# Mass Mailing To Worldmark Owners



## PA-

I'm preparing to do a mass mailing to ALL worldmark owners, and am looking for help. The cost will be about 40 cents per owner for a 4 page brochure, and there are 230,000 owners. 

If you would like to ...help..., let me know.  All money will be given directly to the mailing house, this will not benefit me in any way. The only restrictions I have on the mailing is that I can't do it for commercial gain, and I can't defame Trendwest. 

If you would like to sponsor a group of owners (100, 500, 1000?), let me know, and I'll give you details on how to send the money to the mailing house. 

I have the ability to target specific cities, states or zip, so you can select who you advertise to or sponsor.

Together, we can make an impact in time for the election. 

I've almost got the verbage for the brochure complete, and will post it when I do. Basically, it will outline the issues that are discussed here everyday, it will ask for proxies in order to elect independet candidates, and it will refer people to the www.wmowners.com forum for more information.

Email me if you're interested in participating.


----------



## jefffudge

YES, WE WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MAILING...CALL ME...JEFF FUDGE, RPMI REALTY, 800-844-8404, jeff@jkor.com, www.resort-property.com


----------



## PerryM

*Great news*

PA,

Good luck on this - hopefully it will go smoothly.

Some day you'll have to tell us how you got that list.

P.S.
Don't open any packages from TrendWest for the next couple of years.  This is going to be all out war.


----------



## Judy

May I ask why you're requesting proxies rather than making suggestions about which independent candidate(s) to vote for?


----------



## PA-

Judy said:
			
		

> May I ask why you're requesting proxies rather than making suggestions about which independent candidate(s) to vote for?



Excellent question.  Here are the reasons:

1)  If I ask all owners to vote for Jim, let's say that Jim gets 100,000 votes (far-fetched, but possible).  That gets us one seat on the board.

However, what if I get 100,000 votes, and can elect both Jim and 1 other candidate, and we immediately have a majority of independent owners on the board.

Conversely, what if I enlist support for 2 candidates, and get a total of 50,000 votes split between the 2 candidates.  They both lose to the incumbents, and we've gotten no closer to having an independent board.  On the other hand, if I get 50,000 proxies, I could vote them all for 1 owner and get him/her elected.

2)  We don't have a list of candidates yet, so how can I recommend one?  By the time the candidates are announced, the proxy forms will be in people's hands and it may be too late.

3)  Trendwest sees the results of the election as the votes come in, and can use their proxies to foil any candidate you vote for.  However, my intent is to also see the results at the 11th hour and vote my proxies at the same time as Trendwest.  I'm still working this issue with Trendwest and Computershare (the tabulating company).  But this may allow us to hide from Trendwest who we will vote for.  At the very least, that may force them to show their hand and cast 100% of their votes for the Trendwest candidates.  The board would no longer be able to claim that they cast the proxies the way the popular vote goes.  

So the bottom line is, no matter who I recommend, it's unlikely Trendwest will let them get elected.  By asking for proxies, they may not know who I'll vote for, and may have a little less chance of foiling our wishes.  Also, I'll be in a better position to decide whether to split the votes or cast them for 1 candidate.

Perhaps this year, it won't make a difference.  But I plan to do this for as long as it takes to throw Trendwest off the Worldmark BOD, and as more and more owners get the message from multiple mailings, the greater the chance the proxies will get done what we've failed to do with the vote.


----------



## cotraveller

Hey Philip, how about listing my WorldMark blog in your brochure?  I also have some wishes for WorldMark.


----------



## PA-

cotraveller said:
			
		

> Hey Philip, how about listing my WorldMark blog in your brochure?  I also have some wishes for WorldMark.




I'm sure you do.  How bout if you start a thread asking for donations for your ideas (whatever they are).  That'll decide whether they're supported by enough owners to justify mailing costs.


----------



## cotraveller

Ok, send money everyone.  Cash, check, money order, paypal, all forms accepted.


----------



## PA-

Thank you to those who have pledged money.  

After Trendwest got wind of this post, they sent an email saying they wouldn't provide the list if I have advertisers.  So until that issue is resolved, I want to hear from individuals (not advertisers) who will sponsor mailings to other owners.  After it's resolved, I'll respond to those of you who wanted to advertise.


----------



## Bill4728

WMowners.com has a FAQ about gift cert. that WM sells. The section has an interesting idea of getting gift cert. instead of renting credits when you want to do a vacation with other family members. 

One small corrections to the page is that the cost is "dollar per credit" not "cents per credit". $740/14000 credits is 5.28 cents or .0528 dollars/ credit  on the site it listed as .0528 cent/credit.


----------



## roadsister

PA,

Questions:

Have you received written OK by legal regarding proxies?  (I would hate to have people tell another owner to let them vote for them and then find it isn't legal - their vote would be wasted.  We cannot assume here that it would be ok.)

I know that before passing off their vote or deciding WHO to vote for an owner would want to wait until they can read every candidate's statement and assess which one they think would make the best board member. This does not allow them to do that....they must go with who you pick....while I agree with some of your suggestions sometimes, some of them are SO radical that people on other forums question your motives.

Also, you are a WM timeshare/credit resaler so this would also benefit you, correct?

Informed owners need to know....


----------



## LLW

Bill4728 said:
			
		

> WMowners.com has a FAQ about gift cert. that WM sells. The section has an interesting idea of getting gift cert. instead of renting credits when you want to do a vacation with other family members.
> 
> One small corrections to the page is that the cost is "dollar per credit" not "cents per credit". $740/14000 credits is 5.28 cents or .0528 dollars/ credit  on the site it listed as .0528 cent/credit.



WM has discontinued selling gift certificates. That FAQ needs to be updated.


----------



## PA-

roadsister said:
			
		

> PA,
> 
> Questions:
> 
> Have you received written OK by legal regarding proxies?  (I would hate to have people tell another owner to let them vote for them and then find it isn't legal - their vote would be wasted.  We cannot assume here that it would be ok.)
> 
> I know that before passing off their vote or deciding WHO to vote for an owner would want to wait until they can read every candidate's statement and assess which one they think would make the best board member. This does not allow them to do that....they must go with who you pick....while I agree with some of your suggestions sometimes, some of them are SO radical that people on other forums question your motives.
> 
> Also, you are a WM timeshare/credit resaler so this would also benefit you, correct?
> 
> Informed owners need to know....



I have been working these issues for over a year.  Yes, the proxy form has been modified to include a blank space to allow owner's to select any proxy agent they want, as long as it's another worldmark owner.

I can certainly ask for their proxy, and I think I gave some compelling reasons why it's preferable to even an informed vote for a specific candidate.  I'm sure you're aware of the problem of splitting our votes for the many independent candidates.  If they choose to wait, and make an informed vote, amen.  

The whole thing about proxies is that the owners DO give up their right to choose for themselves.  I know this seems odd to you and me, but last year approximately 50% of the votes were by proxy.  So whether we feel it's odd or not, it's reality.  I guess it comes down to whether the voters trust the Trendwest dominated board or an independent owner who they may know little or nothing about.  We'll see.

I'm not aware of radical suggestions.  Certainly, this can't be considered radical.  An owner contacting other owners to recommend the management company not be allowed to oversee the management company seems pretty consistent with American, capitalistic, and free market ideals to me.

As for being a reseller, what makes you believe that?  It isn't true.


----------



## PerryM

*100% support from me*

As someone who does not see “eye to eye” with PA on some subjects I congratulate him for doing what no one else was able to do – get TW to cough up the WM owner’s  list.

PA has my 100% support and anything I can do to help he has.  I will sponsor owners and do what ever it takes to make this happen.

Let’s give Philip the time it takes to work out the bugs and offer him support anyway possible.


----------



## PA-

roadsister said:
			
		

> ...
> Also, you are a WM timeshare/credit resaler so this would also benefit you, correct?
> 
> ...



Anyway, what the heck kind of question is that?  The way it's worded, it sounds like you're thinking all of this I've done has benefitted me financially.  My efforts at cleaning up the Worldmark board have cost my family many thousands of dollars in real expenses and lost revenue.

On the other hand, Trendwest, who is a BIG time seller of worldmark credits and has a HUGE financial stake, controls the Worldmark Board of Directors, and you can bet they DO benefit from this inside dealing. 

Jeez.


----------



## cotraveller

Philip,  you ran for the WorldMark Board of Directors last year.  As you stated the candidates have not been announced yet this year.  When asked if you are running this year you have declined to answer.  Are you running this year?  Do you intend to run again sometime in the future?  I believe those are valid questions to ask an individual who is soliciting proxies.


