Help eliminate conflict of interest on WorldMark BOD

[LLW]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Born2Travel]

We signed and sent ours via fax yesterday

 

[DH1]

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]

SURE ENUF - No Voting Allowed!

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 ..

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!