# WorldMark proxy, what to do with it?  Whom should I select?



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 14, 2013)

I hate paperwork, and honestly, I would rather just put this stuff into the recycle bin and not mess with it all.  I do this with most of my proxy paperwork, because I just don't care that much.  I know, I know, but don't beat me up over it.....

What about the WorldMark proxy?  What should I do, whom should I name?  Does anyone care about this at all?


----------



## presley (Sep 14, 2013)

Girl, I take you have haven't been active on wmowners.com.
It's a very hot topic over there.


----------



## ronparise (Sep 14, 2013)

presley said:


> Girl, I take you have haven't been active on wmowners.com.
> It's a very hot topic over there.



Wmowners wants an independent that would do a better job representing owners than the Wyndham stooges that are on the board now. 

One with you. I don't much care

Their chosen candidate is Matt Shiner


----------



## PassionForTravel (Sep 14, 2013)

Here's a link to a topic over at wmowners about how to assign your proxy to them to help elect an independent (Matt Shiner).

http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=38665

If you assign your proxy to the board they will vote themselves back into office.

Ian


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 14, 2013)

Okay, I will put Matt Shiner in all three places.  

Are WorldMark owners generally unhappy with the WM BOD currently?  What have they done?  

We are fairly new to WorldMark and bought resale points.  I had to join RCI separately, ANOTHER account altogether, and Rick is kind of unhappy with me over it.  

The WM maintenance fees seem low.  

I just wish I had Travelshare, so I could book using RCI Points.  RCI Points has much more inventory for resorts I want, like Manhattan Club, Shearwater and DVC.  I don't want more RCI Points, I just want to access them with something.  I used to be able to access with Shell Points.  Shell switched to II, and it's been okay in II, but I would love to have WorldMark Travelshare.


----------



## PassionForTravel (Sep 14, 2013)

Cindy, you are the first person who agrees with me that the most valuable part of the Travelshare is the RCI points account. But alas I'm in the same position as you with my WM, RCI weeks. Can't you use your Wyndham for RCI points?

The story behind the WM board is that it's not any specific thing its just a collection. Their Housekeeping fees and MF have been going up faster than the rate of inflation in the hospitality industry, they have a cap of 5% and see to always hit it. It's also that the new resorts are priced higher in terms of credits than the older ones, in some cases it's justified(WM Indio vs WM Palm Springs) but in a lot of cases it's not. Also there are cases where resorts a few miles apart (Indio vs Palm springs, some up in Washington and Oregon) with the same tourist season but Wyndham has made much more of the season red with the new resorts which of course adds to the point inflation. 

There are just no real independents on the board, everyone either currently works for or worked for them in the past. The only two who we thought were independents were appointed by Wyndham because of the lawsuit them lost, and seem to vote the party line. They pull all sorts of shenanigans to get their people elected. One Dave Herrick (head of WYN sales) just retired so now he's classed as an independent, another one resigned from the board this spring, then they appointed a new Wyndham employee who's now running as an incumbent. Wyndhams refusal to run a fair election and let even one true independent on the board has people wondering what they are hiding. The interesting thing is that the policies with respect to their corporate board don't allow them to do with their board, what they do with Worldmark's.

Ian


----------



## Rent_Share (Sep 14, 2013)

rickandcindy23 said:


> The WM maintenance fees seem low.


 
The governing documents limit increases to 5 % annually or the Inflation rate if higher, (It was started in the 80's )  Wyndham doesn't apply that limit to everything else they can think of to charge you for

Wyndham manages to "justify a 4.99 % increase every year, not a person in here whose wages have gone up    21.6 % over the last for years  (five percent compounded) but Wyndham has passed those increases to the owners.

Still room to rake off a 10 % Management fee to "The Developer" of $19.5 Million (10 % of revenue) to the Developer "Wyndham"

The election instructions are intentionally ambiguous-


----------



## Born2Travel (Sep 15, 2013)

rickandcindy23 said:


> What about the WorldMark proxy?  What should I do, whom should I name?  Does anyone care about this at all?