----------



## ngray

Congratulations Philip on accomplishing a difficult feat. And thanks for the continued effort on behalf of WM owners.
wmowners.com will be providing a place for you to post your intent and answer questions if there are any.
Good luck in this endeavor  
Nena


----------



## PA-

cotraveller said:
			
		

> Philip,  you ran for the WorldMark Board of Directors last year.  As you stated the candidates have not been announced yet this year.  When asked if you are running this year you have declined to answer.  Are you running this year?  Do you intend to run again sometime in the future?  I believe those are valid questions to ask an individual who is soliciting proxies.



If I felt you had a need or right to know, or had done or would do anything constructive for worldmark, or with the information, I would have answered you previously.    I have great respect for your well articulated perspectives on the issues, but I don't agree with you, so I have no inclination to confide in you.  I'm certain that you would do anything to impede my efforts or make me look bad, if you could.  I've not solicitated proxies yet.


----------



## ngray

ngray said:
			
		

> Congratulations Philip on accomplishing a difficult feat. And thanks for the continued effort on behalf of WM owners.
> wmowners.com will be providing a place for you to post your intent and answer questions if there are any.
> Good luck in this endeavor
> Nena


Oh I forgot to add.........all those who bought resale, raise  your hand...... 
Nope I can't! Well that's not entirely true cause once or twice I upgraded with TW before I understood I was buying resale credits.....:ignore:


----------



## ladycody

I am sure that prior to actually soliciting proxies Philip will announce whether he intends to run or not....he's not out to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. 

My personal opinion is that, even if Philip _does_ announce that he is running, he would use the proxies to get either:

* 2 independents on the board _if possible_(unlikely to happen), or... failing that
* to try and ensure that at least 1 made it on board...and I believe he would honestly throw _every last one _of those votes at Jim or _whomever_ had the best chance...even if he were in the race.  

I firmly believe that his primary goal is to get an independent on board...and that for him to _be_ that person is truly secondary in the grand scheme of things.  If assigning the proxies to himself would lower the chances of another, _more well positioned_, independent candidate to get on the BOD...he'd _never_ do it.  It will be a leap of faith for those who choose to assign proxies...but so is handing them over to the board...


----------



## skim118

I applaud PA for taking the initiative & will happily support a fellow owner over Trendwest employees & their band of "yes-men" in Worldmark BOD.

I will financially support your mailing effort. 

I am also disturbed by the fairly rude reponses you are already getting :annoyed:


----------



## PA-

skim118 said:
			
		

> I applaud PA for taking the initiative & will happily support a fellow owner over Trendwest employees & their band of "yes-men" in Worldmark BOD.
> 
> I will financially support your mailing effort.
> 
> I am also disturbed by the fairly rude reponses you are already getting :annoyed:



Thanks Skim, email me with how many mailings you want to pay for, and I'll provide the details.  The money will not go to me, I don't want any questions about that, it will go straight to the mailing house that Trendwest has selected.


----------



## roadsister

skim118 said:
			
		

> I ...will happily support a fellow owner over Trendwest employees....



That is good to hear...I believe there will be 7 or 8 fellow *owners *running - I will become an educated owner before I vote for anyone.

*FYI

1 board member - WM owner - non-paid position
1 board member - WM owner, works only for Worldmark the club - non-paid position
1 board member - retired and a WM owner - non-paid position
1 board member - WM owner, works for TW - paid by TW
1 board member - WM owner, works in South Pacific sister company  - paid by TW

They are ALL Worldmark Owners...........I can't think of a reason to screw themselves*

Do I think the board never makes mistakes..no...NO timeshare is flawless.


----------



## kapish

*Re: Mass Mailing To Worldmark Owners > Go Philip!*



			
				skim118 said:
			
		

> _I ...will happily support a fellow owner over Trendwest employees...._


Me too. 

Philip, you can expect an email from me shortly with my pledge. Then you can send me the details of the mailing house. Thanks again for your hard work.  *Let's get independent Worldmark owners elected to the board!!*


----------



## myip

You may want to check on mailing the doc in bulk.  It may be cheaper than 40 cent each.  230000 mail = $92,000.  That is a lot of money.


----------



## KenK

I'm sure you can mail as bulk, as Myip suggsts.

As this is a non-profit....I think you can get even cheaper mailing rates.  I don't know how to qualify as a non profit......is an HOA considered a non profit?


----------



## PA-

myip said:
			
		

> You may want to check on mailing the doc in bulk.  It may be cheaper than 40 cent each.  230000 mail = $92,000.  That is a lot of money.



That includes printing, folding, tieing, plus postage.  And the service fee that the mailing company charges.  That's for a 4 page newsletter style.  

It would be cheaper if we could do the entire 230,000 at one time, but I don't want to wait to start mailing.  That would take to long to accumulate.  Meanwhile, the people we send to could be help fund it, so I want to get started.

It's a little more expensive for a letter in an envelope, a little less for a tri-fold flyer.  It somewhat depends on the quality of the paper.  But studies show that a little more expense on paper gets a LOT more results.  I have a very close friend that has been in the printing industry for years that is going to help with the layout and printing, at very low cost.


----------



## PA-

KenK said:
			
		

> I'm sure you can mail as bulk, as Myip suggsts.
> 
> As this is a non-profit....I think you can get even cheaper mailing rates.  I don't know how to qualify as a non profit......is an HOA considered a non profit?



I'm not an HOA or a non-profit; just little ole me.


----------



## SleepinIn

Congratulations Philip.  You can count on me.  We really need an independent WM BOD.  I'm just puzzeled why it's so hard for some people to understand.  It's pretty simple really:  conflict of interest.  Even _IF_ the WM BOD _never_ made any decisons that benefitted TW over WM, there's still a conflict.  They will always be in a position to potentially have to choose one entity over the other, and they have a fiduciary duty to each.


----------



## Judy

Thanks for the explanation of why proxies instead of voting suggestions.  I'm convinced.  I hope you'll include your explanation (or a shortened version of it) in the newsletter.  I think there might be a lot of people like me who wouldn't turn over their proxies without it. (Those who would turn over proxies without question have probably already given them to Trendwest :annoyed:   )


----------



## mtngal

Let me get this straight – I feel like I’ve walked into a conversation in the middle of it, and it seems like there’s too much missing for this to make sense to me.  If I understand you correctly, this thread is about Philip soliciting help with a mass mailing to WM owners.  The purpose of the mass mailing is to solicit proxies from owners (per your first post in this thread where you said, “…it will ask for proxies in order to elect independent candidates…”).  Do I have that correct?

In another post, when asked why Philip is asking for proxies, rather than suggesting which candidate should be elected, he gave a well-written insight to his strategy, and why he thought doing proxies were the way to go.  He made a couple of interesting statements, specifically: “But this may allow us to hide from Trendwest who we will vote for.” and “I’ll be in a better position to decide whether to split the votes or cast them for 1 candidate.”

So as I understand things at this point, this mailing is to solicit proxies for the sole purpose of electing one or more candidates that Philip personally feels are the best candidates, and that he reserves the right to cast those votes in whatever way he feels will get the unspecified candidate(s) elected.  In other words, his purpose with the mailing is to get proxies so that he can control the election.  Is that correct?

In that same post, he goes on to say, “At the very least, that may force them to show their hand and cast 100% of their votes for the Trendwest candidates.  The board would no longer be able to claim that they cast the proxies the way the popular vote goes.”  In other words, Philip intends to do what he states Trendwest wants to do – rig the election, right?

Then later on Fred asks Philip if he is running for the board, and justifies his question by saying “I believe those are valid questions to ask an individual who is soliciting proxies.”  Ladycody responds to him by stating, “I am sure that prior to actually soliciting proxies Philip will announce whether he intends to run or not…he’s not out to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes.”  Since his purpose of the mailing is to solicit proxies, and he has stated that he wants to send out this mailing immediately, it certainly sounds like he is in the process of starting to solicit proxies.  So without stating whether he is running or not, he certainly APPEARS to have some sort of hidden agenda.  If you want to respond to me in the same vein as you did Fred (“If I felt you had a need or right to know…”) go ahead.  However, your non-response to this question, coupled with your request for proxies has made me very suspicious.

The bottom line in this appears in both Philip’s and Ladycody’s posts – whoever assigns a proxy to someone else is doing it on a leap of faith.  They have to decide who they have more faith in – a company that they thought enough of to plunk money down to when they bought their membership, or a person “who they may know little or nothing about” (Philip's words).  Just me, personally, but I can’t see trusting someone who won’t let me know if they are a candidate or not while soliciting others to take action with the expressed purpose of soliciting proxies – trust goes both ways, and Philip isn’t trusting me with all the facts.


----------



## PA-

Yes, Mtngal, I'd say you've correctly summarized, thanks for that; and for bumping the thread up.


