# Help eliminate conflict of interest on WorldMark BOD



## kapish (Aug 22, 2008)

Here is something I have received from www.wmowners.com


  [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*An independent WorldMark owner has put before the Board of Directors a proposal that would:*[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]                                      [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[*]Eliminate Conflict of Interest by preventing anyone who is or has been an employee of the Developer from serving on the Board of Directors[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]                            
[*]Require that vacancies in the Board (whether by expansion of the Board or any other cause) be filled by vote of the members, not by appointment by the sitting Board
[*]Require a vote of the membership to accept new resorts that do not fit certain benchmarks for Credit Allocation[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]In order for this proposal to be brought before the members of the Club for discussion and vote, it must have written support of 5% of the voting power of the Club. WM Owners reviewed the proposal and the petition, and fully supports this drive. We urge you to do the same.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
 [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Please follow the link to the petition that is being circulated to owners in the hope that these changes can be made to help protect our club from further devaluation. Please, strongly consider participating in this petition drive and encouraging other WorldMark Owners you know to do the same. Link to Petition[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
 [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The petition will simply get the proposals put before the owners, and is not an approval of the proposals.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
  [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*Please join us if you . . .*[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]are concerned that the current WorldMark Directors' connections to the developer and manager, Wyndham, may hinder their ability to act in the best interest of the owners.[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]                            
[*]would like to know that vacancies on the board will be filled by an owner independent of Wyndham or any of its affiliates.
[*]are concerned about the fact that all new resorts are coming in at higher credit values and believe that your ability to lock-in tomorrow's vacations at today's prices is being impacted as a result.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]                            [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]_
Notes: See limits of the Petition: the outcome, if approved will not impact our current board but will only change the qualification requirement(s) for candidates in future elections; temporary appointment is allowed; See the link above for more information._ [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*For general discussion about the election process, the issues, and the candidates, follow these links:*[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]2007 Election Analysis[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]History of WorldMark BoD positions[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Proxy form and instructions[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Links to credit dilution, resort acceptance, credit allocation[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]New resorts have much higher credit allocations[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]WMOwners Home page and Endorsement of Marci Tribe[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## roadsister (Aug 23, 2008)

Kapish,

The problem with this petition and some of the links posted is some of the information is incorrect.  

I would not sign anything knowing I did not approve of the proposals. That would not be a smart move on mine or anyone's part.


----------



## DH1 (Aug 23, 2008)

roadsister said:


> Kapish,
> 
> The problem with this petition and some of the links posted is some of the information is incorrect.
> 
> I would not sign anything knowing I did not approve of the proposals. That would not be a smart move on mine or anyone's part.



Could you be more specific and share what information you think might be incorrect?  We signed the petition, but would like to understand more about the issues..

thanks


----------



## LLW (Aug 23, 2008)

Thanks, kapish. I printed out the petition and plan to send it in.


----------



## mrsmusic (Aug 24, 2008)

*Thanks*

Thanks for the update. Whether or not I agree with all the proposals, the fact that we are attempting to force a vote is what I agree with and what I believe is important.  Thank you.
Crystal


----------



## DH1 (Aug 24, 2008)

mrsmusic said:


> Thanks for the update. Whether or not I agree with all the proposals, the fact that we are attempting to force a vote is what I agree with and what I believe is important.  Thank you.
> Crystal




That's how we're looking at it too.  Its seems not even so much about the specifics of the measures (although they seem pretty well stated to us) but rather about the process of allowing the members to raise, discuss and vote on concerns at the annual meeting that we're wanting to support.


----------



## kapish (Aug 26, 2008)

My petition is going out in today's mail.


----------



## mtribe (Aug 29, 2008)

I have mailed in mine and encourage everyone to do the same.  The conflict of interest is undeniable.


----------



## kapish (Aug 29, 2008)

Does anyone get a confirmation from Wyndham that they have received our petitions? I have not received, and I wonder if it was thrown in the recycle bin....