Lots of owners care - vote for Matt Shiner


----------



## CraigWMF (Sep 15, 2013)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Okay, I will put Matt Shiner in all three places.
> 
> Are WorldMark owners generally unhappy with the WM BOD currently?  What have they done?
> 
> ...





As a general rule for me I am not unhappy with WYN as the Mgt company over the resorts.   I love the reservations line and I love Owner care.   Both of which I have had excellent customer service.

Here are the problems I have had with WYN on other issues.   The club was designed to where when new resorts were added the credit values would always remain the same.   When WYN sales the credits they increase the sale price and thus cover their costs and make mega bucks.   When WYN came aboard they double dipped by increasing credit values for new resorts plus charging more for the credits sold.  This creates a higher demand for the older resorts.

Secondly, I don't like high pressures sales at the front desk.   At some resorts they tell you to go to an owner update which is a sales presentation and if you don't have the travel club Travelshare they will tell you that you are being left behind.   I had Travelshare at one time and found it totally worthless for my travel needs so I got rid of it.      

With an independent like Matt on the Board for the first time in the history of the club there will be a check and balance.    We have never had that and the Mgt company is doing everything in their financial power to see to it that we never will.   This is why having an independent is so important to me.   One independent is not a threat to the all out powerful control that WYN currently has on the club.

I view the fear that WYN currently has is that for the first time there might be 4 yes votes for rubber stamping what WYN wants and 1 no vote for rubber stamping them as a noticeable conflict to owners and any court action an owner would take.   In other words WYN now is accountable to owners, once just one independent is on the Board.

Just my two cents worth as I have been an owner for ten years.


----------



## Rent_Share (Sep 15, 2013)

Wyndham has taken steps to thwart any reasonable cost email blast to the membership for an interested owner or candidate, yet blatantly promotes their own slate of directors in every touch to the ownership, whether it be printed, web site or email communication.

They are even playing the timeshare game stating that the board is independent and not employees. Three are former executives who no doubt hold stock options and shares from their many years of employment with the Developer who receives 10 % of the operating budget annually ($19.5 Million in 2012)

The two non employees were hand picked and appointed by the Wyndham board by manipulating the proxy votes to re-elect  retired Wyndham Executives who resigned so the positions could be filled by the BOD not by the election process 

Worldmark needs to be run for the maximum enjoyment of it's owner members not to maximize return to the Wyndham Stockholders


----------



## DAman (Sep 15, 2013)

Rent_Share said:


> Worldmark needs to be run for the maximum enjoyment of it's owner members not to maximize return to the Wyndham Stockholders



I could not say it better. 

Before the letter and email blasts I was indifferent. I now wonder, what are they hiding? Why does the board fear a fair election?  

I assigned my proxy to wmowners. I want an independent on the board. 

Of course, I love many things about WM and I am happy with my ownership. But increasing fees and credit inflation could change my mind.


----------



## Born2Travel (Sep 16, 2013)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Okay, I will put Matt Shiner in all three places.



Cindy, you must assign a proxie for your vote to count.   Another of Wyndhams ways to try and confuse the voters.   You should assign your proxie to WM Owners, Inc.  (no phone no needed)  Email below - your confirmation should show this:

*[FONT=&quot]Proxy Assignment:[/FONT]*
*[FONT=&quot]Designated Proxy Holder:[/FONT]*[FONT=&quot] WM Owners, Inc[/FONT]
*[FONT=&quot]Designated Email Address:[/FONT]*[FONT=&quot] wmproxies@gmail.com[/FONT]
*[FONT=&quot]Designation Valid For:[/FONT]*[FONT=&quot] 3 Years[/FONT]
*[FONT=&quot]Date of Designee Execution:[/FONT]*[FONT=&quot] 2013-09-12[/FONT]


Even though it says the proxie is good for 3 years most owners reassign it every year to be sure it gets done each year.  Why do we need a proxie?  Why can't we just vote for our choice?