----------



## SleepinIn

mtngal said:
			
		

> The bottom line in this appears in both Philip’s and Ladycody’s posts – whoever assigns a proxy to someone else is doing it on a leap of faith.  They have to decide who they have more faith in – a company that they thought enough of to plunk money down to when they bought their membership, or a person “who they may know little or nothing about” (Philip's words).  Just me, personally, but I can’t see trusting someone who won’t let me know if they are a candidate or not while soliciting others to take action with the expressed purpose of soliciting proxies – trust goes both ways, and Philip isn’t trusting me with all the facts.


I'll agree that this will take a "leap of faith."  Should I trust Philip to cast my proxy votes or should I trust the WM BOD?

That would be an interesting question except that the "WM" BOD is actually TrendWest/Cendant/Wyndham controlled.  They have broken faith with me.  Just the way they voted the proxies last year is enough.  They stated that they had always voted them with the popular vote, implying that they would again, knowing full well that they wouldn't.

At least Philip is telling us how he'll vote these proxies.  He's up front about it and not pulling any punches.  For me, I'm more willing to trust an independent owner who understands the issues than a BOD that has already broken my trust.

Whether or not Philip runs for the BOD doesn't matter.  If he does, it's so he can help make WM stronger and better, unlike the TW "plants" that are there to ensure that TW makes more money.


----------



## BocaBum99

mtngal said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight – I feel like I’ve walked into a conversation in the middle of it, and it seems like there’s too much missing for this to make sense to me.  If I understand you correctly, this thread is about Philip soliciting help with a mass mailing to WM owners.  The purpose of the mass mailing is to solicit proxies from owners (per your first post in this thread where you said, “…it will ask for proxies in order to elect independent candidates…”).  Do I have that correct?
> 
> In another post, when asked why Philip is asking for proxies, rather than suggesting which candidate should be elected, he gave a well-written insight to his strategy, and why he thought doing proxies were the way to go.  He made a couple of interesting statements, specifically: “But this may allow us to hide from Trendwest who we will vote for.” and “I’ll be in a better position to decide whether to split the votes or cast them for 1 candidate.”
> 
> So as I understand things at this point, this mailing is to solicit proxies for the sole purpose of electing one or more candidates that Philip personally feels are the best candidates, and that he reserves the right to cast those votes in whatever way he feels will get the unspecified candidate(s) elected.  In other words, his purpose with the mailing is to get proxies so that he can control the election.  Is that correct?
> 
> In that same post, he goes on to say, “At the very least, that may force them to show their hand and cast 100% of their votes for the Trendwest candidates.  The board would no longer be able to claim that they cast the proxies the way the popular vote goes.”  In other words, Philip intends to do what he states Trendwest wants to do – rig the election, right?
> 
> Then later on Fred asks Philip if he is running for the board, and justifies his question by saying “I believe those are valid questions to ask an individual who is soliciting proxies.”  Ladycody responds to him by stating, “I am sure that prior to actually soliciting proxies Philip will announce whether he intends to run or not…he’s not out to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes.”  Since his purpose of the mailing is to solicit proxies, and he has stated that he wants to send out this mailing immediately, it certainly sounds like he is in the process of starting to solicit proxies.  So without stating whether he is running or not, he certainly APPEARS to have some sort of hidden agenda.  If you want to respond to me in the same vein as you did Fred (“If I felt you had a need or right to know…”) go ahead.  However, your non-response to this question, coupled with your request for proxies has made me very suspicious.
> 
> The bottom line in this appears in both Philip’s and Ladycody’s posts – whoever assigns a proxy to someone else is doing it on a leap of faith.  They have to decide who they have more faith in – a company that they thought enough of to plunk money down to when they bought their membership, or a person “who they may know little or nothing about” (Philip's words).  Just me, personally, but I can’t see trusting someone who won’t let me know if they are a candidate or not while soliciting others to take action with the expressed purpose of soliciting proxies – trust goes both ways, and Philip isn’t trusting me with all the facts.



Philip's objective is to achieve one and only one objective, an independent WorldMark Board of Directors.  For anyone who knows PA, that is pretty obvious.

Clearly, he is pursuing a strategy of fighting fire with fire.  He knows how Trendwest rigs the game in their favor.  He is just giving owners a fighting chance.

He has an interesting campaign stategy.  I guess he figures it will win out in the end.  He is NOT trying to spin a message to win over your hearts and minds.  You either believe in an independent board or you don't.  If you do, his way is the only way that even has a chance of succeeding.


----------



## PerryM

*Who do you trust - a fellow owner or a fat cat*

The more I read and understand what PA is doing the better I like it.  This is like one of those corporate “Gatcha’s” that you see on TV and will be fun to watch happen.

Anyone who can get this rolling and use the proxy approach is someone who is doing more than any other WM owner and deserves our trust.

For those stuck on trying to place your trust in a fellow WM owner or a cutthroat MBA who gets a fat salary form Cendant - you've got to be kidding me.

This is your chance to get something going - take a leap of faith - what do you have to lose?

For those of you who don't think that this is a big deal or would rather keep the status quo you haven't a clue how TW is killing WM.

RCI just devalued WM's credits by 10% a few weeks ago - this should be a shocker to all of you that all is not well with TW/WM.  To make matters worse RCI and TW/WM are sister organizations!!!!!  (10% was probably a gift - it should have been worse)


----------



## normbailey

mtngal said:
			
		

> The bottom line in this appears in both Philip’s and Ladycody’s posts – whoever assigns a proxy to someone else is doing it on a leap of faith.  They have to decide who they have more faith in – a company that they thought enough of to plunk money down to when they bought their membership, or a person “who they may know little or nothing about” (Philip's words).  Just me, personally, but I can’t see trusting someone who won’t let me know if they are a candidate or not while soliciting others to take action with the expressed purpose of soliciting proxies – trust goes both ways, and Philip isn’t trusting me with all the facts.


Mtngal,

I do believe you've hit the political nail on the head.  It's ONLY about trust and faith.  You can only trust that all politicians are out to screw SOMEone, and you can have faith that it's really going to happen.

What's going on here is that the playing field is being leveled.  One party has accused the other of covertly holding proxies in order to control the outcome in their favor.  That same party is now taking the position of planning to do the same.  Playing field leveled.

However, Mtngal, seeing how well you grasped the reality of it all, and honed in on trust and faith as being values to hold in esteem, and not just vulnerabilities to exploit in the pursuit of agendas......I would GLADLY sign over my proxies to YOU, long before I would sign them over to either of the two parties currently soliciting them.

Or, better yet, why don't we form a small coalition, seek out as many proxies as we can get, then put them up on eBay to rent out to the highest bidders?


----------



## SleepinIn

normbailey said:
			
		

> What's going on here is that the playing field is being leveled.  One party has accused the other of covertly holding proxies in order to control the outcome in their favor.  That same party is now taking the position of planning to do the same.  Playing field leveled.



Interesting that you would use the word "covert" in describing PA's effort.  It's obviously overt.  No lies, no tricks.  He's going to select a candidate that could possibly win over an incumbant TW stooge.  Maybe even himself if he is running and he thinks he would have the best chance to be elected.

Just in case you didn't know, here are quotes from the 2 incumbants right from their own website:

When asked for a statement for the following *Vision for WorldMark's products, features and services in the next five years:*

this is what they said:

*John Henley:*
A continuation of the upgrading of WorldMark resort and amenity options and locations. Some will *likely be more expensive to use*, but it is all about giving our owners options.
*Jack McConnell:*
Expanded access to quality resorts and more varied experiences. Add types of accommodations and features to *allow WorldMark members to utilize larger credit holdings.*

Hey!  What about us smaller credit holders, huh?


----------



## ouaifer

As Moderator, I find the information presented is this Thread quite interesting.  I just want _*everyone*_ to understand, that there has been considerable leniency given  to the posts here.  That having been said, please refrain from turning this into a political forum.  That will not be tolerated, and will force this Thread to be closed.


----------



## normbailey

SleepinIn said:
			
		

> Interesting that you would use the word "covert" in describing PA's effort.



Read my post again.  I said it was BOTH parties covertly hiding the proxies from each other until they could control the outcome.  That's a fact.

"However, my intent is to also see the results at the 11th hour and vote my proxies at the same time as Trendwest. I'm still working this issue with Trendwest and Computershare (the tabulating company). But this may allow us to hide from Trendwest who we will vote for."

Whether I use the word covert, or hide as was quoted from the source, it's still the same.  Keeping the voting decisions secret until they can be used to accomplish the goal.

For Trendwest, the allegation from PA is that they do so in order to retain incumbents.  For PA's proxy efforts, it's by his own admission that he's intending to do so to completely remove all Trendwest membership on the board.  No matter how long it takes.


----------



## PA-

In order to comply with the moderator's request, I ask that anyone who wants to help contact me privately, via email (my PM box is full).  Please don't respond to any nay-sayers, they're entitled to their opinion.


----------



## RichM

normbailey said:
			
		

> I would GLADLY sign over my proxies to [mtngal],before I would sign them over to either of the two parties currently soliciting them.