----------



## roadsister (Aug 30, 2008)

You can try posting on the wmowners forum - there are a couple people there that started the petition and I'm sure could help you.


----------



## DH1 (Aug 30, 2008)

kapish said:


> Does anyone get a confirmation from Wyndham that they have received our petitions? I have not received, and I wonder if it was thrown in the recycle bin....



We haven't received anything back from Wyndham, but we did get a confirmation from wmowners that our petition was received by them.  

We read somewhere on the wmowners forum that WorldMark has apparently refused to distribute the petition to its membership.  Sounds to us like WM is trying to block the petition from being considered by the members.  We're not too pleased to learn this..


----------



## roadsister (Aug 30, 2008)

DH1
It may also involve whether a faxed signature is legal.  
Where I work we *cannot* accept a faxed signature as a legal document.  It must be mailed in to us with the original signature.

Food for thought: 
Do you really want to send your name and owner number, PLUS YOUR SIGNATURE, in an unsecure email or fax?  Maybe I'm a little paranoid about identity theft after having had fraudulent charges on my credit card two different times (once by copying my signature and photoshop it in to a document), but I sure wouldn't do that.


----------



## DH1 (Aug 30, 2008)

roadsister said:


> DH1
> It may also involve whether a faxed signature is legal.
> Where I work we *cannot* accept a faxed signature as a legal document.  It must be mailed in to us with the original signature.
> 
> ...



Wow! - I can't imagine WM taking such a posture..  Maybe different if one is talking about deeds, contracts, etc. - but this... ?  I suspect an action to refuse to accept the petitions on some technicality would probably create a bit of a PR problem...  I know we would be pretty upset!


----------



## roadsister (Aug 30, 2008)

DH1,
It has nothing to do with WM, WYn, etc. A petition is considered a legal document. It's the same for just about anything...getting a copy of your birth certificate, filling out a school lunch application for free or reduced lunches, voting, etc. 

That's why you see people with petitions on clip boards in front of stores trying to get your signature for different issues....it has to be an original.


----------



## DH1 (Aug 31, 2008)

roadsister said:


> DH1,
> It has nothing to do with WM, WYn, etc. A petition is considered a legal document. It's the same for just about anything...getting a copy of your birth certificate, filling out a school lunch application for free or reduced lunches, voting, etc.
> 
> That's why you see people with petitions on clip boards in front of stores trying to get your signature for different issues....it has to be an original.



I see your point - at least for those situations involving Governmental matters, etc. where fraud and abuse is more likely to take place - but have trouble putting this into that category..

In any case, I have to disagree that this question has nothing to do with WM, WYN, etc.  Fax'd signatures and emailed signatures are widely used and accepted in spite of the potential problems you are suggesting.  

Seems to me that if they have a problem with such signatures, they owe their members either a confirmation of receipt or an alert that the petition is not acceptable in that manner.  To do neither seems to me to be problematic!


----------



## mtribe (Sep 1, 2008)

Wyndham stifles communication at every turn.  Even though owner communication is a right in the governing documents there is a monopoly on information.  Wyndham has shut down the worldmark forum.  A forum where most owners are aware that it exists.  They say it costs them too much to moniotor (ie censor of any discussion of real issues) Many owners have asked for an article posted in destinations, many have asked for emails to be distributed informing owners (this would not get to all owners but would be a start) Owners have asked to have something included in a planned mailing as they did with the ARDA mailing....denied as well.   

There is currently one and only one way for owners to communicate with all owners through Wyndham/worldmark.  That method is to prepare a document, have it approved by them, and mailed out by them through their mail agency.  Owners wishing to communicate through this method must pay the mail house for the privledge.  Average costs of Mail house mailings is $1 per item.  I do not know of many owners who have a spare quarter of a million dollars lying around to try and send a message of concern to owners . 

