talking about here...trust me...it's about making _major_ changes to WM rules and guidelines for owner usage.

My only point here is that I personally would take anything you hear from this particular source with a very large grain of salt and read on your own to discover what's what.  JMO


----------



## LLW (Sep 6, 2007)

PerryM said:


> WMowners.com has morphed from a benign chat room into a raging site of folks hell bent on taking over the WM BOD..........
> This is but one example where their chat room has singled out individual WM owners for shoddy treatment – its kind of a sport over there.  They used to bitch and moan how the official developer site would do the same – they have just replaced it.





PerryM said:


> They have all kinds of political wars raging all the time with various camps lobbing insults and innuendos at each other all the time.  They have lost their way.



You can only say the site has complete control over what individuals post, or not. You can't say both, Perry.   

Maybe the above onflicting opinion comes from mis-taking individually-posted opinions as site editorial (ModSquad) opinions? Like saying that since certain opinions have been posted by Perry on TUG and on WMO, that they have been said by the sites?   



PerryM said:


> I remember when my posts would be edited by administrates and things I never said and animations I never use were routinely added - I would have to go back and delete them.



Why would they do that if they know you can go back and change them yourself?      They don't have enough to do?


----------



## PerryM (Sep 6, 2007)

ladycody said:


> Oh fer cryin' out loud....:hysterical:
> 
> For those reading:
> 
> ...



Q.E.D.  ....


----------



## ladycody (Sep 6, 2007)

ahhhhh.....quod erat demonstrandum....shoulda thoughta that myself... 

...there _is_ demonstrated evidence to back up everything in my post...hadnt thought to QED the end of it and appreciate the fact that you did.  Thank You!


----------



## PerryM (Sep 6, 2007)

ladycody said:


> ahhhhh.....quod erat demonstrandum....shoulda thoughta that myself...
> 
> ...there _is_ demonstrated evidence to back up everything in my post...hadnt thought to QED the end of it and appreciate the fact that you did.  Thank You!



Hey, its a talent I try not to abuse it....


----------



## ladycody (Sep 6, 2007)

:hysterical:


----------



## spatenfloot (Sep 6, 2007)

PerryM said:


> They have all kinds of political wars raging all the time with various camps lobbing insults and innuendos at each other all the time.



Usually this happens after someone disagreed with you about something, then you get mad and complain about everyone and swear never to post over there again. Lather, rinse, repeat.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 6, 2007)

spatenfloot said:


> Usually this happens after someone disagreed with you about something, then you get mad and complain about everyone and swear never to post over there again. Lather, rinse, repeat.



Well, folks can watch the wars for themselves; it's actually entertaining.

P.S.
The current guy taking the heat over at WMowners.com is DrGuy - a dentist that is running for the WM BOD and dares to not follow the Kool Aid drinkers over there.  DrGuy really handles it well and its fun to watch him divert all the rocks.

Go DrGuy!!!


----------



## mtribe (Sep 9, 2007)

Guy has been taking heat since looong before he decided to run for the BOD and it is primarily for the same reason as you take heat.  Both He and you Perry love to drop by with an arrogant condescending attacks.  Dr Guy has toned things down dramatically since his campaign began but many old timers there still remember and hold him accountable for his early posts.  I encourage and enjoy debates on issues and that is what both this site and that site are for, however calling people idiots isnt the most persuasive argument in a debate or discussion.


----------



## PerryM (Sep 9, 2007)

mtribe said:


> Guy has been taking heat since looong before he decided to run for the BOD and it is primarily for the same reason as you take heat.  Both He and you Perry love to drop by with an arrogant condescending attacks.  Dr Guy has toned things down dramatically since his campaign began but many old timers there still remember and hold him accountable for his early posts.  I encourage and enjoy debates on issues and that is what both this site and that site are for, however calling people idiots isnt the most persuasive argument in a debate or discussion.



Ahhh, I know what you mean - not "Thinking Right".


----------