I was going to ask you who the other party was, then it dawned on me- the WM BOD is the other party.. duh..

Anyway, I believe PA's efforts have actually made what you say possible this year - I believe he mentioned that the mailed-out materials, this year, will include a place to allow any owner to assign their proxy to any agent they choose, a right afforded us owners per the bylaws.

By all means, if you're not going to cast your votes yourself via a proxy ballot, assign the proxy rights to someone who will.  Otherwise, if you just assign your proxy to the WM Board and the WM Board returns to the historical casting of "Director proxies" in accordance with the popular vote, any "Director proxy" votes have no bearing on the outcome of the election other than to achieve a necessary quorum.  Basically, you're allowing other owners, besides yourself, to decide who gets elected and nullifying any effect of your vote.

To me, it seems that anyone who chose to "plunk money down when they bought their membership" should want to have a say in what happens to their purchase.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## BocaBum99

PA- said:
			
		

> In order to comply with the moderator's request, I ask that anyone who wants to help contact me privately, via email (my PM box is full).  Please don't respond to any nay-sayers, they're entitled to their opinion.



PA,

I agree that the moderator's request should be complied with on this matter.  However, I also believe that there is some serious debate the needs to continue.

I think nay-sayers should have their say.  And I think the supporters should have theirs as well.

So, what I propose is that this dialog continue on this thread and in places such as this one:  TS4Ms thread for open debate on WorldMark topic


----------



## jkh43

I just wanted to mention to anyone interested that there is also a discussion over on the WMOwners forum about this topic.  I am pretty sure that the one over there will be a central place for discussing this effort for this election and however many more are needed to succeed in electing an independent board of directors.

Link


----------



## PA-

Once again, I respectfully ask anyone who has comments/questions or wants to voice support to please email me, or join the discussion at wmowners.com

Doesn't matter what SHOULD be, only what is.  And what IS is that the moderators prefer that this forum not be the stump for political discussions.  

So PLEASE, don't post anymore arguements, retorts, support, or anything else.  Those opposed to my efforts are free to post anything they want, and keep this thread near the top.  I believe it's important to keep it here for any stragglers that haven't read it yet, so more worldmark owners can see it.


----------



## spatenfloot

I plan to simply vote for the candidates myself.  I never give away my vote by proxy.


----------



## PA-

spatenfloot said:
			
		

> I plan to simply vote for the candidates myself.  I never give away my vote by proxy.





			
				PA- said:
			
		

> Those opposed to my efforts are free to post anything they want, and keep this thread near the top.



Thank you.


----------



## Swarthog

*Re: Who do you trust - a fellow owner or a fat cat*



			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> RCI just devalued WM's credits by 10% a few weeks ago - this should be a shocker to all of you that all is not well with TW/WM.  To make matters worse RCI and TW/WM are sister organizations!!!!!  (10% was probably a gift - it should have been worse)



I looked around for this information and didn't find it, can you tell me more about this devaluation or point me in the right direction?


----------



## PerryM

*10% RCI Devaluation*



			
				Swarthog said:
			
		

> I looked around for this information and didn't find it, can you tell me more about this devaluation or point me in the right direction?



Its discussed on www.WMowners.com - search for RCI and 11,000 and you should find it.  RCI now charges 11,000 WM credits for a 2BR Red exchange where it used to be 10,000 credits - a devaluation of 10%


----------



## RichM

It was in Christine's report from the July WM BOD meeting:

http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=69666#69666

Goes into effect in September, per her notes.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## Swarthog

Ahh not to get things off track, but as I see it (from reading up on it ,thanks guys)another result of our midwest resorts. Even though I don't exchange WM for RCI it is a major embarassment for our club and perhaps will be included in the flyer.


----------



## LisaH

PA-
I pledge my support for your effort. Contact me.


----------



## kapish

Hey Philip, hope you are progressing with this effort. What is the status on this?


----------



## PA-

kapish said:
			
		

> Hey Philip, hope you are progressing with this effort. What is the status on this?



I just met today with the layout person.  He's getting some artwork done, and we should finish the layout once we have it.  The text is done, I've been practicing that for 2 years or more. 

Should be ready next week (I hope).


----------



## brittany

PA

People that are giving to this fund, would not a better use of this money be a fund for Coral Ann. WHY WOULD YOU want to change some thing that seems to be working very well for everyone.

Except for just a few people, who I don`t think would be happy with WM even if it was changed to what they wanted.

We for one have just came back from a week at Vancouver resort where we had a grand time. Have a grand time at all our WM trips, and cannot wait to do some more.

A question I have is if PA does`t get enought money to send out this mass mailing what is he going to due with the money he collects   .

Charlie and Marsha


----------



## brittany

" As for being a reseller, what makes you believe that?  It isn't true." [/QUOTE] for roadsister

   PA _(Deleted reference to Ads)_,   don`t you right now have on E-bay three listings.
_Deleted reference to Advertising.  ouaifer, Points Moderator_

And you want people to turn over there proxy votes to you . When you tell Roadsister that you are not a resaler. Is this why you want the changes to WM, so you can profit from your LARGE point holdings. I would be     if I were you.

Charlie


----------



## PerryM

*I'm not everyone!*



			
				brittany said:
			
		

> PA
> 
> People that are giving to this fund, would not a better use of this money be a fund for Coral Ann. WHY WOULD YOU want to change some thing that *seems to be working very well for everyone*.
> 
> Except for just a few people, who I don`t think would be happy with WM even if it was changed to what they wanted.
> 
> We for one have just came back from a week at Vancouver resort where we had a grand time. Have a grand time at all our WM trips, and cannot wait to do some more.
> 
> A question I have is if PA does`t get enought money to send out this mass mailing what is he going to due with the money he collects   .
> 
> Charlie and Marsha



By "everyone" I hope you don't mean "everyone" since I definitely want to be left out of "everyone".

WM has a number of problems which PA is trying to address with this mailing.  I wish him luck and will contribute.  The simple fact that RCI, a sister company of TrendWest has indicated a desire to reduce purchasing power of WM credits by 10% should be more than enough alarm to shell out a few bucks and help alert owners who know little of the problems TW is foisting upon WorldMark, the Club.

I am also amazed that many decisions seem to be “either/or” and that we don’t have enough money to contribute to multiple activities at the same time.  Let’s not turn this into asking folks to make a false decision when its not.

P.S.
The Schooner Landing I couldn't look up - too many digits in the eBay number - if you look up just the leading numbers you get:
Item # 220010528282 - a pink mini skirt - I'm not going to even comment on this one


----------



## PerryM

*... and nothing but the truth!*



			
				brittany said:
			
		

> As for being a reseller, what makes you believe that?  It isn't true."  for roadsister
> 
> PA ,   don`t you right now have on E-bay three listings.I believe so here are your listings.
> 
> 
> 
> And you want people to turn over there proxy votes to you . When you tell Roadsister that you are not a resaler. Is this why you want the changes to WM, so you can profit from your LARGE point holdings. I would be     if I were you.
> 
> Charlie




*****************************************
My interpretation of what PA (Philip) was that he was talking about a reseller of WM credits – the eBay items are NOT reselling WM credits.

Eagle Crest and Schooner Landing are traditional timeshares that have the ability to be turned into WM for WM Trade Points NOT WM credits!  Many timeshares can also do the same.  WM has a program that let’s you exchange your traditional timeshare for Trade Points – probably hundreds of timeshares qualify, not just the two cited.

Renting credits is certainly not reselling them. 

I plan to give PA my proxy for voting – he has put the time and effort into *actually contributing something* to making WM a better club.


----------



## PA-

*Re: I'm not everyone!*



			
				PerryM said:
			
		

> .... too many digits in the eBay number - if you look up just the leading numbers you get:
> Item # 220010528282 - a pink mini skirt - I'm not going to even comment on this one



If you MUST know, Perry, I'll admit it.  I put on a couple pounds, and I can no longer fit into that pink miniskirt.  Wow, you know how to embarass a fellow, don't ya?


----------



## BocaBum99

brittany said:
			
		

> " As for being a reseller, what makes you believe that?  It isn't true."


 for roadsister

   PA ,   don`t you right now have on E-bay three listings.
And you want people to turn over there proxy votes to you . When you tell Roadsister that you are not a resaler. Is this why you want the changes to WM, so you can profit from your LARGE point holdings. I would be     if I were you.

Charlie       [/QUOTE]

Charlie,

Let me see.  PA is trying to raise $100k to be sent to a mailing house not picked by him and spend all of this personal time to try to get control of the board so he can pump up the price of his eBay auctions.  If that's his goal, I can tell you that there are easier ways to make a buck.


----------



## Carolinian

While Worldmark is not something that would interest me, I do support the efforts of those like PA working for owner/member democracy on t/s boards and an end to developer dictatorship on boards.  While there is no need in most instances for a member controlled board to be overly hostile to the developer, the ultimate decision of what is best for members should be with the members, not the developer.