----------



## Tia (Sep 16, 2013)

Born2Travel said:


> ...  Why do we need a proxie?  Why can't we just vote for our choice?



It's my thought whoever gets assigned your proxy can then vote on other issues that come up


----------



## CO skier (Sep 16, 2013)

rickandcindy23 said:


> ...
> 
> What about the WorldMark proxy?  What should I do, whom should I name?  Does anyone care about this at all?



Only about 30% of WorldMark owners vote.  (I wonder what the threshold for a quorum is?)

Vote if it appeals to your sense of civic duty, but the WorldMark elections remind me of those national elections where there is only one candidate on the ballot.  Wyndham pays the maintenance fees on unsold credits, so they control enough voting power to always control a majority of board positions.  Although there are either 2 (even year) or 3 (odd year) candidates on the ballot for the elections, in reality there is only one candidate and one preordained winner -- Wyndham Vacation Ownership, the WM developer, manager, and owner of the WM Board of Directors.


----------



## presley (Sep 16, 2013)

It's true that it is hard to get elected, but the key is persistence.  If a newcomer only runs for one or two times and then gives us, we will never have someone get it.  Matt may or may not win this year or next.  His persistence will gain him name recognition over time.


----------



## CO skier (Sep 16, 2013)

I assigned my proxy to the Board of Directors and voted all three votes for Matt Shiner, just for the entertainment value should he get elected, and it did not cost anything to vote online.  (I would not waste a postage stamp on this election.)

What do people expect to happen if he is elected?  The WM Board of Directors dance to Wyndham's tune.  There are five board positions; his vote would be one of five.

Will the rate of Maintenance Fee increases be cut in half?  No, they will increase at whatever rate Wyndham determines (subject to the 5% cap).

Will housekeeping fees continue to increase?  Yes.

Will new resorts enter the WM system at whatever credit allocations Wyndham deems appropriate?  Yes, no changes here.

Will the most popular reservations continue to be made 13 months plus a few days in advance?  Yes.

Will weekend Bonus Time suddenly begin to appear at the most popular resorts?  No.

Name any other gripe from owners, and what is likely to change?

I admire Matt Shiner's dedication to the task of campaigning.  Serving on the WM Board under these circumstances would seem to be terribly frustrating.


----------



## presley (Sep 16, 2013)

CO skier said:


> I admire Matt Shiner's dedication to the task of campaigning.  Serving on the WM Board under these circumstances would seem to be terribly frustrating.



I agree.  It takes a special person to volunteer to be put in the middle of a fight.  He will pushed from both sides, no doubt.


----------



## DAman (Sep 16, 2013)

I hope Matt's election forces WM to be open about the club and how decisions are made.  Will he be able to force changes?  Of course not.  Would his election force the board to be more transparent?  I hope so.  I see no down side to electing him.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 16, 2013)

> I assigned my proxy to the Board of Directors and voted all three votes for Matt Shiner, just for the entertainment value should he get elected, and it did not cost anything to vote online. *(I would not waste a postage stamp on this election.*)



The envelope says no postage necessary.


----------



## CO skier (Sep 16, 2013)

rickandcindy23 said:


> The envelope says no postage necessary.



It's not free; someone is paying for the postage.

... heh!, wait a second, you mean some of my maintenance fees are being used to pay the postage for people who do not use the free, online voting!  Let them pay their own postage!  We online voters need to band together and do something about this outrage!


----------



## PassionForTravel (Sep 16, 2013)

CO skier said:


> I assigned my proxy to the Board of Directors and voted all three votes for Matt Shiner, just for the entertainment value should he get elected, and it did not cost anything to vote online.  (I would not waste a postage stamp on this election.)
> 
> What do people expect to happen if he is elected?  The WM Board of Directors dance to Wyndham's tune.  There are five board positions; his vote would be one of five.
> 
> ...



