Because the BoD still needs to follow due process if they are going to deprive a member of their rights.
There are clear rules that reservations are not allowed more than 13 months in advance. A member is not being deprived of their rights if they are told they can no longer use a loophole to guarantee themselves or others reservations outside the 13 month window.
Worldmark TC can send out a message describing exactly what is not allowed. I believe they have the authority to cancel reservations created through loopholes if they have sent out a message of what is not allowed. People using the loopholes would have to always worry that their "non-allowed but nevertheless created" reservations could be cancelled at any time. That should give megarenters concern about their rentals getting cancelled. Should such a reservation get rented and then cancelled, the "landlord" would likely be responsible for expenses caused by rental cancellations, which in turn would cause megarenters to end their use of loopholes. It won't stop people from renting their units out. There isn't a problem with people being megarenters per se. There is a problem with any owner using loopholes to ensure a reservation for 13+ any number of days out.
Am I missing something? I don't see how a member is being deprived of their rights if they are using the system in a that is not allowed. (Yes, I understand people are using the system to their advantage in the way the system works - but if there is a clear rule that gaming the system will result in cancelled reservations, then the member is not losing a right.) The bylaws say that a letter would need to be mailed to the owner - that can be done.
The reservations would be cancelled 30 days after a letter was sent to the owner (quoting ecwinch below):
Discipline. The Board shall establish uniform fines and temporary suspensions
which shall be imposed for violation of the Articles, Declaration, Bylaws or Rules.
Determination of responsibility, such as for maintenance or repairs of damage, or determination
of what constitutes a nuisance, shall be only by the following procedures, or by a court or
arbitration proceeding. Violations may be determined and penalties imposed only after thirty
(30) days' written notice to the offending Member served personally or by mail, first class
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, mailed to the latest address for such Member shown on
the Club records, specifying the possible action and the alleged reasons therefore, and an
opportunity for the Member to be heard before a quorum of the Board at least five (5) days
before the effective date of any possible action.
So all is needed is a rule that clarifies what constitutes enabling a reservation for greater than 13 months out. The "fine" could include cancelling such reservations.
If some subset of owners figures out a new loophole, the board can add that loophole to "enabling a reservation for greater than 13 months out" clause. Based on what I have read, people have concluded that Wyndham cares about megarenters. Owners should care that some owners work the system to their advantage.
When Interval International and RCI heard enough complaints about people renting their exchanges, both companies added a clause to their resort confirmations about units not being rentable. I don't know if that changed the habits of people who were renting their II / RCI exchanges, but it certainly forced people to worry at least a bit each time they rented out an exchange.
Worldmark could add a clause stating that, "If this reservation was obtained through nefarious (definition of nefarious to be created by the BoD) means, the reservation is subject to cancellation." That statement should go far to get people to use the reservation system in the spirit in which it is meant to be used.