----------



## BocaBum99

brittany said:
			
		

> " As for being a reseller, what makes you believe that?  It isn't true."


 for roadsister

   PA ,   don`t you right now have on E-bay three listings.
And you want people to turn over there proxy votes to you . When you tell Roadsister that you are not a resaler. Is this why you want the changes to WM, so you can profit from your LARGE point holdings. I would be     if I were you.

Charlie       [/QUOTE]

Charlie,

I thought about this again and even if PA were a full reseller of WM credits, there is no conflict of interest in my mind.  Having people on the board who are sympathetic to those who sell resale credits is a good thing the way I look at it.

There would be conflict if PA were a major investor or consultant or executive in a different resort developer and his objective was to throw off Trendwest in order to replace them with this developer.

For example, if Bluegreen were paying him to do what he is doing and he is successful he installs Bluegreen executives as WorldMark board members, then that would be noteworthy.

Maybe Bluegreen ought to consider paying him to do that.


----------



## BocaBum99

Carolinian said:
			
		

> While Worldmark is not something that would interest me, I do support the efforts of those like PA working for owner/member democracy on t/s boards and an end to developer dictatorship on boards.  While there is no need in most instances for a member controlled board to be overly hostile to the developer, the ultimate decision of what is best for members should be with the members, not the developer.



This is one thing on which we completely agree.


----------



## brittany

Peoples, 

SORRY about getting the E-bay numbers wrong, I have corrected this. 

BUT it still does not change the FACT that you told Roadsister that you were not a resaler and that you being a resaler was not true.

Fact,,,,,,,,,,   When you buy something from someone and than put it up for sale.  It is reselling that item.  You can split hairs and mince words all you want but it doesn`t change the facts.

Charlie


----------



## PerryM

*I'm a proud reseller too*

I did not misunderstand PA’s intention.  If you want to start a poll, please put me down under the column “Not a WM reseller”.

“*No good deed goes unpunished*” is why it takes a lot of guts to step up and *actually do something *constructive these days.  Those that do have my gratitude and not scorn.

THE major problem with timeshares is that resales (Can I say that word here?) is NEVER brought up in the 90 minute spiel the salesreps give.  Someone who has actually resold a timeshare had a tremendous amount of knowledge as to how timeshares really should be viewed – in the Buy, Use, and Sell cycle.

I don’t think someone who Resells (that awful word again) a timeshare is a bad person – I’ve sold 5 and I consider myself a decent chap.  Just because the official TW web site prohibits the mentioning of Resales does not mean that folks who resell timeshares should be viewed with disdain.

P.S.
I’m not sure why PA wasn’t given the courtesy of being asked for a clarification of his statement before Inspector Clouseau was called in.  Link: http://inspectorclouseau.com/


----------



## ladycody

brittany said:
			
		

> WHY WOULD YOU want to change some thing that seems to be working very well for everyone.
> 
> Except for just a few people, who I don`t think would be happy with WM even if it was changed to what they wanted.


I dont want to be included in the "everyone" above either...nor does my mother, nor my in-laws...(and they're all new owners who bought knowing some of the potential issues but with faith that "right" will prevail.)  

My concern regarding these issues _doesnt_ mean that I dont love WM right now.  What it _does _mean is that there are some trends and occurances that dont bode well for the_ future _of WM if continued...and it's _that_ which concerns me....greatly.  

As for Philip...there is no benefit to be gained by him that I can see with regard to his efforts....other than winning a moral victory while  protecting the future of the TS he purchased.  To quote Perry..."he has put the time and effort into actually contributing something to making WM a better club."  I respect his efforts and believe he is honestly concerned about the Club's future and about the principles involved.


----------



## melschey

brittany said:
			
		

> " As for being a reseller, what makes you believe that?  It isn't true."


 for roadsister

   PA,   don`t you right now have on E-bay three listings.
And you want people to turn over there proxy votes to you . When you tell Roadsister that you are not a resaler. Is this why you want the changes to WM, so you can profit from your LARGE point holdings. I would be     if I were you.

Charlie       [/QUOTE]
I love WorldMark and I am not anti -TrendWest/Cendant but I feel that the WM BOD should be looking out for the WM owners not for what the Cendant shareholders.  There is a serious conflict of interest when people that have a fiduciary responsibility to the Cendant shareholders are also WM BOD members. In short I Trust PA far more that I trust the Cendant controlled WM BOD


----------



## PA-

PA- said:
			
		

> Once again, I respectfully ask anyone who has comments/questions or wants to voice support to please email me, or join the discussion at wmowners.com
> 
> Doesn't matter what SHOULD be, only what is.  And what IS is that the moderators prefer that this forum not be the stump for political discussions.
> 
> So PLEASE, don't post anymore arguements, retorts, support, or anything else.  Those opposed to my efforts are free to post anything they want, and keep this thread near the top.  I believe it's important to keep it here for any stragglers that haven't read it yet, so more worldmark owners can see it.



Thanks to all for their kind support, but I respectfully ask that no further arguements be made on my behalf.  I'd like this thread to remain open for as many owners as possible to see, and the moderators have made it clear that any arguing will get it closed.  Please allow those that question my motives or integrity to post at will, to keep bumping this thread to the top, with NO rebuttals.  Most of you know my motives.  Any new readers in the future can easily find them out by emailing me or by reading any of my posts over the last 3 years on any of the forums related to worldmark.


----------



## Robnsunny

The moderators seem to be confusing a healthy debate with arguing. Even though I'm not a Worldmark owner, I'm following this thread with great interest. 

This topic is important to those with any ownership in resorts with developer controled boards. It is important that both Phillip's detractors and supporters be heard. Don't quash the debate!


----------



## blueparrot

Agreed. Well said.




			
				Robnsunny said:
			
		

> The moderators seem to be confusing a healthy debate with arguing. Even though I'm not a Worldmark owner, I'm following this thread with great interest.
> 
> This topic is important to those with any ownership in resorts with developer controled boards. It is important that both Phillip's detractors and supporters be heard. Don't quash the debate!


----------



## Jya-Ning

Robnsunny said:
			
		

> This topic is important to those with any ownership in resorts with developer controled boards. It is important that both Phillip's detractors and supporters be heard. Don't quash the debate!



I have the same feeling.

Jya-Ning


----------



## Steve

*Keep the discussion polite...but keep it going!*

I think a healthy debate on this subject is very important as well.  To only post negative comments and not be able to post positive responses is pretty lame.  There are a lot of people who aren't going to take the time to go to other websites nor look back on the history of Philip and WorldMark for the past three years...and these people will have a very negative view of Philip's efforts if that's all they read here.  I think that is one-sided, and it's unhealthy.

Indeed, I believe that this sort of discussion...the pros and cons of a developer controlled board vs. an independent owner controlled board...is the reason that TUG was started in the first place.  Regardless of what side of the debate you are on, this is a very important topic for the present and future of timesharing.

Steve


----------



## rickandcindy23

PA, where are you staying tonight?

Did you get an empty unit at Pines or Twin Rivers?  I should have mentioned that as a possibility.  I believe you could stay for free...........


----------



## PA-

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> PA, where are you staying tonight?
> 
> Did you get an empty unit at Pines or Twin Rivers?  I should have mentioned that as a possibility.  I believe you could stay for free...........



I decided I wanted to check out our new Worldmark resort at Estes Park.  I'm there now, and it's spectacular.  Love it.  This is truly God's country.


----------



## BocaBum99

PA- said:
			
		

> I decided I wanted to check out our new Worldmark resort at Estes Park.  I'm there now, and it's spectacular.  Love it.  This is truly God's country.



I was just there last week in unit 10101 right next to the River.  Spent 3 nights there.  It was terrific.

Also, I flew through Denver today on the way home from our drive across country.  It's a small world...


----------



## Judy

Philip,
I support your effort to get an independent owner elected to the Worldmark BOD.  I wish that you would publicly answer the criticisms/questions that have been posted.  I think it would give you more credibility and improve your chances of success.


----------



## ouaifer

Judy said:
			
		

> Philip,
> I support your effort to get an independent owner elected to the Worldmark BOD.  I wish that you would publicly answer the criticisms/questions that have been posted.  I think it would give you more credibility and improve your chances of success.




Judy,
This is _*not*_ a political forum and will *not* be turned in to one!  If you have questions/personal concerns you feel need answering, please do it with PMs or e-mails.  If this turns into a political forum, it will be closed.

ouaifer
Points Moderator


----------



## TUGBrian

*Re: Keep the discussion polite...but keep it going!*



			
				Steve said:
			
		

> Indeed, I believe that this sort of discussion...the pros and cons of a developer controlled board vs. an independent owner controlled board...is the reason that TUG was started in the first place.  Regardless of what side of the debate you are on, this is a very important topic for the present and future of timesharing.
> 
> Steve



 I agree


----------



## roadsister

ouaifer said:
			
		

> Judy,
> This is _*not*_ a political forum and will *not* be turned in to one!  If you have questions/personal concerns you feel need answering, please do it with PMs or e-mails.  If this turns into a political forum, it will be closed.
> 
> ouaifer
> Points Moderator



Many of us agree. Thank you.