I 100% agree with everything you said that even if ellected one board member cannot override four others. 

Which then sends us back to the question, what is WYN so afraid of with Matt that they are willing to lie about wanting to get rid of WYN as the manager, lie in their 5 key facts about the BOD, start a flurry of emails from the BOD a few months before the election (hasn't happened before), and to figuratively bring Bill Peare back from the dead. That's what I want to know.

Forgot to mention, just cast my three votes online for Matt. 

Ian


----------



## HudsHut (Sep 16, 2013)

Thank you, Cindy, for caring enough to ask.

We appreciate  your 3 votes for Matt Shiner.

Cheers,
Maria


----------



## Rent_Share (Sep 16, 2013)

I too am perplexed why they are concerned about having a 20 % oposition, unless it's the fact that the two puppets are up for election next year and perhaps 1 can become 3


----------



## Amy (Sep 16, 2013)

Rent_Share said:


> I too am perplexed why they are concerned about having a 20 % oposition, unless it's the fact that the two puppets are up for election next year and perhaps 1 can become 3



I'm generally like Cindy when it comes to voting for board members for companies in which I own stock and timeshares -- the proxy stuff usually get lost in a pile of paperwork and end up getting recycled.  But this year WYN really made me mad with the election promotion.  I have *never* seen the type of promotion, advertisement, etc. from any other organization re asking me to re-elect the current board.  They are pulling out everything from scare tactics re losing all sorts of valuable benefits, devoting almost an entire issue of the recent magazine on their arguments, multiple email blasts, letters from former CEO, etc.  How could one truly independent new board member make the kind of difference that they are claiming/suggesting?  The fact that they are acting so nervous and spending some of my dues on promoting their agenda made me act.  

I know that there isn't a consensus on issues on wmowners, so Matt doesn't necessarily stand for all non-affiliated owners.   But no one person could ever stand for all non-affiliate owners.  What's important is that I respect wmowners as a group for all that it has done over the years in terms of bringing awareness of various important issues and its promotion of the presence of an independent voice.  

For all these reasons, I, too, have voted all three of my votes for Matt (so as to not dilute the votes) and assigned my proxy to wmowners.  Just do this online and forget about mailing stuff back.


----------



## CraigWMF (Sep 16, 2013)

I voted for Matt also and I hope what WYN and their hand picked Board has just done will back fire on them.


----------



## LLW (Sep 16, 2013)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Okay, I will put Matt Shiner in all three places.
> 
> Are WorldMark owners generally unhappy with the WM BOD currently?  *What have they done?*
> 
> ...



The seemingly low MF would not stay low for long if Wyn has its ways. See, rooms are not charged by weeks, they are charged by credits. 30% more credits for a week means 30% higher maintenance fees, not regulated by the Governing Documents requirement of 5% cap.

Also, Trendwest used to sell 48 weeks in a year. Wyndham is selling 50. That means more credits for the new 2BRs -> more crowding at the lower-credit TW resorts (everybody would book the lower-credit resorts first, even the newer owners - WM has no home resorts) -> harder to book at your favorite legacy oceanfront resorts -> much less bonus time.

Only 2 of the many examples of the bad things Wyndham has done.




> I just wish I had Travelshare, so I could book using RCI Points.  RCI Points has much more inventory for resorts I want, like Manhattan Club, Shearwater and DVC.  I don't want more RCI Points, I just want to access them with something.  I used to be able to access with Shell Points.  Shell switched to II, and it's been okay in II, but I would love to have WorldMark Travelshare.



Did you know that you would pay 
1. $2.15 per credit to buy TravelShare (TS) whereas resale is at 30 cents?
2. monthly TravelShare dues that you don't have to pay without TS? and
3. they can take RCI Points away any time they want from TS? TS perks may be taken away at any time - it says so right in the TS contract that you sign.