Even candidates for the BOD are restricted to 3 minutes at the owners meeting and 150 word statements in destinations.  Have you ever tried to say anything of substance in 3 minutes or 150 words?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Sep 1, 2008)

DH1 said:


> I see your point - at least for those situations involving Governmental matters, etc. where fraud and abuse is more likely to take place - but have trouble putting this into that category..
> 
> In any case, I have to disagree that this question has nothing to do with WM, WYN, etc.  Fax'd signatures and emailed signatures are widely used and accepted in spite of the potential problems you are suggesting.
> 
> Seems to me that if they have a problem with such signatures, they owe their members either a confirmation of receipt or an alert that the petition is not acceptable in that manner.  To do neither seems to me to be problematic!



In the work that I do, faxed signatures are acceptable only if the underlying document specifies that faxed signatures are acceptable.  Even then I only see faxed signatures as an acceptable alternate on contracts.

With *all *of the governmentally mandated signatures that I work with, faxed signatures are *never* acceptable. E-mail signatures, being even less secure than fax, aren't considered at all.

Whether faxed signatures would be acceptable in this case would depend on what the Worldmark program documents say about how proxies are executed and delivered.  My guess is that the documents say that proxies require a written signature and must be mailed or hand-delivered.  If so, a fax or e-mail isn't going to do the job.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Sep 1, 2008)

mtribe said:


> Even candidates for the BOD are restricted to 3 minutes at the owners meeting and 150 word statements in destinations.  Have you ever tried to say anything of substance in 3 minutes or 150 words?



With 150 words you can include a reference to a web page.  At the web page you can be as expansive as you wish.


----------



## LLW (Sep 1, 2008)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Whether faxed signatures would be acceptable in this case would depend on what the Worldmark program documents say about how proxies are executed and delivered.  My guess is that the documents say that proxies require a written signature and must be mailed or hand-delivered.  If so, a fax or e-mail isn't going to do the job.



Wyndham provides and encourages on-line voting and giving proxies to the board on line. So electronic submission is accepted.


----------



## DH1 (Sep 1, 2008)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> In the work that I do, faxed signatures are acceptable only if the underlying document specifies that faxed signatures are acceptable.  Even then I only see faxed signatures as an acceptable alternate on contracts.
> 
> With *all *of the governmentally mandated signatures that I work with, faxed signatures are *never* acceptable. E-mail signatures, being even less secure than fax, aren't considered at all.
> 
> Whether faxed signatures would be acceptable in this case would depend on what the Worldmark program documents say about how proxies are executed and delivered.  My guess is that the documents say that proxies require a written signature and must be mailed or hand-delivered.  If so, a fax or e-mail isn't going to do the job.



Of course whether the work you do is applicable to this situation or not is hard for me to know - (sorry, I've not been here often enough to know what work you do).

Your mention of "governmentally mandated signatures" leads me to believe your conclusions are based on statutory requirements concerning governmental documents.

Guess I'm not sure such requirements would pertain to a non-governmental organization, but don't have the expertise to know for sure.

I suspect you're correct that the real answer as to what gets the job done will depend on what the underlying governing documents may or may not have to say...


----------



## ladycody (Sep 2, 2008)

Well if electronic signatures dont count then every proxy assigned and vote cast online is invalid.


----------



## DH1 (Sep 3, 2008)

ladycody said:


> Well if electronic signatures dont count then every proxy assigned and vote cast online is invalid.





Good point! - I wouldn't think they could allow voting by email and then demand something different for petitions..


----------



## mtribe (Sep 5, 2008)

As a quick update for those who do not go over to www.wmowners.com there are now confirmed petitions representing over 8 million credits.  An amazing feat since Wyndham is doing everything in their power to prevent word of this petition drive from being made known to the general ownership base.


----------



## LLW (Sep 8, 2008)

*Update on Petition Progress*

Excerpt from a report today on www.wmowners.com:

"At the September 2007 WorldMark Directors meeting, Gene Hensley stated that nothing special was required for an owner to get a measure put before the membership. He further stated that he didn’t think the Board has ever refused, or ever would refuse to place an owner initiative on the ballot.....