----------



## boyblue

*I want to vouch for Philip*

Having done business with Philip and also seeking his assistance on occasion over the years I believe I can attest to the character of the man.

PA is rock solid.

For those of you with opposing views I suggest you wait until we see the content of the mail out (he said he would post it) before you cast dispersions.


----------



## Robnsunny

ouaifer said:
			
		

> Judy,
> This is _*not*_ a political forum and will *not* be turned in to one!  If you have questions/personal concerns you feel need answering, please do it with PMs or e-mails.  If this turns into a political forum, it will be closed.
> 
> ouaifer
> Points Moderator



ouaifer,
This is NOT politics. This is a TIMESHARE discussion of broad interest. If this thread is closed then TUG will have failed in one of it's primary purposes.


----------



## PA-

Robnsunny said:
			
		

> ouaifer,
> This is NOT politics. This is a TIMESHARE discussion of broad interest. If this thread is closed then TUG will have failed in one of it's primary purposes.



_
pol·i·tics (pŏl'ĭ-tĭks) 
n.

The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs._

I suppose, based on the def. above, some of the posts on this thread could be considered political.

I suppose, based on the def. above, every thread on TUG could be considered political.

I think what Ouifer means (correct me if I'm wrong), is that we don't want arguing or conflict amongst members.  In other words, be nice and respect other's views.  Is that right, O?


----------



## Carolinian

There is also a thread on this subject on www.timeshareforums.com  If this one is closed, the discussion can continue there.

The current attempt by Westgate's ''Mr. Seagull'' to take over Bluegreen, which has no member input on its board,really puts a spotlight on this issue.


----------



## PA-

Carolinian said:
			
		

> There is also a thread on this subject on www.timeshareforums.com  If this one is closed, the discussion can continue there.
> 
> The current attempt by Westgate's ''Mr. Seagull'' to take over Bluegreen, which has no member input on its board,really puts a spotlight on this issue.



I didn't know about that attempt.  That would indeed be unfortunate.  He makes Trendwest seem like Santa in comparison.


----------



## BocaBum99

Carolinian said:
			
		

> There is also a thread on this subject on www.timeshareforums.com  If this one is closed, the discussion can continue there.
> 
> The current attempt by Westgate's ''Mr. Seagull'' to take over Bluegreen, which has no member input on its board,really puts a spotlight on this issue.



I totally agree.


----------



## Steve

Robnsunny said:
			
		

> ouaifer,
> This is NOT politics. This is a TIMESHARE discussion of broad interest. If this thread is closed then TUG will have failed in one of it's primary purposes.



I agree wholeheartedly. 

This type of discussion is exactly what TUG is all about.  There should be no need to go to another board to discuss this type of issue.  If there is, then TUG risks becoming irrelevant...and other websites will overtake it as the premier source of independant timeshare information.

Steve


----------



## PA-

Steve said:
			
		

> I agree wholeheartedly.
> 
> This type of discussion is exactly what TUG is all about.  There should be no need to go to another board to discuss this type of issue.  If there is, then TUG risks becoming irrelevant...and other websites will overtake it as the premier source of independant timeshare information.
> 
> Steve



It's what TUG used to be about.  2 - 3 years ago, nobody would have ever even imagined a reason for a different forum.  TUG used to be it.  Now...?


----------



## CaliDave

Tug has turned into... no controversy, no disagreements, (especially with moderators) and everything should be love and harmony.

This type of situation will be the downfall of Tug. This is why many of the previous top posters on Tug, left and are more active on other sites. 

by the way... I think PA is upstanding and is very ethical. If I owned Worldmark.. he would definately have my vote and support. 

I question those who have very few posts. Look at the regualrs on Tug , they all know PA and what he is about.


----------



## RichM

CaliDave said:
			
		

> Tug has turned into... no controversy, no disagreements, (especially with moderators) and everything should be love and harmony.
> 
> This type of situation will be the downfall of Tug. This is why many of the previous top posters on Tug, left and are more active on other sites.



Sounds like the developer-run Trendwest forum.. which is why wmowners.com was created.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## TUGBrian

Relax, the thread wont be closed unless the participants start getting catty or violent (in an online fashion).


----------



## cabobill

CaliDave said:
			
		

> Tug has turned into... no controversy, no disagreements, (especially with moderators) and everything should be love and harmony.
> 
> This type of situation will be the downfall of Tug. This is why many of the previous top posters on Tug, left and are more active on other sites.
> 
> by the way... I think PA is upstanding and is very ethical. If I owned Worldmark.. he would definately have my vote and support.
> 
> I question those who have very few posts. Look at the regualrs on Tug , they all know PA and what he is about.



I must respectfully disagree...

PA is using this BB and any other he can get on as a springboard for his political aspirations to control and/or overthrow the Worldmark the Club Board of  Directors. He may keep his act pretty clean here, but he publicly calls our incumbents , (among other things) idiots, stupid, incompetent, and uninformed. Most of the Worldmark owners I'm acquainted with also know what Philip Abdouch is all about and YOU can have him! We'd just as soon have him meddle with your resort and stay away from the Worldmark Board. The majority of well-informed Worldmark Owners that have been around for more than two years are perfectly happy with how things are run around here.

Is this thread POLITICAL? By PA's definition above, you bet your sweet BIPPY it is!

With all due respect....


----------



## BocaBum99

cabobill said:
			
		

> He may keep his act pretty clean here, but he publicly calls our incumbents , (among other things) idiots, stupid, incompetent, and uninformed.



And which of these descriptors is false?


----------



## Carolinian

The real problem is having a developer controlled BOD.  No matter how competent and smart they may be, they have a huge conflict of interest.
The same is true of a management controlled BOD.  The ONLY way that members are going to be protected and have their interests looked after is to achieve a member controlled BOD.


----------



## Kevin

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> And which of these descriptors is false?



As a WM owner since 2001. I say... for the most part...

*None of them!*

JMHO.

Kevin


----------



## PA-

cabobill said:
			
		

> .... but he publicly calls our incumbents , (among other things) idiots, stupid, incompetent, and uninformed. ....



I'm not sure that I've ever used the words idiot or stupid to describe another person.  Though if I ever did, I'm sure that someone will point it out.  I don't believe that any of the board members are idiots or stupid.  I do believe that most of them are uninformed, and plan to stay that way.  And that necessarily makes them incompetent.

In describing some of the board's hard to understand positions, actions, and comments, you may have easily interpreted them to be stupid or idiotic, and you couldn't be blamed for doing so.


----------



## normbailey

cabobill said:
			
		

> I must respectfully disagree...
> 
> PA is using this BB and any other he can get on as a springboard for his political aspirations to control and/or overthrow the Worldmark the Club Board of  Directors. He may keep his act pretty clean here, but he publicly calls our incumbents , (among other things) idiots, stupid, incompetent, and uninformed. Most of the Worldmark owners I'm acquainted with also know what Philip Abdouch is all about and YOU can have him! We'd just as soon have him meddle with your resort and stay away from the Worldmark Board. The majority of well-informed Worldmark Owners that have been around for more than two years are perfectly happy with how things are run around here.
> 
> Is this thread POLITICAL? By PA's definition above, you bet your sweet BIPPY it is!
> 
> With all due respect....



Bill, you left out "worthless".  Maybe all of us WorldMark owners, when we see the candidates' position statements, will be treated to not only the criticisms of the club, but the solutions they plan to implement.

After all, it doesn't take much more than a 2-digit IQ to stand up and say someone doesn't like the way things are and that something needs to be done.  Unfortunately, that's where many complaints leave off.  Personally, I've seen the club triple in the number of resorts in our system since I bought in just 9 years ago.  That didn't happen by accident.  It happened as a result of the efforts by the developer.  

If the board is at fault for any of the current issues being tossed around, I'd love to see a candidate who has the vision, and the ability to clearly communicate, exactly what the member(s) of the board did or are doing wrong, and how they, the candidate, would do differently in order to change the results.


----------



## PA-

normbailey said:
			
		

> ...Maybe all of us WorldMark owners, when we see the candidates' position statements, will be treated to not only the criticisms of the club, but the solutions they plan to implement.
> .....



I didn't see anyone criticize the club.  Just the board of directors.  Feel free to disagree if you wish, but afford everyone the same right to understand the issues as you have.  Not everybody hangs out on the internet, hence the mailing.  If you feel that you could better educate the owners on the issues, be my guest.