Give your proxies to WMOwners, Inc. (it is an owner itself) on line (then you won't have to mail the paperwork in), for future elections, when you might not have enough time to mind the WM election. You won't have to worry about watching WYN in the future, when you don't have time. Otherwise, the Wyndham-controlled Board will. The WMO volunteers will be watching them if WMO has your proxies. (WMOwners, Inc. is a non-profit organization of WM owners.) If you change your mind in future years, you can take back the voting.

*Give all 3 position votes to Shiner, vs giving them to the 3 non-independents. And give your proxies to WMOwners, Inc., who is a WM owner, and a non-profit organization of WM owners.*


----------



## LisaH (Sep 17, 2013)

LLW said:


> *Give all 3 position votes to Shiner, vs giving them to the 3 non-independents. And give your proxies to WMOwners, Inc., who is a WM owner, and a non-profit organization of WM owners.*



I have just done that as instructed, but I am not sure who exactly is WMOwners, Inc. Is it a particular person, or an entity? Sorry I did not read through the whole thread but I knew I have done the right thing...


----------



## Amy (Sep 17, 2013)

LisaH said:


> I have just done that as instructed, but I am not sure who exactly is WMOwners, Inc. Is it a particular person, or an entity? Sorry I did not read through the whole thread but I knew I have done the right thing...



Here is info about the organization behind the wmowners forum/BBS:  http://www.wmowners.com/content/about


----------



## LisaH (Sep 17, 2013)

Thanks Amy! Good to see you around here.


----------



## LLW (Sep 17, 2013)

LisaH said:


> I have just done that as instructed, but I am not sure who exactly is WMOwners, Inc. Is it a particular person, or an entity? Sorry I did not read through the whole thread but I knew I have done the right thing...





Amy said:


> Here is info about the organization behind the wmowners forum/BBS:  http://www.wmowners.com/content/about



Thanks Amy. The link provides more details, but yes, WMOwners is a registered non-profit organization formed and run by owners for owners. In addition, WMOwners, Inc. was donated a small WM account a few years ago; so it is a WM owner itself, and can be a proxy holder.

WMO operates a web site (link in my signature line), which has resort info (e.g. square footage), photos and reviews, and a very active discussion forum which has close to 15,000 members and 300,000 posts. Topics include education (e.g. tips and tricks), owner advocacy, community, and communication. Many owners learn how to optimize the value of their WM account there.


----------



## Amy (Sep 18, 2013)

LisaH said:


> Thanks Amy! Good to see you around here.



I'm more of a lurker now.   

Have you guys received the latest email from Board President Dave Herrick?  Apparently folks like us are now described as radical "self-interested individuals" seeking to "take control of the Board" and get rid of Wyndham.  I thought we're only trying to take control over ONE out of five seats on the board?!  Sure it would be nice to have true independents for all the board positions, but that's not the fight for this election.  Talk about spin.  It makes me mad when I think of all the WM owners who don't frequent places like wmowners and TUG who may believe these calculated misstatements.  :annoyed:


----------



## Rent_Share (Sep 18, 2013)

Usually there are 10 + candidates, it must be the fact that since there are only 5 candidates running for the three seats, that an anyone but the incumbent sentiment could spoil their private clique. They control the proxies and due to the fact that there were only two seat to protect last year they were able to cover the spread, with three seats to protect they might not have enough votes.


----------



## Rent_Share (Sep 18, 2013)

Amy said:


> I'm more of a lurker now.
> 
> Have you guys received the latest email from Board President Dave Herrick? Apparently folks like us are now described as radical "self-interested individuals" seeking to "take control of the Board" and get rid of Wyndham. I thought we're only trying to take control over ONE out of five seats on the board?! Sure it would be nice to have true independents for all the board positions, but that's not the fight for this election. Talk about spin. It makes me mad when I think of all the WM owners who don't frequent places like wmowners and TUG who may believe these calculated misstatements. :annoyed:


 
Think about how they teach and encourage the entire organization to sling the bullshit at the sales meetings, these people are the masters at it.