"Now, another owner has proposed a new “Conflict of Interest” measure for the Board to include on this year’s agenda. In responding to THIS owner, the Board now asserts that “in order for a member to put measures on the ballot, a request signed by 5% of the voting power is required.” 

This astonishing assertion is found nowhere in our governing documents! The only mention of a 5% provision pertains to a requirement for "Calling a Special Meeting". In this case however a "Meeting" has already been called - i.e. the Annual Meeting. There is absolutely nothing in the Bylaws which prohibits the Board from simply adding these measures to the agenda, yet they are now hiding behind inapplicable Bylaw provisions in refusing to honor owner requests. WHY? ISN’T THIS OUR CLUB? We owners should be permitted to bring measures to a vote of the ownership! "

For the full post, see
http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=188865#188865


----------



## DH1 (Sep 9, 2008)

LLW said:


> Excerpt from a report today on www.wmowners.com:
> 
> "At the September 2007 WorldMark Directors meeting, Gene Hensley stated that nothing special was required for an owner to get a measure put before the membership. He further stated that he didn’t think the Board has ever refused, or ever would refuse to place an owner initiative on the ballot.....
> 
> ...




Whoa! - This smells bad..  What on earth is WorldMark doing?  This certainly doesn't bode well for the owners..


----------



## LLW (Sep 10, 2008)

*Latest Update on Petition Drive*

New update today:

Excerpt -
"WMO is extremely happy with the preliminary results of our petition drive. As of today, more than 10% of the owners we’ve been able to contact by email (approx. 5500) have already signed and returned their petitions – and we’re barely 3 weeks into the effort! Their votes already exceed 15% of the Club’s average voting power for this many owners, representing well over 9 million Vacation Credits......."

To see the full post -
http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=189020#189020


----------



## LisaH (Sep 10, 2008)

Can someone point me to the petition? I'm an owner and would like to take a look to decide if I want to sign.

Thanks!


----------



## LLW (Sep 11, 2008)

LisaH said:


> Can someone point me to the petition? I'm an owner and would like to take a look to decide if I want to sign.
> 
> Thanks!



Petition and discussion:

http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17892&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=


----------



## LisaH (Sep 11, 2008)

Never mind. I found the petition form in the 1st post by kapish


----------



## Born2Travel (Sep 11, 2008)

We signed and sent ours via fax yesterday


----------



## DH1 (Sep 12, 2008)

DH1 said:


> Whoa! - This smells bad..  What on earth is WorldMark doing?  This certainly doesn't bode well for the owners..




Got our Destinations Magazine today - did a little reading - then got another whiff of an offensive "ODOR".

Looks like the Board is providing only 1 measure on this year's ballot (Bylaw change to increase size of Board from 5 to up to 7).  Seems simple enough until we spotted some additional language stating - "...A 'FOR' vote will approve all proposed and related text changes indicated in the voting materials."

We're no longer confused about the MOTIVE for suppressing the owners' Petition.  We're bettin the word "vote" will come up missing in the "RELATED TEXT CHANGES" !

Very discouraging ..


----------



## DH1 (Sep 27, 2008)

*SURE ENUF - No Voting Allowed!*



DH1 said:


> Got our Destinations Magazine today - did a little reading - then got another whiff of an offensive "ODOR".
> 
> Looks like the Board is providing only 1 measure on this year's ballot (Bylaw change to increase size of Board from 5 to up to 7).  Seems simple enough until we spotted some additional language stating - "...A 'FOR' vote will approve all proposed and related text changes indicated in the voting materials."
> 
> ...



Got our voting materials and what did we find..? 

The proposed "related text changes" to the Bylaws we've read in the voting pamphlet exposes the Board motives very well.

As currently written, changing the number of Directors REQUIRES the vote & approval of the membership!

This Board proposal simply strips it away - NO VOTING ALLOWED!

MOTIVE? - To us Removing owner voice from the process comes leaping off the page!.

Hard to imagine how any owner could support this proposal!

Not us anyways - We're Definitely Voting NO!


----------