As you say, anyone can criticize the actions of others.


----------



## PA-

normbailey said:
			
		

> ......
> 
> If the board is at fault for any of the current issues being tossed around, I'd love to see a candidate who has the vision, and the ability to clearly communicate, exactly what the member(s) of the board did or are doing wrong, and how they, the candidate, would do differently in order to change the results.



I think I can clearly communicate the problem with the current board's way of running the club.

They allow Trendwest to decide where they will add a resort, how many credits it will be assigned, the seasonal calendar, and all other matters without the input of the board.  Then, regardless of whether the board agrees or not, the board signs the documents taking the property and giving the credits to Trendwest.  As a matter of fact, were you aware that the board allows Dave Herrick to sign conveyance docs for Worldmark?  So he can sign as the Grantee and the Grantor, and the board wouldn't necessarily even know.  I can show you conveyance docs that have been signed by Dave, if you don't believe me.

When I've asked the board why, they say they have no right to input on these issues.  But that's not true, they can simply decline to sign until the differences are worked out.  Trendwest can't FORCE them to accept a bad deal, Worldmark has to sign.

Further, the board hasn't even challenged Trendwest's assertion that they can take any unit at any resort away from Worldmark, and replace it with another WITHOUT THE BOARD'S APPROVAL.  The governing docs clearly don't allow that, but our board refused to challenge that statement.

Now, what would I do differently?  I would inform Dave that he can't sign for Worldmark.  I would inform Trendwest that the board would be apprised of any upcoming locations, and would have to agree with them.  If Trendwest can present a good case for adding in Iowa, and the board agreed, so be it.  I would inform Trendwest that the criteria for credit assignments would be "relative use-value", as required by Worldmark's governing docs.  If costs are higher, Trendwest can just increase the price per credit, not the number of credits.  That formula worked pre-cendant, no reason it still can't.  And I would come up with objective ways to set the calendar, either by using local hotel rates, or the II/RCI calendars or some other objective manner.   No more monkeying with the calendar.

There's no reason the relationship couldn't be a win-win for both parties, just because they would have to treat us fairly, at arm's length.  99% of business is conducted at arm's length in this country, and it still gets done.


----------



## normbailey

PA- said:
			
		

> I think I can clearly communicate the problem with the current board's way of running the club.
> 
> They allow Trendwest to decide where they will add a resort, how many credits it will be assigned, the seasonal calendar, and all other matters without the input of the board.  Then, regardless of whether the board agrees or not, the board signs the documents taking the property and giving the credits to Trendwest.  As a matter of fact, were you aware that the board allows Dave Herrick to sign conveyance docs for Worldmark?  So he can sign as the Grantee and the Grantor, and the board wouldn't necessarily even know.  I can show you conveyance docs that have been signed by Dave, if you don't believe me.
> 
> When I've asked the board why, they say they have no right to input on these issues.  But that's not true, they can simply decline to sign until the differences are worked out.  Trendwest can't FORCE them to accept a bad deal, Worldmark has to sign.
> 
> Further, the board hasn't even challenged Trendwest's assertion that they can take any unit at any resort away from Worldmark, and replace it with another WITHOUT THE BOARD'S APPROVAL.  The governing docs clearly don't allow that, but our board refused to challenge that statement.
> 
> Now, what would I do differently?  I would inform Dave that he can't sign for Worldmark.  I would inform Trendwest that the board would be apprised of any upcoming locations, and would have to agree with them.  If Trendwest can present a good case for adding in Iowa, and the board agreed, so be it.  I would inform Trendwest that the criteria for credit assignments would be "relative use-value", as required by Worldmark's governing docs.  If costs are higher, Trendwest can just increase the price per credit, not the number of credits.  That formula worked pre-cendant, no reason it still can't.  And I would come up with objective ways to set the calendar, either by using local hotel rates, or the II/RCI calendars or some other objective manner.   No more monkeying with the calendar.
> 
> There's no reason the relationship couldn't be a win-win for both parties, just because they would have to treat us fairly, at arm's length.  99% of business is conducted at arm's length in this country, and it still gets done.



Philip,

Thank you.  That is exactly what I was hoping to see.  And I hope the other candidates do as good a job of explaining their positions on their perceived issues and explicit steps they would take for resolution.

I agree with you that there's no reason the relationship between the developer and the BOD can't be win-win.  It's not the "what" that you and I bump heads over, it's the "how".    And when using the term win-win, one has to accept the fact that the opposition decides the definition for one of those "wins".  Learning how to gain the opposition's trust is the biggest challenge to reaching a true win-win.  That's where tact and the art of negotiation come into play.  But I won't go into that again.  I've hammered on that point many times before.

And as I've also said many times before, I still believe that the board NEEDS independent ownership among its members.  Active, effective, and dynamic.  But, as history has proven, an effective independent board member has to be non-threatening or they'll get no response from the developer.  And, as you've pointed out, if they're too easily steamrolled, they run the same risk of being ineffectual as someone who is too threatening to the current board.


----------



## rickandcindy23

If you want to get down to the "nitty gritty" for wanting an owner-controlled board, or at least a few active owners on the board, since some former members have failed to be effective, the reason for doing that is clear to me.  

Some independent resorts have great HOA's that actually "manage" everything, from the choice of toilet paper that will be in the units, to the decisions on which roofing company to use.  I am personally going to help choose furniture as a board member, at the resort I own.  It is a job that I have wanted since I saw the pink chairs in the living rooms.    We can also fire and hire whatever management company we choose and can give limited or limitless power to that company, depending on how involved we want to be as an owner-controlled board.  

Worldmark issues are of a much bigger scale and would require lots more time and work, but if an owner is willing to step forward, then that owner should be applauded for caring enough to want the job.  

It is not that the developer is not continuing to provide a good product, it is about building an equitable system where the developer does not control everything.  Our founding fathers 230 years ago saw a need to create a "checks and balances" system that keeps each branch of the government in check.  It is a perfect system and can be loosely applied to timeshares, even when the developers are still building.

I am waiting for a great outcome with the effort, for my own personal reasons.  PAHIO has been increasing our fees exponentially every year.  In 2003 our fees were $674, now they are $822 for 2006.  The board is made up of all developer-chosen people.  I would like to think that someone like PA would come forward and try to change that for our resorts.  Who is watching the purse strings at PAHIO and what can we do about the rising costs?  They can send a statement, outlying exactly why the fees are increasing, but who am I to question the costs?  I would support anyone who wanted to analyze the financials.

Worldmark owners should be applauding PA's efforts.  I wonder how many of these negative people really are so naive as to believe that the developer is going to be offended with a few more owners on the board?  They will work fine with whatever candidate the proxies support, whether it is PA or someone else.  But unless you band together, the board will be "stacked" by the developer again.  It is about cooperation.  I guess I don't understand all the negativity, it seems detrimental to keeping Worldmark the great system it is.  

I have met with PA in person, we own at one of the same resorts.  He is a nice guy, laid back, not what you are picturing at all.  He has the best of intentions with this effort.  Clearly, having owners on a board for the owners makes more sense than having developers control it.  After all, it is the HOA.


----------



## PA-

Cindy, thanks for the support, but I don't think most of the posters here are negative or argumentative.  Everyone has invested a lot in Worldmark in more ways than one, and everyone has their opinion.  That's a good thing.

I really don't believe that anyone is taking this personally, many of the people that disagree with me have my complete respect.  I'd love to meet CaboBill, Norm and Fred in person.  While those 3 are among the most out-spoken in disagreement of my methods or motives, they are also the most articulate about why, and their opinions are every bit as valid as mine.  Somewhere between the picture they paint, and the one I paint, the truth is probably to be found.  That's the positive aspect of this type of discussion.


----------



## normbailey

Cindy,

You bring up a lot of excellent points.  And although I'd love to argue about our country's checks and balances system, I believe that would subject this thread to being closed due to political discussion.  And I think there's a real value to all sides of the coin.  There are actually three sides to every coin.  A lot of folks use the phrase "on the other side of the coin", or something like that.  But, the edge is the only part of a coin that's shared by both of its dominant sides.  The edge is the part of this coin that I'm trying to reach.  And the only way to do that is if the two dominant sides understand where the other is coming from.

Folks like you and some of the others who have met Philip have stated that his heart is in the right place and applaud his efforts. But, for those of us who have not met him in person, what do we have to base our opinions on?

His statements made on this forum and other forums.  That's it.  And for those of us who really care about our votes, how they are cast, and who they are cast for, continue to try and find that sometimes illusive edge of the coin.

Philip is right when he says that he doesn't believe anyone is taking this personally.  I'm certainly not.  It's a volatile issue.  Volatile issues usually create intensely hot debate.  When it comes time to vote, I find it difficult that anyone reading the forums would have a difficult time forming a conclusion.  No matter which direction they go.