----------



## benyu2010 (Sep 19, 2013)

I don't understand what's the big fuss about the whole election. Last magazine makes it felt like election year of donkey vs. elephant. Then, there is email blast from almost every notable name in this quarter million travel club.

Bill Peare, founder of 'good old days' Trendwest
Bob Morrison, BoD incumbent
Robin Miller, pretty respectable dude fought in court to email me
Dave Herrick, BoD President

and 

emails and emails of owners comments...

Then, there are shills registering on owners' sites to stir the pot...

From Wyn's perspective, independent-elected would always be minority due to voting power of large amount unsold inventory. What's the big deal of letting Matt Shiner replaces Bob Morrison or Cecilia Curvas, both appointed independents

From an individual owner's perspective, status quo is unlikely to be broken. What's the ultimate goal of having a seat or two on board? The key decision would be voted along the line, is it rocket science? 

I admit I'm a bit cynical, haven't forget to cast my votes though...


----------



## herindoors911 (Sep 22, 2013)

And I know whom you voted for!      

Wyndham changed up the voting regulations this year and made it more confusing.  Once you have voted, you cannot change the vote.
Votes must be submitted via a proxy holder.

Matt will be the voice of owners if he is elected. Matt has a FB page if anyone wants to ask him specific Q's or wants to read his answers to Q's he  has posted there. 

*FB page is        WorldMark Matty *

Having a true INDEPENDENT voice on the BoD will be refreshing.  It is a small step in the right direction.    Let us hope it comes Matt's way.   Matt does inform that he will work collaboratively with all BoD members.  

As to all the propaganda put out by Wyndham, Matt has chosen not to participate in the banter and misinformation, choosing to take the high road.   Incidentally, I was looking through election posts on WMO for last year.  This is what John Henley had to say after the BoD used their proxied votes to oust Matt away from the BoD position.  He had over 95,000 votes, WINNING the popular vote.... 

John Henley said...."""I would like to thank the 106,000 or so owners who have continued to exercise their democratic right and participated in the 2013election process by having their votes recorded in favour of me.  I also must note that developer vote did not have any impact on the final result. 

Having said this, I must also congratulate Matt for an outstanding vote total. He conducted "his" campaign as a gentleman and a professional. I trust that we may be able to continue with positive and productive dialogue on the Club we all love".

This is for anyone who doubts Matt's integrity.


----------



## cotraveller (Sep 22, 2013)

herindoors911 said:


> Matt has chosen not to participate in the banter and misinformation, choosing to take the high road.



Ah, if only others would follow his lead.


----------



## CO skier (Sep 22, 2013)

herindoors911 said:


> Wyndham changed up the voting regulations this year and made it more confusing.  Once you have voted, you cannot change the vote.
> Votes must be submitted via a proxy holder.



The new guidelines do streamline the voting process and make the result less confusing.  Under last year's guidelines, someone could pencil-out a proxy on the back of a bar napkin while in an inebriated state, then photocopy it and send it in to either the proxy holder or the tabulator, who would then have to make some kind of sense out of it.  Now there is a standard form that must be submitted only to the tabulator.  This makes perfect sense.

Some people cannot make up their mind.  In years past, they could change their vote six times (or more) and change their proxy three times (or more), or vice versa, and somehow the tabulator was supposed to sort all this out.  Now they can cast their vote only once (or change it only in person at the annual meeting).  They can still change their proxy multiple times, but with a now standardized proxy form that has to be requested and re-requested anytime they want to change their mind, at least the tabulator can determine what is the last and effective proxy.  This makes perfect sense.

Even in years past, the votes of owners not present at the annual meeting had to be cast by a proxy; this year is no different.  In past elections, if an owner did not designate a proxy holder, the proxy would default to the BOD who would either 1) be legally obligated to cast the vote(s) as indicated by the owner or 2) if no vote(s) were indicated, could elect and cast the vote(s) as the proxy holder.

Now if a voter does not assign a proxy holder, their votes do not count.  