For me, I believe there are far better alternatives than a 100% owner-only BOD.  And that is what I believe is at the crux of my side of the coin.  But, in fairness to the other side of the coin, some of the alternatives I believe in would require certain concessions from the developer and the current board.  Whether or not they'd be willing to go that route is still unknown.  But I'm pursuing them anyway.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Philip, I made the mistake of reading through every post again.  I got riled.  I apologize for that, everyone.  The debate continues....

I really think this is a bigger issue than even Worldmark.  If you are successful, I can see this setting a precedent for more owner representation with other large resorts.  It is personal to me....but personal issues aside, this is a big deal.


----------



## PA-

rickandcindy23 said:
			
		

> Philip, I made the mistake of reading through every post again.  I got riled.  I apologize for that, everyone.  The debate continues....
> 
> I really think this is a bigger issue than even Worldmark.  If you are successful, I can see this setting a precedent for more owner representation with other large resorts.  It is personal to me....but personal issues aside, this is a big deal.



No need to apologize, I value your support and friendship, and know where your heart is.  Now you can see, I hope, why I don't have more time, energy and money to help with our mutual resort's problems.


----------



## melschey

Carolinian said:
			
		

> The real problem is having a developer controlled BOD.  No matter how competent and smart they may be, they have a huge conflict of interest.
> The same is true of a management controlled BOD.  The ONLY way that members are going to be protected and have their interests looked after is to achieve a member controlled BOD.



My feeling exactly. Many WM owners seem to be comfortable letting people whose primary responsability is to Cendant stockholders decide what is best for WM owners. I have no problem if they feel that way but I definately don't agree. I am not anti-Trendwest but feel the BOD should be indepentant and the BOD members should be looking out for WM owners not for Cendant, I don't see how they can do both.


----------



## kapish

*WM needs a *balanced* BOD who is Sensitive of owner needs!*



			
				melschey said:
			
		

> My feeling exactly. Many WM owners seem to be comfortable letting people whose primary responsability is to Cendant stockholders decide what is best for WM owners. I have no problem if they feel that way but I definately don't agree. I am not anti-Trendwest but feel the BOD should be indepentant and the BOD members should be looking out for WM owners not for Cendant, I don't see how they can do both.


I agree. I am not "anti-TW" either. I wish for a **balanced* BOD who is sensitive of owner needs*! Instead of the BOD being populated by all Trendwest/Cendant  stake holders,  we need independent Worldmark owners to ensure owner rights. 

For example, in instances like when the BOD discusses _Trendwest receiving kick backs _from the TOT revenue at the Indio resort and that _money is not going to Worldmark,_ there needs to be independent Worldmark owners questioning that!


We have been talking for so many years for an independent BOD. With Philip's efforts we are one step closer to that.  Thanks Philip  *

Let us continue to work for  a balanced Worldmark BOD!*


----------



## boyblue

*PA can you show us your softer side*

PA, you are probably in a position to know; do the folks at Trendwest feel threatened by you.  Are you perceived as someone they would be unwilling to work with?  Do you have an image problem when it comes to these guys?  If they feel like you’re coming for their heads, how effective would you be?

I hate to pull the race card here but we all know the story.  Back when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, my understanding is that he was selected not necessarily because he was the most talented, but because it was thought that he could best handle the situation.  It seems that these guys are saying that because of your passion, you may lack the tact necessary to get the job done.

Bump


----------



## Kevin

*Why?*



			
				boyblue said:
			
		

> PA, you are probably in a position to know; do the folks at Trendwest feel threatened by you.  Are you perceived as someone they would be unwilling to work with?  Do you have an image problem when it comes to these guys?  If they feel like you’re coming for their heads, how effective would you be?
> 
> I hate to pull the race card here but we all know the story.  Back when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, my understanding is that he was selected not necessarily because he was the most talented, but because it was thought that he could best handle the situation.  It seems that these guys are saying that because of your passion
> Bump



I respectfully disagree!  Though I'm sure Philip has a _softer side_, him showing it just to make the TW BOD less threatened would be insincere IMO.  The WM BOD and TW management SHOULD feel a bit "threatened" by owners who want to be heard!

If he, or anyone else for that matter, is elected with the expectation of being one of the "good ol' boys / girls" and shows a different side once elected... members would complain.  Also, if he turns SOFT once elected... I'll be disappointed.  Soft meaning, less passionate, less accessible, constantly singing the company tune, etc.

With 200,000 owners, everyone can't be the same. I prefer straight shooters.  I don't need to see PA's softer side.  I don't need to like him personally.  I don't plan on hanging out with him regularly... though I'm sure it would be great!  

All I care about is... does he have OUR / MY best interest in mind while trying to improve The Club.  IMHO... he does!

Look past the rhetoric to see the message...  Cendant/ Wyndham / Trendwest does not allow the OWNERS OF WM to have a fair say in how OUR Club is run in a lot of cases!

As long as I feel Philip _*says what he means, and means what he says*_... I don't need to see another side of him.  Once again, JMHO.

Kevin

p.s.,

The 40's was a different time and situation. Though JR was great for then... he MAY not be have been great for NOW!


----------



## Swarthog

I have a feeling that the TW contingent is never going to want to give up control of the board. One guy is certainly no threat, can get voted down and would have a tough time getting any agenda passed. However it is the camels nose in the tent and TW knows that. Miliions of dollars a year are at stake and TW needs to have control of the board in order to maximize profits. It really wouldn't matter whether they saw PA as a threat or not, until the members can take control of the BOD little but lip service will be given. Of course they would probably rather not have someone be a constant thorn in their side.


----------



## PA-

normbailey said:
			
		

> ... I believe there are far better alternatives than a 100% owner-only BOD.  .....



FAR BETTER???

options, plural, as in, more than 1 option that's "far better" than a 100% independent board?

That would be a good one to hear.

Face it, if Cendant has 3 board members, they might as well have 5.  All of them will always vote the Trendwest party line.  However, if there are 3 independents, there's absolutely NO guarantee that 1 of them won't be tainted somehow.  Not necessarily in an illegal manner, it's just that Cendant's executives could easily steamroll a weak, unknowledgeable owner.


----------



## PA-

boyblue said:
			
		

> PA, you are probably in a position to know; do the folks at Trendwest feel threatened by you.  Are you perceived as someone they would be unwilling to work with?  Do you have an image problem when it comes to these guys?  If they feel like you’re coming for their heads, how effective would you be?
> 
> I hate to pull the race card here but we all know the story.  Back when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, my understanding is that he was selected not necessarily because he was the most talented, but because it was thought that he could best handle the situation.  It seems that these guys are saying that because of your passion, you may lack the tact necessary to get the job done.
> 
> Bump



I can't answer for whether or not they feel threatened by me.  I kind of doubt it.  I think they may feel a tiny bit threatened by a rising tide that began long ago.  I've seen videos of owner's meetings many years ago, and I remember in one a longtime owner, who claimed he was very happy, getting up during the open mike and telling Gene something like, "I've said it before, I'll say it again, having TW control of the board is going to bite you one day".  So, I guess I'm saying, their problems aren't going to go away if I do.  There are MANY owners who feel the way I do, and tens of thousands who would if they understood the threat.

No, they wouldn't treat me any differently than any other independent owner.  They would keep me out of the loop as much as possible and never willingly give me an opportunity to communicate with the owners during the owner's meeting or any other time.

I have a good relationship with one member of the board, and a casual but ok relationship with another.  I have a non-relationship with two of them.  Gene is very diplomatic, he's generally pleasant, but I don't suspect we'll be showering together soon.  The dynamics of the board are not so simple though, it's not at all like all 5 of them being equal.  There are 3 people who seem to call the shots, and 1 of them is a non-voting member of the board.  I suspect that I'll never be on the board, so we won't find out how effective I'll be.  I don't plan to vote any proxies for myself, unless I believe that's the only way to get an independent elected.  I also suspect that, should I ever be on the board, I'll be far more effective than any independent member of the board that's ever sat on the board.  However, my definition of effective might vary from some peoples.  I would measure my effectiveness by how many people I convinced to NEVER allow a Cendant or Trendwest employee to sit on the board.  No other independent that I'm aware of has ever been sucessful in communicating to the owners at large, either before or after they were appointed.

As for the comparisons to Jackie Robinson, let me just say this, to avoid any political speeches.  There were many who claimed he was far from a hero, because after all, baseball is only a game.  My definition of a hero is someone who stands up for what's right, despite personal attacks, to open the door of opportunity for other.  Jackie didn't realize personal wealth from playing baseball.  He was modestly payed for a short number of years, and suffered much personal indignation.


----------



## boyblue

I'm sorry to say PA but you're no politician...

I've never seen a politician answer a question so directly.   Is it because the issues are simpler?


----------



## rickandcindy23

*Intention bump up to the top.*

Good luck to you


----------