Arguments can be make either way:  1.  Before this year, unassigned proxies would default to the BOD (Wyndham conspiracy theorists would view this as a bad thing), but at least the owner's votes would be counted.  2.  Now, owner's must designate their proxy holder; if they do not, their votes cannot be counted (Wyndham conspiracy theorists will label this as "disenfranchising voters)."

Conspiracy theorists want to paint this year's ballot and proxy changes as yet another Wyndham plot against "them."  There is not a single change that is not a reasonable improvement to the previous system.

It should also be noted that the online voting procedure is _exactly _the same as last year.


----------



## herindoors911 (Sep 23, 2013)

CO skier said:


> The new guidelines do streamline the voting process and make the result less confusing.  Under last year's guidelines, someone could pencil-out a proxy on the back of a bar napkin while in an inebriated state, then photocopy it and send it in to either the proxy holder or the tabulator, who would then have to make some kind of sense out of it.  Now there is a standard form that must be submitted only to the tabulator.  This makes perfect sense.
> 
> Some people cannot make up their mind.  In years past, they could change their vote six times (or more) and change their proxy three times (or more), or vice versa, and somehow the tabulator was supposed to sort all this out.  Now they can cast their vote only once (or change it only in person at the annual meeting).  They can still change their proxy multiple times, but with a now standardized proxy form that has to be requested and re-requested anytime they want to change their mind, at least the tabulator can determine what is the last and effective proxy.  This makes perfect sense.
> 
> ...



The intent of my initial lines is to state a couple of the new rules to show the changes.  You certainly know a great deal about the new voting procedures and the people who write votes on napkins. " Conspiracy theorists"?    One would think you work for Wyndham.

I just have one more comment    -   You go, Matt Shiner


----------



## CO skier (Sep 23, 2013)

herindoors911 said:


> The intent of my initial lines is to state a couple of the new rules to show the changes.  You certainly know a great deal about the new voting procedures and the people who write votes on napkins. " Conspiracy theorists"?    One would think you work for Wyndham.
> 
> I just have one more comment    -   You go, Matt Shiner



I do not work for Wyndham (but a conspiracy theorist could easily think that).  I did vote for Matt Shiner.

I really enjoy my WorldMark vacations but find the Wyndham paranoia is tiresome.

The last opportunity to cast ballots or proxies is in person at the annual meeting, October 17th.

I have just one comment:  October 18th cannot get here soon enough.


----------



## herindoors911 (Sep 23, 2013)

CO skier said:


> I do not work for Wyndham (but a conspiracy theorist could easily think that).  I did vote for Matt Shiner.
> 
> I really enjoy my WorldMark vacations but find the Wyndham paranoia is tiresome.
> 
> ...



Well, for one, I do not participate in conspiracy theories, so I can be erased from any listing with that title.   IMHO, the main "conspiracy theorist" in this election has been Wyndham itself...   stating that a "certain group" are bent on removing Wyndham from managing/developing Worldmark.   By having sent out these messages, I think Wyndham will gain less votes.  I have seen many posts from folks who did not like this strategy one little bit and have chosen to vote this time, whereas they have not voted in the past - and have voted for Matt.

As mentioned, Matt WILL co-operate with all BoD members and voice concerns of the owners.  He is not, as has been suggested, out to get rid of Wyndham.  

Thank you for voting for Matt!   And, I too will be delighted to have the election under wraps.  Just let us hope it is wrapped in the right paper.


----------



## rleigh (Sep 26, 2013)

herindoors911 said:


> ....[....]IMHO, the main "conspiracy theorist" in this election has been Wyndham itself...   stating that a "certain group" are bent on removing Wyndham from managing/developing Worldmark.[...]



That's just what I was thinking....they seem pretty scared about the possibility of Matt winning...so much so they are bombarding us with "They're trying to take over the Board and the company and your vacations!" lies.
Apparently this tactic is making previously indifferent owners very suspicious. But there are some who will believe it.


----------

